Should newspapers charge fo on-line content?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.guardian.c...graph-online-charging

The Telegraph is now considering charging for some of it's on-line content.

The Times site already charges for the whole it's on-line content.

Does anyone pay these charges, and is it a good idea for more newspapers to follow charging?

[B00]

Well if they do, i'll stop reading them online, that's for sure.

I'll just do what I used to do, read newspapers for free at work ;-)

[sp1814]

The Times has seen about 100,000 people sign up for its online content and for advertisers, this is actually good - it means that they have a much more concentrated and specific target market to aim for.

If newspapers can show that they are prepared to invest in their online presence to an extent that people are willing to pay for 'a premium service' then so be it.

With the introduction of hardware such a the Galaxy Tab, and the iPad, reading newspapers electronically on-the-go has become much more of a viable option.

[mike11111]

Good job you can still read The Daily Mail for free!

[Davethedog]

100,000? I don't think so this article is from July

http://www.guardian.c...es-paywall-readership

I read a report which I can't find in October which said that the figure might be as low as 15,000.

Why pay for it when there are so many other places you can get news.

[anotheoldgit]

http://tinyurl.com/323pe22

Interesting to note that the Time's Journalists are also dissatisfied with the idea.

[jake-the-peg]

It was a brave move from the Times and no mistake.

They claim they've had a good take up but even if it's true I think they'll be in a position where they are forever chasing up failing renewals.

Subscription models are notoriously difficult to make work on line.

The Telegraph already charges for some content like its crosswords but there's a world of difference between that and going totally subscription only.

Le Monde runs a basic website with premium content on subscription only - I suspect the Telegraph may be thinking along those lines

[jno]

newspaper owners have been sweating for years about how to make the internet pay for itself. The Guardian has a large and popular website but it's all free, so how do they pay the staff who produce it? (The broad answer I believe is that one publication in the group makes profits that pay for the rest: Auto Trader.)

Murdoch hopes people will pay to read his papers online. Not many are doing so. But he is trying to take over the chunk of Sky he doesn't own; when he does that he may be able to bundle Times online subscriptions in with Sky payments.

The Mail is, I think, making its money out of its website through advertising. But online advertising (like offline advertising) can be unreliable.

It's a poser. Nobody know what the answer will turn out to be.

[youngmafbog]

Up to them really. Its a business decision.

Personally I doubt they will keep readership but if content is good maybe it will work.

I suspect we will see lots of 'trial periods' over the next few years.

[anotheoldgit]

Has anybody thought of the implications this could have on the 'news topics'?

Especially for those that demand a link.

[Gromit]

For years newspapers have been losing readers, first to television, and then to the internet. The newspaper owners realised, that they had might as well put their content on a website, or other would do so. At least they would be able to sell advertising and keep a readership.

However, there are costs involve in reporting news and publishing a website, and at the moment, the internet versions of newspapers, such as the Daily Mail's excellent site, are subsidised by the people who buy the physical newspaper. In the long run, as less and less people buy a newspaper, that is unsustainable.

In the short term, proprietors such as Murdoch, are putting premium news sites behind a paywall. However, in the long term, they are developing on-line products which are entirely new, with no paper equivalent. They will replace newspapers as we know them at present.

Murdoch is about to publish a new newspaper "The Daily" which will be published only on the iPad (There is already an iPad edition of "The Times"). What is interesting, is that is more affordable, and could be cheaper than buy a real paper.

http://thenextweb.com...-newspaper-the-daily/

[rov1200]

Thank goodness for the BBC. Not only is its online news more superior but it is free and will always be so.

[andy-hughes]

The Internet has certainly increased the perception of the majority of people that what they want from it should be free of charege - simply because so much of it is just that.

The only websites that consistently make serious money by charging for their content are -

the Wall Street Journal

and

millions of hardcore pornography sites.

The public gets what the public wants.

[DTCwordfan]

The Telegraph is already charging and has done so for some time - £2.99 a month for access to their quizzes, crosswords and puzzles site. I have no idea how many people have taken up this offer. I, for one, have not and will not.

[jno]

how's that compare with the price of a book of crosswords and/or puzzles in the shops, DT? Sounds not bad. Why do you refuse to pay?

[ludwig]

I suspect that most of them will follow suit with the Times at some point - I don't think it was a particularly brave a move on the Times part either - I mean what have they lost? Lots of readers who didn't pay them a penny? Some loss.

[jno]

to some extent, also readers who didn't pay them but clicked on ads on their pages, which would have earned them a modest income. Presumably they've calculated, or prayed, that the new subscriptions recieved will outweigh that. But at the moment I wouldn't expect the subscriptions to cover the cost of producing the news. (It's not just the Times, it's the Sun and the rest.)

At the moment the WSJ and FT make money from subscriptions but they have a specialist readership whose subs are probably on expenses.

[DTCwordfan]

Very simply, jno, I buy the hard copy and get more value out of my £ spent

[jno]

oh, if you're buying the paper anyway, DT, that makes sense. The long-term question is what happens as old newspaper readers die and young people get all their information off the internet and think that 'news' is something that is handed out free rather than something reporters have to go out and find out about and write down.

[Gromit]

Another Tablet only publication. This one from Richard Branson - Project.

http://www.engadget.c...w-hitting-european-i/