Paying for newspaper websites

[Gromit]

// The Times and The Sunday Times will start charging for their websites from June, it was confirmed today.

News International, the newspapers’ parent company, announced that readers will be offered a day’s use for £1, or £2 for a week’s subscription. //

Would you pay a similar amount for your own newspaper?
Will this work?
Do the websites have to offer more to justify charging?
Would you boycott sites that charge?

[bibblebub]

If newspapers were the only source of news on the interweb then one might consider paying for them; but they're not and so I wouldn't pay (I buy The Times anyway so there's no way I'm going to pay twice).

[jno]

I think a great many readers will stay away from sites that require them to pay. A large chunk of the world has come to believe thanks to the internet that they are entitled to anything they want for free. I occasionally browse the Times site but I won't if if costs as much as a whole newspaper to look at a single story.

I already pay for a paper most days. I wouldn't object to paying to look at its website. But then again, I wouldn't want to pay for both on the same day, so if they started to charge I would probably give up the hard-copy paper and stick with the website (which I don't have to go for a walk in the rain to buy).

This is a gamble by Murdoch. No newspaper has any idea how to make money out of the internet except the FT, which has a specialist (and rich) readership.

[redman41]

I personally would not contribute in order to view Newspaper websites and I think this is a backward step for the Newspaper Industry in this country.
Because of the internet and TV/Radio News bulletins far less Newspapers are being sold than before. Some Editions of our daily papers will cease to exist in a few years time.

[jno]

they might all do so, redman. Then who will originate this news you can get from anywhere? Not journalists, presumably, since they need paying to feed their families.

[ummmm]

It could encourage people to buy the hard copy.

[rov1200]

I no longer buy the Sunday Times as its too expensive. I do not pay to watch Sky Channels as they are also too expensive. I'm sure there are many in my position.

Its all down to the greedy bosses, notably Murdoch, who have tried to squeeze every penny from the purchaser. Thankfully there are other avenues. So much for free capitalism!

I certainly won't pay to look at his websites.

[Gromit]

Is the timing a coincidence?

http://www.nzherald.c...d=5&objectid=10634455

[jno]

it is a coincidence. Murdoch announced plans for a paywall well before Apple announced plans for an iPad, as I recall.

It isn't greed, or not entirely. If they can't make money from publishing something, then what's the point of publishing it? Murdoch isn't in the charity business and neither are his shareholders. How to make money out of the internet is a problem for everyone, and this is his attempt at a solution. Nobody has any idea if it will work.

An ex-KGB man bought the Independent for £1 yesterday. For the price of one newspaper he got the whole business. That's how much trouble they're in.

[Gromit]

// Murdoch announced plans for a paywall well before Apple announced plans for an iPad, as I recall. //

Not so jno

May 2009
http://www.businessin...tablet-in-2010-2009-5

August 2009
http://www.guardian.c...rdoch-website-charges

[R1Geezer]

Would you pay a similar amount for your own newspaper? - yes probably though I tend not to bother
Will this work? - It may do if the content is the same as the printed version at the moment the websites don't give much in depth copy.
Do the websites have to offer more to justify charging? - No they have to offer an exact copy of the printed paper in my opinion. then it'll be worth the money for a weeks worth, well in the case of the Times anyway.
Would you boycott sites that charge? - Not if they provide a proper service though day to day checking the headlines etc I'll continue using Sky news/BBC news mainly.

If for example if I could get an exact copy of the Times or Telegraph on line then I'd consider that value for £2 a week. You can already get online copies of just about every thing for a fee here:
http://www.pressdispl...ssdisplay/viewer.aspx

[Old_Geezer]

When newspapers went on line for free I did wonder about the financial consequences, but it seems to have worked out so far. Besides the BBC site is free to visit anyway.

But now the concept has been established I think it brave to try to buck the trend and start charging. After all, why pay for one site when the same news is available for free on another ? Do they compose their articles with so much more finesse than the other news agencies ? I'm unsure about their strategy, I think the drop in hits is unlikely to be compensated by the money they collect.

But knowing my record of prediction it'll probably mean it'll be a roaring success.

[ludwig]

I wouldn't pay to view a news website. That's not to say I don't think they should charge - they probably should. It's just not something I'd pay for.

I'd be happy with the TV news which of course I pay for through the licence fee, and picking up the odd hard copy paper every now and then.

[Garmard]

I read this on the BBCi this morning and was horrified!
I shall not be paying "The Times" any money when i can get it from other sources......ridiculous!

[tamborine]

we already pay for web usage through Bband, dongles etc. Times are on no-hope road.

Keep the DMail free - makes sense ;)

[DrFilth]

in the future on here peope will say,
.
.
.
have you got a free link for that artice ?

[Garmard]

There's a scam around every corner these days.

[Davethedog]

If push came to shove I could easily do without the internet.

TV and radio news is freely available and so still are newspapers.

I take it that when they start charging they won't be stopping advertising. However advertising may soon be stopping with them.

[tamborine]

I pay for TV & radio....how d'you get it free Davethedog?

[jno]

you're right, Gromit, I didn't become aware of the iPad till later; apologies.

If Murdoch makes a go of charging for his sites other newspapers will soon start doing the same. In theory all news would soon have to be paid for, much as it is now - capitalism in action (and quite right, as the people who gather and report the news deserve payment for their work, same as anyone else).

The problem is the BBC, which does indeed produce its site for 'free' and would probably be in trouble if it tried to charge: after all, people pay for it already. No wonder, under pressure from the Tories (who are under pressure from Murdoch), that it is already having to cut back its online services.