To avoid M&S & never read the Sunday Times now ...

[fizzledrizzle]

that it costs money to view online.

I do not even buy the paper anymore.

I avoid M&S because I hate the way they charge for bags but overpackage all their products. I understand I am helping the anti-sex business too.

I am rather proud of stopping some ingrained consumer habits.

AIBU?

You are - M & S food is delish.

I work for M & S and do you know where the money from carrier bags go? To make grey spaces green. They take a disused playground (for example) or whatever and change them to be a safe place for children to play with new equipment etc That was the example used on the video I watched when I started.

Though not everything is overpriced and they only charge for food carriers. (Lots of places charge now) However I do agree that some things are shockingly expensive.

Why have you stopped buying the Times in print because you can't read it online?

I used to buy the times, but it's not as good since the paywall went up - where the hell has T2 gone?

You sound a little confused.

I applaud M&S for charging for plastic bags. Don't you get why they do it?

T2 coming back next Thursday! I think charging for online access if fair enough (although annoying) - it costs enormous amounts of money to run a news website and by providing it, newspapers inevitably lose people who buy the paper. (I am journalist, so have selfish interest in the paywall working but that doesn't mean it's not fair ).

pointydog who are you talking about?

"I understand I am helping the anti-sex business too."

There's a business which exists to put people off sex?

Or are you talking about their clothing?

M & S food is delish until you find bits of metal in it as DH did on Monday!

So you think all newspapers should be completely free, both hard copy and online? And how would they pay the journalists?

at longtalljosie

I might consider buying the Times when they start paying tax

After all, we are all supposed to be in this together. Perhaps Murdoch can start paying off his share of the national debt?

I understand the decision to charge for the times online, and I miss the times website but...until there is no other way to access news online, I can't justify the cost.

I understood that after charging the 5p plastic bag charge, that they made a donation to charity and they paid off the cost the bag, leaving M&S with a profit on each bag they sell.

I do remember speaking to someone senior from M&S at a conference who said that the introduction of bags created a backlash from customers.

And yes I am confused - I should mentioned the Hooters thread where M&S were leasing to Hooters. Never mind, I'm tired and sick!

While the Guardian and others remain free I won't go online, and yes the fact that the Times is not online has totally put me off buying. I wonder if their circulation has dropped?

staranise -
through advertising?

aj - advertising doesn't even cover a small fraction of the costs of running a news website. They are colossal projects, take huge amounts of technical maintenance and numerous journos to upload info - running a banner ad and selling your database to marketing firms doesn't begin to cover it .

I've also boycotted The Times for similar reasons. I'd like to boycott M&S for the Hooters thing but I like their Per Una jeans too much. I've also never eaten another Yorkie (sadly) since their 'it's not for girls' adverts. I would like to be one of the people who boycott all Nestle products and all of their sister companies but sadly am too lazy (unlike friends of mine).

So overall, 6 out of 10 for good intentions but 0.5 out of 10 for actual effort.

How many of you boycott lots of stuff?

Oh and would like to boycott Disney (too pukesome), Starbucks (too aggressive) and all products made in China (human rights). But what would there be left to buy?

I would SO admire someone who would only purchase totally ethical goods ALL THE TIME.

My brother works in the newspaper industry and they are really stuggling.

It costs money to produce stuff, even online. I don@t see why people don't get that.

You object to them charging you for a bag cos you are too lazy/ uncaring about the environment to just re-use a few bags for life when you shop, thus avoiding the charge?!
I'm guessing a customer who begrudges 5p on a plastic bag prob isn't their target market anyway. I doubt HEad Office is sweating about this one.

PS- their pants can be quite anti-sex you're right.

I am all for M&S charging for bags and the times has a right to charge if they like- I also would like to back up jonicomelately papers are really struggling

I read The Times. I paid £43 for a 3 month subscription which works out around around 48p a copy. You get on-line access too and special offers. Not sure I will renew when the time comes as the cost will go up I think. But for now, it is good value.

Hated the revamp tho' - good news they are bringing back the proper T2 section. That new design looked appalling - no flow, intrusive ads, and irritating supplements.

Re Murdoch - remember Maxwell? He used to slap injunctions on any journalist with the temerity to try to investigate his Lichtenstein-based empire. Not sure Mirror readers cared.

Advertising revenues have fallen dramatically over recent years and can't begin to cover the costs of running a decent paper and website.

I used to read The Times on online becasue it was there - I'm not a fan of it so I won't pay for it but I won't pay for the broadsheet either. If the Guardian were to charge (my regular paper), I would subscribe. The price is tiny compared with the quality and quantity of information you get.

Saying that, I think it's a disastrous move by The Times, albeit brave. The Washington Post did the same in the States and lost nearly it's entire share of the online market.

I would pay on a day by day basis, maybe 50p to view it, but I don't read the newspaper everday. No way could I afford to spaff £43 a quarter on it.