Times online to charge - well I won't be reading it then

carolt

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article7076987.ece

Sounds like a stupid idea - too much good free stuff on the web to bother with paid for stuff.

Anyone else agree?

ukcarper

I personally won’t be paying but it's a tricky one after all it is a business and they do need to make money

Nosht

Can pay, won't pay.
Free elsewhere.

N.

Mr_Matey

Large drop in readers = large drop in advertising revenue.

The only way they can make money out of this is if the other major newspapers follow suit. I hope they don't!

drc

Not necessarily a bad thing. If the mainstream newspapers start charging, more people will start reading political blogs that do not charge and are often report things that the mainstream media doesn't.

Mr.Brown_4

Quality content, edited content, does not come free. The open model of internet, where advertising pays the costs doesn't work. Not helped by places such as this - where an articles are freely distributed without any tie back to the original source and associated advertising links.

It is an interesting move. Every one else will be watching.

I've been reading it free for several years now - will I subscribe? Not sure, but a future where the free stuff comes from places like this and Asherons links does not appeal much.

purch

more people will start reading political blogs that do not charge and are often report things that the mainstream media doesn't

And have the luxury of being able to make stuff up, and have numpties believe it :eek:

The_White_Horse

i did a market research on this once. the general concensus was "we won't pay". You can always get news etc for free on the net. if the Times wants to charge, it will lose thousands of readers and advertising revenue. you can't monetize the web for things like news that you can get elsewhere for free.

carolt

Well, the FT started making it harder to read their stuff online - and I stopped reading it.

The only one I'd find a wrench is The Guardian - also the only one I do buy in hard copy too, though not daily. I suspect that if they started charging, I'd stop viewing online - but wouldn't buy the hard copy any more often than I do - usually not more than a couple of times a week.

Look at The Metro/Standard in London - the future of newspapers is free - otherwise = no readers = no advertising.

Dan:_4

I already pay for my online news as I use the BBC websites.

lostinrates

carolt wrote: »

Well, the FT started making it harder to read their stuff online - and I stopped reading it.

The only one I'd find a wrench is The Guardian - also the only one I do buy in hard copy too, though not daily. I suspect that if they started charging, I'd stop viewing online - but wouldn't buy the hard copy any more often than I do - usually not more than a couple of times a week.

Look at The Metro/Standard in London - the future of newspapers is free - otherwise = no readers = no advertising.

there is less advertising now anyway, I think.

The short term furture may just about to be paying for all broadsheets, or whatever we call them now they are physically less broad....even in their online versions. the alternative is possibly more biased coverage..not like advertising can sway content at all now is it? and/or reduced quality of reportage. I haven't real a paper in a few months now...so not qualified to comment

i miss all the real links here to good online news stories/pieces.