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

vivatifosi

misskool wrote: »

The problem is they are charging £1 a day.

I saw the editor being interviewed on breakfast news. He acknowledged the risk, but said that it was £1 per day, or £2 for a whole week. I don't think the latter is bad value, providing you have access to absolutely everything.

vivatifosi

carolt wrote: »

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.

I also saw the Guardian editor(?) being questioned about this a couple of weeks back. IIRC he said that the paper was unlikely to follow suit as it had a big online following. I can't remember the numbers, but the inference was that it ranked higher in terms of its online hits ranking than in paper sales. Also said it was being read internationally online.

vivatifosi

Mr.Brown wrote: »

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.

I wish I could thank your post (all of it not the bit I'm quoting) twice. My fear is that in the future, it will be normal for people to see YouTube as a legitimate source for news.

I've been using electronic news content since the 1980s (I used to subscribe to Reuters way back when). I honestly believe that there is a gap in the market for a "paid for" news consolidator, where you pay a flat fee plus, for arguments sake, 10p per article, but would have access to good quality news from round the world. If you try to do this for free there are just too many gaps. This service is available at a great cost commercially, but I'm not aware of a really good offering aimed at the individual consumer.

Asheron

Wow so now we have to Pay for the governments online propaganda machine

lostinrates

£2 w isn't too bad. cheaper than getting it delivered to the house, and cheaper than picking it up daily. we used to use them to line the litter tray...online less useful for that. We do actualy get loads of sunday papers...ny dad does, I get them on mon/tures, but in recent months haven't even read style or you.

A._Badger

It's the wrong payment method. Murdoch should have gone for a micropayment system.

If you simply want to read the Times' take on a particular story, £1 is far too much. If it cost just a few pence, and the charge was aggregated over a month, he might stand a chance.

That said, while I accept the argument that people should expect to pay for quality journalism, little of the inane 'lifestyle' drivel that passes for editorial in The Times (or elsewhere) qualifies. If Murdoch wants the money, he has to establish the quality of his merchandise first and then charge a realistic price for it.

Sapphire

I won't be paying for online content of any newspaper – not least because I don't want to have any kind of direct debit, using my bank details, permanently on the Internet, and also because I only usually quickly check and compare the main stories in the principal papers (The Times, Independent, Telegraph, Guardian), avoiding any rubbish on 'celebrities' and the like.

There are plenty of other places one can get news (e.g. radio and TV), and the news in most newspapers is trivia and, if you really know a subject about which they write, you realize the articles are actually not generally very good or very well researched.

The only time recently I have been fired up about anything a newspaper reported was when I read what the Telegraph uncovered about our charming politicians. The newspaper really did the country a favour. In general, however, too much of the time the newspapers are blandly following the line of the 'ruling' unelected political party – presumably because if they didn't they would lose the possibility of getting first-hand information, etc.

marklv

carolt wrote: »

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?

I don't read this Murdoch mouthpiece anyway. Well, no, I do, but only the sports section.

wakeupalarm

I thought it was going pay from June but I can't seem to read it today, all I get is the option to register. Have been reading it from when it first launched, just like I did with the FT. Looks like they have lost at least 1 reader today. I read lots of news sources and have no loyalty to any of them. I'll won't pay for thetimes and I doubt if many will.

movilogo

Not worried, plenty of sites to get free news.

Also, someone will post some code in this site which will make access free for us again