Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Would you really read columnists etc if it was pay-per-view online?

57 replies

mrsbaldwin · 12/11/2009 18:59

The Observer Woman thread got me thinking about this ...

When media outlets eg newspapers move to the brave new world of paid-for content online who would pay to read lifestyle columnists, (including 'mummy columns' eg that one in Times Slummy Mummy).

Even though I will click on some of these types of items in the Times (or whatever) at the moment, if I had to pay I wouldn't. I'd only pay for hard news or perhaps some specialist article on a subject of personal interest (which could include fashion).

If everyone was like me what happens to all that content? Does it disappear ie no more lifestyle columns? Or do the outlets give it away free to readers who say they match the right demographic? For example I buy a package of hard news plus the fashion page and they also say 'have this article by Polly Vernon free'?

OP posts:
famishedass · 12/11/2009 20:21

They'd have to pay me to read some of that tripe.

Anyway, those journos nick all their ideas from mumsnet so we would likely have read it here first

ABetaDad · 12/11/2009 20:28

No absolutley not and newspapers would be better just dropping the whole fantasy idea that they can charge for online readership.

There is far too much free blog and other free media content on the web. What they need to do is get rid of the physical print versions and go to a free online model with advertising providing the revenue.

I have almost stopped buying physical newspapers but read a huge amount online.

tiredfeet · 16/11/2009 08:57

No totally not, I would just shift and read non-charging websites. Will be upset if it happens though, especially if all the main papers did it. If even one is brave enough to not start charging, I think they would be the winner in terms of most people migrating to read their pages instead.

GrimmaTheNome · 16/11/2009 09:03

I wouldn't unless it was incredibly easy and secure to pay. I have my doubts about the latter.

If I clicked on a link and it asked me for payment details or a login I'd probably think, screw it. If it didn't, it probably wouldn't be secure.

sarah293 · 16/11/2009 09:06

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

OmniDroid · 16/11/2009 09:10

Nope, and I stopped doing the Guardian quick-crossword online when they did something similar with that. Shame, cos I used to really enjoy doing it (and using 'cheat'), but I'm not paying or even registering to do that kind of stuff, or to read columnists.

TsarChasm · 16/11/2009 09:18

Nope! Pay to read what really boils down to one persons opinion? Nah.

Lol at 'those journos nick all their ideas from mumsnet so we would likely have read it here first' How true

ProfessorLaytonIsMyLoveSlave · 16/11/2009 09:21

I'd pay to read Charlie Brooker (in fact, as I've bought his books I guess I already have). Otherwise, nah.

GrimmaTheNome · 16/11/2009 09:23

Times seems to be doing extra content of this sort free for subscribers to the print version - that seems kind of OK though whether it actually works as a business model by increasing subscriptions I don't know.

dizietsma · 16/11/2009 09:24

Of course I wouldn't. No-one will. Murdoch is an old duffer who has NO IDEA how the internet works, which is why he's pushing this stupid idea.

It's like the piracy thing, people will not pay for something they can easily access elsewhere for free, so you need to find a new business model, become more creative not fight the tide.

Even business men as powerful as Murdoch are powerless in the face of this. It must really piss him off

bibbitybobbityhat · 16/11/2009 09:27

No, never while print newspapers still exist. I think its good to get some non-screen time, to move away from your computer chair and walk to the shops and buy a paper and sit in a different place to read it, park bench perhaps, or on the bus. Plus, old newspaper is so handy for some of the less pleasant household tasks (lining litter trays, wrapping food scraps, buffing up glass, covering the table when dc painting etc).

TsarChasm · 16/11/2009 09:41

I always feel a certain childish joy in using newspaper with disliked slebs and politicians on it for the litter tray.

bibbitybobbityhat · 16/11/2009 09:43

Exactly, Tsar!

[clink glasses]

That little frisson of pleasure would be gone forever without newspapers.

Aubergines · 16/11/2009 09:43

UK newspapers are in real trouble because if they move to charging for online news nobody will pay due to the free BBC online news. Given the BBC already have the most investigative journis, forein bureaux etc why would you pay for a less well researched news source? You wouldn't. Yet on the itherhand online advertising revenue is small compared to print news ad revenue so the newspapers can't afford to keep paying good news teams through free online news content. They are really between a rock and a hard place and the plusrlity of high quality news provision will suffer.

