The Times & Murdoch's "Pay Wall"

[Rollo]

I completely understand that Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation have every right to make people pay to view the content on their websites BUT...

I'm wondering if making people pay to view a website which they previously could have viewed for free, isn't just going to make people leave altogether.

Considering that the quality of the journalism has fallen a little since Rupert bought The Times, and that people can get arguably equally up-to-date content from his arch-nemesis "the Beeb", what incentive is there to trump up either £2 a week or a sovereign a day for essentially what we're getting now?

More to the point, can I get the obviously drunken ramblings of Jeremy Clarkson elsewhere for free?

[Captain VXR]

I completely understand that Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation have every right to make people pay to view the content on their websites BUT...

I'm wondering if making people pay to view a website which they previously could have viewed for free, isn't just going to make people leave altogether.

Considering that the quality of the journalism has fallen a little since Rupert bought The Times, and that people can get arguably equally up-to-date content from his arch-nemesis "the Beeb", what incentive is there to trump up either £2 a week or a sovereign a day for essentially what we're getting now?

More to the point, can I get the obviously drunken ramblings of Jeremy Clarkson elsewhere for free?

Not unless you nick a copy of the Sunday Times
What's the odds that all of the newspapers will follow suit?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Rollo, the thing is, Murdoch knows giving away newspaper content for free is killing what is left of the newspapers of this world. I rue the day the rest of them figure it out in some ways, but lets face it, I don't have to buy the paper every day now when I can get it for free online. Ads online don't pay as well as ads in the paper which is in turn also bought by the general public. Anytime anything is given away for free, its value is reduced....and that is the LAST thing the dead tree media needs.

[anthonyvop]

Never bet against Rupert.

[fandango]

I think the only thing missing is figuring out how to pay, a system that works for everyone.

What I mean is, twenty years ago I would pop into the magazine shop and have a browse through what was there. Maybe I'd buy a motorsport mag and/or a newspaper. At no point did I feel that I was missing out.

Now they need to figure out a way where people can buy this newspaper one day, that magazine another day, without tieing yourself into subscriptions, and without all those annoying pop up ads.

[Macd]

Directions for free clarkson : Go to tesco, pick up newspaper, read column, put back paper, leave...

[Mark in Oshawa]

I think the only thing missing is figuring out how to pay, a system that works for everyone.

What I mean is, twenty years ago I would pop into the magazine shop and have a browse through what was there. Maybe I'd buy a motorsport mag and/or a newspaper. At no point did I feel that I was missing out.

Now they need to figure out a way where people can buy this newspaper one day, that magazine another day, without tieing yourself into subscriptions, and without all those annoying pop up ads.

Well the problem is on the net, you cannot just make money with ads for people "browsing" your product online. If it made money, Rupert isn't doing what he is doing....

[Eki]

Well the problem is on the net, you cannot just make money with ads for people "browsing" your product online. If it made money, Rupert isn't doing what he is doing....
I wonder why he thinks that ads in a newspaper or a magazine will make people to buy those products more often. I skip the ads in a newspaper or a magazine as easily as ads online.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I wonder why he thinks that ads in a newspaper or a magazine will make people to buy those products more often. I skip the ads in a newspaper or a magazine as easily as ads online.

I don't doubt you do, and for the most part I do also, but the business model of newspapers was working pretty well until people started giving away everything in the paper for free online. It has been also proven people are more likely to ignore ads online than they are in a paper......

[Eki]

I don't doubt you do, and for the most part I do also, but the business model of newspapers was working pretty well until people started giving away everything in the paper for free online. It has been also proven people are more likely to ignore ads online than they are in a paper......
It wouldn't matter if people only read online newspapers and the advertisers paid as much or more for the online ads as they do for paper ads. There would be no point for them to advertise in paper if people didn't read the papers. The business model for online newspapers could work as well, since the publishing costs are lower and the audience is potentially bigger.

[Camelopard]

Clarkson's column was in "The Weekend Australian" last time I bought one, that was a couple of weeks ago. I guess it's still there.

[Mark in Oshawa]

It wouldn't matter if people only read online newspapers and the advertisers paid as much or more for the online ads as they do for paper ads. There would be no point for them to advertise in paper if people didn't read the papers. The business model for online newspapers could work as well, since the publishing costs are lower and the audience is potentially bigger.

