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

1984ReturnsForReal_2 · 26 March 2010 at 6:35PM

Mr.Brown wrote: »

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 get the message.

Personally I think it is commercial suicide.

People will not pay longterm, or in fact midterm I suppose.

lostinrates · 26 March 2010 at 6:38PM

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

I get the message.

Personally I think it is commercial suicide.

People will not pay longterm, or in fact midterm I suppose.

I'm not sure how it is commercial suicide..to try and get money for something they do for free. Bar advertising. If online dries up, which is doubtful- they could go free again they still get the advertising money to contribute to the goods they do currently get paid for.

If it were the only arm of the business maybe...but...it seems a risk of something that might actually be a drain on the bit they sale...

1984ReturnsForReal_2 · 26 March 2010 at 7:16PM

lostinrates wrote: »

I'm not sure how it is commercial suicide..to try and get money for something they do for free. Bar advertising. If online dries up, which is doubtful- they could go free again they still get the advertising money to contribute to the goods they do currently get paid for.

If it were the only arm of the business maybe...but...it seems a risk of something that might actually be a drain on the bit they sale...

Without subscribers there is no advertising & then it becomes a cost.

Mr.Brown_4 · 26 March 2010 at 7:18PM

Here's another argument, bit flimsy possibly but I'll try it.

I own a website that has advertising. The hoards of great unwashed click in, grab my copy, and click out again. I say to my advertisers - "I'm going to start charging so the people looking at your ads will be people who have money and are not the great unwashed. Help me with this and I'll deliver a better quality audience."

Does that make any sense?

I'm not sure if I will pay for the Times online or not yet, I have to think about it. But maybe, if Murdoch for example were to have an idea that come the Tories they will force the Beeb to cut down on its undermining of every other media platform....

Well, where else to go? The Daily Mail for example? Grab three sentences from any media feed, whack a picture on it, and pretend it's news. There is a lot of stuff out there, and most of it is pretty basic... or.. written by self obsessed nutters.

carolt · 26 March 2010 at 7:28PM

I survived just fine before all newspapers were online; it was only a few years ago we're talking, after all. We'd all survive just fine if it stopped being the case.

I didn't use to buy the 3 or 4 papers daily that I now read online and I wouldn't then, if they started charging for the free online content. I'd go back to reading the free London papers my OH throws at me when he gets in from work, so I can find out if Posh has new shoes or if someon'e been stabbed, and I'd continue buying the Guardian a couple of days a week (usually Education and Saturday).

After all, no-one really needs to read 3 papers a day. It's a nice luxury - but only when they're free.

lostinrates · 26 March 2010 at 7:51PM

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Without subscribers there is no advertising & then it becomes a cost.

exactly..so ditch the website....or make it free a gain. its not going to risk the actual paper part, is it? It might reduce advertising intake for that though..with delas of internet/paper crossover...but time will tell. If it went free again online readership might boom, ...advertising it itself....

1984ReturnsForReal_2 · 26 March 2010 at 8:01PM

lostinrates wrote: »

exactly..so ditch the website....or make it free a gain. its not going to risk the actual paper part, is it? It might reduce advertising intake for that though..with delas of internet/paper crossover...but time will tell. If it went free again online readership might boom, ...advertising it itself....

I think it will. I believe it will effect the brand...

You have a point with the rest of it..

dandy-candy · 26 March 2010 at 8:20PM

I'm another that won't bother to pay. I usually flick through 6-8 news sites a day - one of which is The Times - because I like to read the different views on news stories, but I can manage without it if they charge.

misskool · 26 March 2010 at 8:54PM

The problem is they are charging £1 a day. For that money, I could buy a real newspaper, read it and then have a copy of it for things I'd want to keep then sling it into the compost bin or recycle as paper pots. Ethereal news items do no warrant real cash.