Reader's Digest UK in trouble

[Watchman]

Reader's Digest UK in trouble
Feb 18, 2010

LONDON - THE British division of Reader's Digest has collapsed into administration, six months after its US parent group filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, administrators Moore Stephens said on Wednesday.

'On 17 Feb 2010, Phillip Sykes, Jeremy Willmont and Bill Beach of Moore Stephens were appointed joint administrators to The Reader's Digest Association Limited, a UK subsidiary of The Reader's Digest Association,' Moore Stephens said in a statement.

Administration is the process whereby a troubled company calls upon independent expert financial help in a bid to remain operational.

'The joint administrators are reviewing Reader's Digest's financial position and intend to continue RDA UK's trading activities, while seeking a buyer for the business,' they added.

'As a result of the company's current financial position, the directors resolved to apply for an order to place the company into administration.' The British version of Reader's Digest dates back to 1938 and has offices in Canary Wharf, east London, and in Swindon in southern England. It employs just 117 people. -- AFP

 

[po2wq]

... slowly, bit by bit, got digested ...

 

[halsey02]

What a pity, I digested the DIGEST, when I was young, bought every single issue for more than 15 years...

enjoyed the short jokes...like "life's like that"....a must read for school during my time, including Nat Geog...etc..

Will miss Reader's Digest...stopped buying when they prices went too expensive & the writers gone... standard down etc..

 

[flkyflky]

... slowly, bit by bit, got digested ...

And the only natural product of digestion is?



SHIT!

:p

 

[jimmyfallon]

Thank god. No more spam mail.

 

[tua lam pah]

What a pity, I digested the DIGEST, when I was young, bought every single issue for more than 15 years...

enjoyed the short jokes...like "life's like that"....a must read for school during my time, including Nat Geog...etc..

Will miss Reader's Digest...stopped buying when they prices went too expensive & the writers gone... standard down etc..

its was a great knowledgeable read in those days, no crap like nowadays most magazines

 

[uncleyap]

The only surprise is why there are so many print-media still able to survive?

Internet should had killed them long ago.

Those days before Internet my mailbox was stuffed full of magazines and subscription publications. Who will still read from these things today?

The moment before they sent to printing press their info already got OUTDATED!

I had not used a telephone directory books or yellow pages in the past more than 10 years. They are just wasting paper to keep printing them.

Internet is irresistible and unstoppable and this trend is not reversible.

Who will still need a copy of Readers Digest when there are countless blogs that no one could completely read? How can print media catch up in speed and up-to-date with electronics?

Even CNN-live is threatened by Internet because they are not fast enough. Citizen bloggers can MMS to blogs and twit on the spot immediately to entire world, it is live, un-edited and never need to go via news room. CNN still have to microwave up to satellite and go via their HQ news rooms etc and them beam up and down the satellites one more round before reaching viewers. That is slow. Each round trip up and down a satellite link caused approx 1/2 second delay even if it was considered live.

CNN is most of the time running feeds from video servers repeating something that was recorded hours ago if not days ago. These bureau news are losing their influences to Internet.

The worse is for printed news media like daily papers such as SPH. By the time they printed the Internet users already read it and nearly forgotten about these news already.:p

 

[lee kuan yew]

The only surprise is why there are so many print-media still able to survive?

Internet should had killed them long ago.

Those days before Internet my mailbox was stuffed full of magazines and subscription publications. Who will still read from these things today?

The moment before they sent to printing press their info already got OUTDATED!

I had not used a telephone directory books or yellow pages in the past more than 10 years. They are just wasting paper to keep printing them.

Internet is irresistible and unstoppable and this trend is not reversible.

Who will still need a copy of Readers Digest when there are countless blogs that no one could completely read? How can print media catch up in speed and up-to-date with electronics?

Even CNN-live is threatened by Internet because they are not fast enough. Citizen bloggers can MMS to blogs and twit on the spot immediately to entire world, it is live, un-edited and never need to go via news room. CNN still have to microwave up to satellite and go via their HQ news rooms etc and them beam up and down the satellites one more round before reaching viewers. That is slow. Each round trip up and down a satellite link caused approx 1/2 second delay even if it was considered live.

CNN is most of the time running feeds from video servers repeating something that was recorded hours ago if not days ago. These bureau news are losing their influences to Internet.

The worse is for printed news media like daily papers such as SPH. By the time they printed the Internet users already read it and nearly forgotten about these news already.:p

Now your mailbox is stuffed with the shit from your mayor.

 

[Rogue Trader]

Reader Digest can survive so long because the target reader is those ah ma and ah pek who can't use the internet.

 

[shOUTloud]

CNN is journalistic while Economist is more editorial.

Economist is doing well while Times, Newsweek etc are suffering. Why? Cos Economist articles are quality (at least for the moment). People are willing to pay for quality. I cannot tahan if I dun get my copy on Friday evening. Just renewed 3-year subscription.

Quality stuff people will pay.

Reader Digest is just boliao summary of other people's works. Might as well read the originals.

Time and Newsweek are too US centric. They eat shit for all I care.

 

[sodoMee]

When SGP becomes like Haiti, you will cherish every copy of printed materials like reader's digest!

 

[cocobobo]

grew up reading it and realise now its actually a thinly veiled christian evangelistic magazine.... chc can bail them

 

[bryanlim1972]

CNN is journalistic while Economist is more editorial.

Economist is doing well while Times, Newsweek etc are suffering. Why? Cos Economist articles are quality (at least for the moment). People are willing to pay for quality. I cannot tahan if I dun get my copy on Friday evening. Just renewed 3-year subscription.

Quality stuff people will pay.

Reader Digest is just boliao summary of other people's works. Might as well read the originals.

Time and Newsweek are too US centric. They eat shit for all I care.

economist is just a right wing neo-con rag. stop filling your head with useless rhetoric from the right.