That is the problem. I agree with you Eki, it sounds like it should work. The problem is, it isn't, and people wont pay for online ads what they do for paper ads.

The Newspaper industry is trying very hard to get out ahead of this technology, and they found out giving the product away for free and selling ads wasn't working. People like newspapers and often read them and look AT the ads whereas online, they just block them out easier...

It has been proven over and over again, and your theory and mine isn't working for the people who own the papers...

[markabilly]

Rollo, the thing is, Murdoch knows giving away newspaper content for free is killing what is left of the newspapers of this world. I rue the day the rest of them figure it out in some ways, but lets face it, I don't have to buy the paper every day now when I can get it for free online. Ads online don't pay as well as ads in the paper which is in turn also bought by the general public. Anytime anything is given away for free, its value is reduced....and that is the LAST thing the dead tree media needs.


That is the problem. I agree with you Eki, it sounds like it should work. The problem is, it isn't, and people wont pay for online ads what they do for paper ads.

The Newspaper industry is trying very hard to get out ahead of this technology, and they found out giving the product away for free and selling ads wasn't working. People like newspapers and often read them and look AT the ads whereas online, they just block them out easier...

It has been proven over and over again, and your theory and mine isn't working for the people who own the papers...


Actually there are a number of small newspapers that use bulk mail and send them to us.

The articles are fairly informive and the ads pay for them.

same will happen with the web.

Some monopolies will try to tie things up, but subscriptions have never paid for the news and with the instant access of the web, this is a dumb idea.

Just look at you tube..... :D :D copyright??? what copyright???

And I could care less about their obnoius tv personalities like vaniie suckstune

[markabilly]

Well the problem is on the net, you cannot just make money with ads for people "browsing" your product online. If it made money, Rupert isn't doing what he is doing....
no, people are not tuning in to his crap in sufficient numbers.... :rolleyes:

many years ago, in many states, it became a major crime for anyone to misrrepresent circulation numbers.....because how else do you get paid ads.....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well Markabilly, I do know that newspapers have tried it both ways, but they really didn't hit the wall finacially until they started giving away the news on the net. I will tell you I was a habitual newspaper buyer until I got the net. That little pittance I am no longer spending is times by how many thousands? Not much but it could be the difference.

Maybe the economy of what the smaller papers works in bulkmail, but it isn't going to work with big metro area papers such as the Washington Post or Times, or the New York Times or London Times or whatever. You don't make money by giving things away if you don't have to. Now the downside of course is people have MORE options, and THAT is maybe why this wont work either, but some people want access to that Jeremy Clarkson column, or some other literary figure who is exclusive behind that pay wall. What then?

People didn't stop buying books because the library lent them out for free...

[Eki]

Google is making money online. If Murdoch can't do it, could it be because his services are crap?

[Mark]

The problem is with news, there are so many different sources to get the news from. The BBC website for starters. If you charge for something it has to be substantially different from any of the free offerings, otherwise customers will go elsewhere.

[markabilly]

[quote="Mark in Oshawa"]Well Markabilly, I do know that newspapers have tried it both ways, but they really didn't hit the wall finacially until they started giving away the news on the net. I will tell you I was a habitual newspaper buyer until I got the net. That little pittance I am no longer spending is times by how many thousands? Not much but it could be the difference.

quote]
i think it has more to do with declining circulation and advertizers not willing to pay more---indeed, paying less now, as they are also discovering the effectiveness of internent ads

[SOD]

Rupie did pioneer the concept of paying to watch the footie. The problem is that too many chavs bought into the idea.

[AAReagles]

i think it has more to do with declining circulation and advertizers not willing to pay more---indeed, paying less now, as they are also discovering the effectiveness of internent ads

I was wondering about that, as well as the fact that online news sources are in cyber competition of other attractions/services. Such as games, forums, subjects of particular interests, online-shopping and so on. In short, it's easy to shift to something outside of a news source, especially when it's at your fingertips.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Murdoch may in the end fail, but if you want to read the Times of London, you will have to pay for it. When it is the Times, you might find buyers. If it is the South Florida Daily Shopper, or the Podunk post, well no...

[AAReagles]

Murdoch may in the end fail, but if you want to read the Times of London, you will have to pay for it....

I noticed on the tube that the NY Times is starting to advertise for weekly internet services at $4. So much for the good ol' days of free internet news services.