The Times paywalls go up...
Discussion
Funk said:
* Web begets print - “78% of UK MailOnline audience do NOT buy Mail newspapers, but are exactly the kind of people who SHOULD.”
Crikey - so they all look like this?
If Murdoch's taking his ball in, let him. Worth a try. We've no right to free Times material, and getting the hump because they want paying for it is pretty Kevin-the-Teenager-ish. I think he might be unpleasantly surprised to find out that his content is worth what people are willing to pay for it.
The trouble with gated content, as people have said, is that you can't share it and assume that anyone else has or is willing to pay for access. That really devalues it as a resource, to me.
I always thought that as a rule of thumb, the price of a newspaper covered the printing and distribution. Advertising then covered editorial and profit.
As the cost of distribution via the web is pretty low this *should* allow for free news online. However advertising for print and online are two very different beasts. The way people consume news both print and online are pretty different too with people taking a more 'pick and mix' approach to news on the net. So instead of picking up a newspaper and viewing dozens of adverts the user might instead look at 1 story linked to from here and view 3 small banner adverts (or none if they have an Adblocker installed)
Sadly I think the DM have the best strategy from a money making point of view. Their stories cost peanuts to write and are very sensationalist - which is perfect for generating hits.
However I think over the next couple of years things will change. As more and more people have tablets and basic readers then the traditional model will come back again and people will consume media similar to the way they do before, except the cost of printing/distributing will be cut out. I think this longer term view is what Murdoch is gambling on.
As the cost of distribution via the web is pretty low this *should* allow for free news online. However advertising for print and online are two very different beasts. The way people consume news both print and online are pretty different too with people taking a more 'pick and mix' approach to news on the net. So instead of picking up a newspaper and viewing dozens of adverts the user might instead look at 1 story linked to from here and view 3 small banner adverts (or none if they have an Adblocker installed)
Sadly I think the DM have the best strategy from a money making point of view. Their stories cost peanuts to write and are very sensationalist - which is perfect for generating hits.
However I think over the next couple of years things will change. As more and more people have tablets and basic readers then the traditional model will come back again and people will consume media similar to the way they do before, except the cost of printing/distributing will be cut out. I think this longer term view is what Murdoch is gambling on.
Edited by rpguk on Friday 18th June 17:34
DonkeyApple said:
dreamz said:
is there anyone on here who is actually going to be paying?
Not until all the others are ppv and there is no choice. At which point I suspect I will discover that I have absolutely no need for any of them and that my life is better without them.Tbh the only thing I'll miss from the Times website is reading some of Clarkson's rants and reviews.
The rest of it is nowadays sadly very average.
When I go to buy a copy of Auto Italia at WHSmiths there are loads of people standing in the way reading the car mags.
THOSE people are the type I despise. If you aren't capable of doing something for yourself then you must pay those who do it for you. If you begrudge paying for news then feel free to travel the world investigating conflict etc and arrange your own celebrity interviews.
THOSE people are the type I despise. If you aren't capable of doing something for yourself then you must pay those who do it for you. If you begrudge paying for news then feel free to travel the world investigating conflict etc and arrange your own celebrity interviews.
The way I read newspapers online is not cover to cover as I might a printed copy. I'll go to the homepage, flick through a few headlines or sections that catch my eye and quite possibly be drawn to a link and through to another newspaper to get their take on a story.
For that reason, although I used to read the Times Online on a daily basis, I won't pay for a complete copy as it doesn't reflect the value in how I use it.
I would however be happy to pay in a different way. If I could pre-pay £10 or £20 and then have them take a micro-payment of a few pence every time I read a story, I'd keep visiting their site.
A complete paywall means that I now don't even consider visiting the Times Online so there is no chance they could get my money. A middle of the road system would mean I'd still visit quite frequently and they would get their money and would perhaps answer how they go about gaining new pay members.
I'm not aware of any site that operates in that way so there must be an obvious reason why not but it seems like a great compromise between two extremes to me.
For that reason, although I used to read the Times Online on a daily basis, I won't pay for a complete copy as it doesn't reflect the value in how I use it.
I would however be happy to pay in a different way. If I could pre-pay £10 or £20 and then have them take a micro-payment of a few pence every time I read a story, I'd keep visiting their site.
A complete paywall means that I now don't even consider visiting the Times Online so there is no chance they could get my money. A middle of the road system would mean I'd still visit quite frequently and they would get their money and would perhaps answer how they go about gaining new pay members.
I'm not aware of any site that operates in that way so there must be an obvious reason why not but it seems like a great compromise between two extremes to me.
Thinking about it some more, if there was some way of getting a log in code for a limited validity of browsing if you bought a printed copy, then I might buy the printed copy every so often. Not quite sure how they'd do said code, and no doubt on the net it would be cracked every day.
But as it is I'll not read online NOR buy print version just to flick the Vs at Murdoch. I'm sure he cares.... :Borat: Naaaat!
But as it is I'll not read online NOR buy print version just to flick the Vs at Murdoch. I'm sure he cares.... :Borat: Naaaat!
broadhat said:
I would however be happy to pay in a different way. If I could pre-pay £10 or £20 and then have them take a micro-payment of a few pence every time I read a story, I'd keep visiting their site.
This will be the outcome if ppv is successful across the board.You will have a central account like paypal etc and access news via a portal who take a cut of the individual fee for accessing single articles.
If ppv works then the web will split into 2 groups of free and ppv accessed via a centralised system.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff