I can whizz through the sport, listings, previews and news (in that particular order) in less than the time it takes me to get to work, then leave it for the next bored commuter to read.

Today, for example, I picked up an already-thumbed copy, absorbed what I needed and put it back down. I then watched as one person, then another, read the same copy. That’s at least four readers – and who knows how many more will read that copy today? It’s a mysophobiac’s worst nightmare.

Always one step ahead, London has its own Metro but also three other free commuter titles: financial paper City AM, which is one-year-old, Associated Newspapers’ London Lite and News International’s curiously uncapped thelondonpaper.

The latter two both launched this month amid intense media debate.

These papers theoretically operate using revenue from advertising but, given the intense competition, are probably loss-making for now at least. The respective publishers, The Times says, are committed to “a fight to the finish”.

Back in Manchester, 60,000 copies of the Evening News’ City Edition are now given away from lunchtime each day. With Associated Newspapers’ Metro being a morning paper, the two freesheets aren’t technically competing with each other.

But when the dust settles down in the capital, who’s to say upwardly-mobile Manchester won’t be the next battlefield?

“The Guardian is launching a new service providing readers with a rapid overview of news that will be updated every 15 minutes.

“G24 will be a free service featuring news content from the Guardian Unlimited website across five areas: general news, international, economics, sport and media.”

As Nick Baum says, this service will suit any news-obsessed person who spends time away from the internet – train commuters, for example. See for yourself here.

The downloads are PDFs of between eight and 12 pages, updated every fifteen minutes throughout the day. Their creation is automated, I assume, with newly published copy flowing in. They’re visually and pictorially very minimal.

Financially, MIT’s Advertising blog commented:

“And then they will insert ads, dynamically generated to fit readers profiles and perhaps past behavior, the ads that people will print out and read on their ride home. Very smart.”

According to The Blog Herald, a dutch blog – Startlog.nl – began producing 30,000 copies of a free, weekly, colour tabloid version of its website content from January this year. The hope was that advertising revenue could be used to pay its contributing bloggers.

Here’s a reader’s comment on that concept:

“Haha, that is the dumbest idea ever – lets take a searchable, cross referenced, interactive conversation that people can take part in – and make it static, linear and oh, while we’re at it lets kill a bunch more trees.”

Even so, how long before these two concepts come together?

Fair game, I say, but what grabbed my attention particularly was the first paragraph:

“Controls on junk food advertising could be extended to websites, text messaging, computer games, cinemas and posters under radical plans being drawn up by the government, the Guardian has learned.”

Ignoring the other methods of delivery – each well worthy of debate – it’s website advertising that’s got me thinking.

How does a government go about banning online advertising? And, even if it could, what’s to stop foreign junk food firms advertising?

A Google search later and I’ve found details of similar news down in Australia:

“A report in the latest issue of Choice magazine finds many food companies are devoting entire sections of their websites to so-called “advertainment” aimed at children, incorporating games, competitions and content designed to enhance their products’ appeal to youngsters.”

“Unlike advertising on TV, radio or in print, online promotion falls outside the voluntary code of practice governing how companies can market foods to children.”

A worrying trend indeed – and one that is no doubt being replicated worldwide. Australian Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott called this ‘Pester-power’ advertising.

Closer to home, EUobserver.com last week spoke to European Heart Network (EHN) chief Susanne Logstrup, who said the advertising industry must take some responsibility:

“‘There has been a big increase in the marketing of exactly those food products that children should not be eating’ on the TV, internet and via event sponsorship.

“The percentage of television advertisements for unhealthy food aimed at children ranged from 49 percent of all child food ads in Italy to nearly 100 percent in Denmark and the UK”

Despite strong words regarding potential EU-wide legislation and television bans already existing in Sweden, Ireland and Greece, no specific mention is made of how to stop online junk food advertising. The closest the EUobserver piece gets is this briefest of mentions:

“Nine major soft drink companies including Pepsi, Coca-Cola and Cadbury Schweppes have agreed not to place any marketing communication in printed media, websites or during broadcast programmes where more than 50 percent of the audience are children under the age of 12.”

Finally, back to football (the root of all evil?) where the BBC reports today that FIFA and the FA have been attacked for accepting sponsorship deals with “unhealthy” food and drink brands such as Budweiser and McDonalds.

http://www.swansea-res.org.uk/tv_advert.html

But its filming has led to anger from the “Swansea North Residents Association”:

“It’s the little things like Huw Edwards’ window boxes that turn a street into a community. However, there was NOTHING CIVIC-MINDED about what the film crew did to his terracotta pots. Clearing up the mess, Huw was defiant ‘I will be consulting my lawyers. Best part of twenty quid that lot cost me.’”