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

carolt

Dan: wrote: »

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

To be fair, you pay for rather more than your online use. And you don't get any choice in it.

JasonLVC

The_White_Horse wrote: »

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.

Or would it make people who enjoy the news/articles of The Times website, to go out and buy the actual newspaper instead.

(ie, I used to buy newspapers but generally get my news via their websites instead, for free. I may now have to go back to buying newspapers again or be force fed a diet of BBC homogenised news).

carolt

lostinrates wrote: »

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.

Less advertising?!!!

Certainly not online - it screams annoyingly off every page, and you have to be rather cunning with the cursor, or you end up accidentally hitting it.

lostinrates

carolt wrote: »

Less advertising?!!!

Certainly not online - it screams annoyingly off every page, and you have to be rather cunning with the cursor, or you end up accidentally hitting it.

see, told you hadn't read anything for ages....:o:D. working harder for the advertising money (whch is kind of what I meant, like...budgets...)

JonnyBravo

Dan: wrote: »

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

Simple solution to get it free, throw away your TV and cancel your license fee DD.

HTH.

purch

Less advertising?!!!

Certainly not online - it screams annoyingly off every page, and you have to be rather cunning with the cursor, or you end up accidentally hitting it

Let me get this straight.

First you moan because they are going to make users pay to read it.

Then you moan about the adverts that used to make it free to read it.

So you don't want to pay for it, and you don't want advertisements.

Anything else you want to moan about ??

Is the web address to long and your fingers get tired typing it :eek:

Is the font too small :mad:

1984ReturnsForReal_2

purch wrote: »

Let me get this straight.

First you moan because they are going to make users pay to read it.

Then you moan about the adverts that used to make it free to read it.

So you don't want to pay for it, and you don't want advertisements.

Anything else you want to moan about ??

Is the web address to long and your fingers get tired typing it :eek:

Is the font too small :mad:

It doesn't change the fact that it is commercial suicide.

Mr.Brown_4

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

It doesn't change the fact that it is commercial suicide.

Maybe. But I wouldn't bet against Murdoch. If you are paying journalists, editors, etc. to produce news and comment, and the revenue from advertising is not covering costs then what do you do?

The internet seemed to promise a magic land where everything could be paid for through incestuous advertising and linking of sites within sites within screen grabbers, and so on. Well it would appear, that for quality media, that model does not work.

So Murdoch is putting forward a more simple, basic, and arguably (and surprisingly) honest solution. You know what we do - will you pay for it?

carolt

purch wrote: »

Let me get this straight.

First you moan because they are going to make users pay to read it.

Then you moan about the adverts that used to make it free to read it.

So you don't want to pay for it, and you don't want advertisements.

Anything else you want to moan about ??

Is the web address to long and your fingers get tired typing it :eek:

Is the font too small :mad:

I'm not moaning - I mentioned the adverts in response to lir's post suggesting there weren't many adverts online - this is simply not the case.

But whilst they are irritating, they clearly serve a purpose - they pay for my free views of the content.

Are you having a bad day or something? Seemed an odd post.

carolt

Mr.Brown wrote: »

Maybe. But I wouldn't bet against Murdoch. If you are paying journalists, editors, etc. to produce news and comment, and the revenue from advertising is not covering costs then what do you do?

The internet seemed to promise a magic land where everything could be paid for through incestuous advertising and linking of sites within sites within screen grabbers, and so on. Well it would appear, that for quality media, that model does not work.

So Murdoch is putting forward a more simple, basic, and arguably (and surprisingly) honest solution. You know what we do - will you pay for it?

I think the simple answer then is that lots of online media will go bust - no bad thing.

Because we won't pay for it all directly.

But then, there is currently many, many times more online sources of information than anyone could ever read; if a few go bust, so be it.

Or - shock horror! - they could fight back on the quality front to retain/capture readers by writing excellent articles. And firing Anatole Kaletsky.