Aubergines · 16/11/2009 09:45

Terrible typing there sorry. The last unreadable word was "plurality".

said · 16/11/2009 09:49

But we do pay for the BBC though. And I'm more than happy to do so.

No way would pay for online news though. There'd be subversive sites set up that essentially provided the news free anyway - sophisticated cut n paste jobs. I don't think you could even give Polly Vernon away for free though.

morningpaper · 16/11/2009 09:55

No I wouldn't pay either

I don't bother paying or even registering for news

As others say - you can get the basics from the BBC

Yes it is worrying that this means that proper journalism has had its day

Aubergines · 16/11/2009 09:56

What I am saying is that some newspapers will die. Others will cut their number of journalists and rely more on stories based on press releases rather than journis on the ground. There will therefore be less news out there, fewer people investigating injustices and keeping the Gov and industry on it's toes.

We all hate the idea of paying for online news and will refuse to do so but we should nit believe news will continue to be provided regardless.

said · 16/11/2009 09:58

I appreciate what you're saying Aubergines but I don't know the answer. People will simply not pay for online news.

Aubergines · 16/11/2009 10:00

My posts sound like this is all in the future, but of course it's happening already.

And if the politicians ever scrap the licence fee we will have no BBC either. Then where will we be?

I am not worried about the loss if columnists and opinion content. You get that from blogs. But the loss of real news, which is not provided by blogs etc, that us scarey.

morningpaper · 16/11/2009 10:05

yy aubergine

no one would notice Watergate these days

Snorbs · 16/11/2009 10:11

I would happil pay for well-written and researched news and also for a number of columnists, although it will be a cold day in hell before I pay anything from Murdoch's empire.

I'm not keen on a subscription idea, though, as you could end up with dozens of subscriptions to try to keep track of. It's a shame that none of the various micropayment systems have worked out.

onebatmother · 16/11/2009 10:12

I agree re investigative journalism Aubergines. It's not looking v good is it?

The ones who are successfully charging at the moment are v niche or have business-sensitive info (WSJ and FT). And both of these only partially paywall, with limited access for non-payers - either a certain number of free articles per month, or a certain depth of info.

Murdoch's plan (paywall + hide from Google) seems absurd - News Corp. get 25% of their traffic from Google alone. It an astonishing feeling to watch Murdoch floundering - he's just had to acknowledge that News Corp aren't going to meet his June 2010 deadline and despite numerous attempts to get other media owners to declare for a paid model, they're all still hedging their bets.

He's got a kind of a plan to forge partnerships with other content providers incl I thinkt he Telegraph but it sounds as though it'll breach competition legislation.

News is not fence-offable. What is fence-offable is quality opinion - the NY Times experimented a few years ago with a subscription model for all their columnists. But it was a failure and they went back to free under pressure from both their accountants and the columnists themselves (but not before they'd inadvertently inspired the brith of the Huffingotn Post.)

So it looks possible that M will have to make an embarrassing climbdown.

On the other hand the surveys about people's willingness to pay for news vary wildly, depending on how you ask the question. This survey, for example, finds that three-quarters of us would pay 10p per article. If a seamless microtransaction system could be developed (they're working on it) everything could change.

AMumInScotland · 16/11/2009 10:14

I wouldn't even consider paying for online newspapers, I'd just do without and switch on News24 when I get into the house of an evening, if there wasn't a BBC website with their news on it. Very little happens during the day that I absolutely have to know about at the time anyway, and I never used to buy a paper newspaper, except when I had time to kill and a coffee to slurp with it.

PrettyCandles · 16/11/2009 10:15

I certainly would not pay for news as long as there are free sites. I have no objection to paying the licence fee, though TBH I don't think it funds the online part of the BBC.

I hope that paper journals do not disappear. You can't browse online journals in the same relaxed way, picking and choosing and reserving for later reading. Besides, the sheer pleasure of sitting down with a drink and a snack and a paper is half the reason for buying a newspaper!