We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Times online to charge - well I won't be reading it then
Comments
-
wakeupalarm wrote: »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.
Nope - I read the headlines just fine this morning.
Wonder why you're getting asked to register first? :question:0 -
Why the heck would I want to line Rupert's pockets with more gold? The stable door is open the horses are everywhere and anyone can take a ride whenever they want.
What a nice idea.
http://www.thebigproject.co.uk/news/index.htmFive exclamation marks the sure sign of an insane mind!!!!!
Terry Pratchett.0 -
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'm sure the editor of the the times had a sleepless night over your're quandry.0 -
It's not my quandary -I've made up my mind already, as the thread title explains.
I would certainly be having sleepless nights if I was the editor of the Times, though, I agree. It's a big gamble - if all the other big papers follow suit, he might have made some money, even if he's lost some readers.
But if they don't - he's screwed.0 -
They're nuts. The free market has dictated the price people are willing to pay - nothing. Imposing costs will simply remove almost all visitors to their website, not bring in guaranteed revenue to line the dirty digger's vault.0
-
Just my take on this, apologies if someone has already said this...
I see online news and a newspaper as two completely different things. I generally buy a newspaper because I want an hour or so to relax, or I have some time to fill. For example, sitting at home on a Sunday morning with a paper, waiting for a train for half an hour in a cafe, when I'm working away from home and I want something to read for an hour or so. Bascially, I buy a paper when I'm in the mood to read some different stuff and just chill out.
I tend to surf the net for news when I just want to find something out, or am snatching five minutes away from work. Quick glance at The Times website, or BBC News website to catch the main headlines, have a peak at an unusual story, keep up with something big going on or use the search facility to find out something I need to know. I would never sit there for three hours reading the whole Times Online.
For those reasons I think they've made a real mistake with this one.0 -
Tend to agree with Cleaver on this one.
I actually buy a newspaper on a daily basis but I wouldn't dream of suscribing online.
There has been talk of making online customers pay for ages but frankly I don't see how this will work.
We are all far too used to getting it for free.
I don't dispute that Murdoch is a clever man but I think he may well be confusing his customer baseRetail is the only therapy that works0 -
£2 per week for the Times or £2.80 for the TV Licence.
I buy the Times most weekdays but don't subscribe. I would resent having to pay twice. The problem they will have is that they are a generalist paper - too much is available for free on other sites. They have not a single writer who I would pay to read on line. Contrast this with the FT whose journalists are miles ahead.
Ps you can subscribe for significantly less than the £6 per week if you are crafty enough. My parents still pay £3 per week, every time they try to put the subs up they threaten to cancel. It's always worked so far.US housing: it's not a bubble
Moneyweek, December 20050 -
Has anyone else had a phone call from the Times recently? They called this week with a special offer of discount. I apologised that I would not be taking them up at this time. DH and dad get newspapers via work mid week, we buy paper versions of everything one Sundays. If I were o buy a paper its probably preferable to have a paper copy for me...it cn be used in the chicken shed/to clean windows with after wards.
Anyway, they are doing offers now on the online price.0 -
Interesting - wouldn't work for me, though, so good thing they've not bothered.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards