Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

So, anyone end up paying for the Times online, or did you just switch newspapers?

73 replies

AbsOfCroissant · 30/06/2010 20:15

I switched to the NYTimes, which I much prefer, but it does mean I am largely ignorant of current events in the UK. Oh well.

Anyone pay? I am wondering if Murdoch's gamble ended up not paying off at all ...

OP posts:
Ewe · 01/07/2010 09:26

I will be very surprised if other news websites don't follow, someone had to do it first and now they have it's likely that other newspapers will do it too.

Paid for content is a much better business model, at some point in the near future we WILL all have to pay.

FolornHope · 01/07/2010 10:08

I HAVE STILL NOT GOT OVER THE TIMES2 GOING i say htis about twice a week. my mum wrote nad complaines and they said " oh youll get used to it" and none of us have.

that is the most annoying thing. they dont listen

TrillianAstra · 01/07/2010 10:23

Damn you, now I am reading the Times instead of working. I thought I had lost it forever (or until I become richer) and now I feel as if I should read it all before it disappears.

tiredfeet · 01/07/2010 10:32

I switched. I wouldn't be totally opposed to paying provided the costs were minimal (as I tend to want to have a bit of a browse rather than reading for hours), but the times charging was the final push to stop me reading Murdoch's paper and read the other ones. If they all started charging I would probably rely more on the tv news and maybe buy the occasional print copy.

DaisySteiner · 01/07/2010 10:43

Maybe they will all start charging one day, but for now I'm sticking to the ones that are free online.

It's better for my blood pressure actually, I used to get so het up and angry with The Times, mainly the reader comments, the tabloid-esque headlines, the poor proof-reading, the factual inaccuracies. I'm a calmer person now I can no longer access it

NetworkGuy · 01/07/2010 13:48

I use NewsNow.co.uk - it gets headlines from tens of thousands of websites.

It does not include actual articles. It highlights which are subscription services (some industry magazines etc as well as a tiny number of newspapers).

In the longer term, there are some news services offering online subscriptions where the customer can download the whole issue as a PDF. Like buying into a subscription newsletter (eg share tips), you get to keep those downloads, not just access to the information (if your connection is working, if the web site is up, if the membership database is correct).

Being PDFs they can be viewed on practically any device with a sensible size screen, whether using Windows, Chrome or some variant of unix (Mac offers a graphic front end on top of a unix foundation).

NetworkGuy · 01/07/2010 13:48

There would be a real problem charging a per article fee and then allowing that article to be readable 'forever'. Assume a million articles created in a period of time...

Now assume 200,000 customers (*) who then choose to purchase a selection of articles, let's say each has an average purchase per year of 10 items - obviously some could buy thousands of articles and others less than 1 per month.

With just 200,000 buying 10 articles, you have 1 million sales records. With 1 million customers, you could have 5 million sales records. While storage is cheap, these 5 million sales have only paid in 250,000 pounds (at the suggested 5p per article).

Yes, that sounds a lot initially, but that's income over a year, and papers have turnovers (or losses) of millions per year, so 5p would probably not be enough, the 250K pounds takes no account of development costs, or charges for collecting these tiny payments, and the processing to allow for these millions of data items will need web servers and a massive database, which (if the articles are bought 'forever') will increase by millions of records each year, slowing the checking down more and more, and needing some splitting up of customers, perhaps, to keep all their records on a single server (which then needs the database of sales backed up on a minute by minute basis).

Oh, and we have not mentioned staff costs for membership queries, or whether adverts are banned from these articles (given payment is being made for access).

(*) or 400,000 or a million, since access is global, and cost is (in the example) very low.

NetworkGuy · 01/07/2010 13:51

sorry - 2 million sales records - I started with an 'average' figure of 5 but wondered whether anyone would really bother to register for less than about an article a month.

It makes the other figures double - so the 250K of payments becomes 500K, with just 200,000 customers... but even with a Million customers, 2.5 Million (less significant costs) isn't massive for a paper.

ChateauRouge · 01/07/2010 14:14

You can register for free, which I did- using the username "FuckMurdoch"
I will not be paying him a penny though.

Coolfonz · 01/07/2010 15:44

This has been going on for ages. People don't want to pay for something that costs money to produce. Then they moan about how shit the media has become.

They allow attacks on the BBC because of cost, just one example of how far it's going. It's part of this crazy idea that you can have quality for free - can't remember the name off the top of my head but the former editor of Wired wrote a book Free in which he says how everything will become costless.

It's just an extension of a crazy right wing ideology, which funnily enough is being attacked now by a crazy right wing ideologue who thinks the scum that read his papers ("these people have nothing better in their lives" he told his Mother when buying the News of the World) have gone far enough.

It is why we don't get investigative journalism, instead we get columnists. It's why there are so many factual errors in the media. It's why we have so many phone-ins and Have Your Says...because it's cheap.

Why read the Times anyway, it's fucking shit.

mumblechum · 01/07/2010 15:45

Switched to the Independent

NetworkGuy · 01/07/2010 16:15

"They allow attacks on the BBC because of cost, just one example of how far it's going."

Who are the "they" ? I think some of the attacks on the BBC are justified. From being a good, rather independent news service, they have branched into many fields, going far beyond local / regional news and without having to earn the income, have a significant advantage over competitors in the field of media, visual, audio, and print.

My BiL used to laugh when my sister was worrying (as a head teacher) about the budget, possible cuts in staff, and so on. His reason for laughing, as MD of an engineering firm, was that she was 'given' a lump sum to spend, whereas he had to find orders to bring any income into the firm...

Then, with the BBC, when one knows they spent millions on 'talent' and millions on buildings, and have the top execs earning significant amounts and with pension funds in millions for a comfy retirement is it any wonder there are comments from other areas of the media (perhaps some with a degree of envy, but in other cases, just giving public funded body some desirable scrutiny).

Coolfonz · 01/07/2010 16:27

It's because the BBC is a better way of funding a national media outlet. The private sector is inefficient and delivers low quality. Sky? ITV? Ch4? Ch5?

They are the rest of the media and general political ideologues. The BBC isn't perfect but then no media outlet will be, it's far too right wing and chases ratings too often imo. It doesn't run political investigations as it is cowed by the state and some entertainers are way over paid.

But the basic foundations behind it are way better than rubbish like News Int. Just needs journalists at its head not accountants.

boiledegg1 · 01/07/2010 18:05

I don't object paying for good quality journalism, but I decided not to subscribe to the Times. I used to read the main news headlines occasionally but wouldn't feel that I read enough to get my moneys worth.

The BBC deserves plenty of public scrutiny as the way it is funded through the licence fee is essentially a tax on any household that has a television. The BBC do some things really well but the biases in its news service were annoying me so I switched to Al jazeera.

boiledegg1 · 01/07/2010 18:07

I read the Indy now, and you can get a certain number of free articles if you register on the FT website.

ivykaty44 · 01/07/2010 18:14

sorry but the bbc news is just churned out drivel and not news - they get paid for this news weather you watch it or not - yet they still give crap turned aorund every 15 minutes or so with introductions to a weather girls that will be on in 15 minutes. - the rest of the newspapers just buy cheap stories, they don't want to pay for the sotries and so we don't get 80% of the news anyway.

i wouldn't pay for the times per week as the pages don't change and you could read what you wanted in an hour - the rest was drivel.

I changed and don't miss what was there before. he is lossing millions anyway and this may well get worse for him.

Itsjustafleshwound · 01/07/2010 18:15

I have our copy of the Times delivered (free!) and the subscription comes with free access to the website until early next year.

They have really fiddled about with the newspaper and not all good.

It is just what to read - I like having a hard copy to read and hate getting my news off the computer ...

eatyourveg · 01/07/2010 19:13

I didn't realise the that the free access with subscription was temporary. Do you mean the Times+ members thing that used to be called Culture which you got if you had a 7 day week subscription on the hard copy?

Don't think I'd switch papers in protest as pay per view will be the norm before too long. Don't look at the website much anyway only league tables and the good university guide thingy. I think I'd just avoid the website and look on the beeb instead

AbsOfCroissant · 01/07/2010 22:51

you see, I wouldn't mind paying if it was in the form that (I believe) MmeLindt suggested, where it's kind of a subscription service for multiple news providers, and you choose which ones you use (kind of like sky channels).

Having said that, switching to the NYTimes, I have noticed a marked improvement in quality; towards the last few months I was reading the Times, there were very few articles I found to be that good. Naturally, BIG fan of Caitlin Moran, but i'm not going to fork out £2 a week to read Celeb watch (as tempting as it is). I do pay for an Economist subscription, which I totally think is worth it, as the quality of journalism is really high. What I also realised in a week of boredom at work switching between multiple online news providers is that, actually, not that much happens all the time (having read my 30th article about the suburban spies), so getting a proper update once a week does me fine.

Another thing I luuuurve about the NYTimes is they have these lovely human interest stories; there was one about a 92 year old man who has eaten lunch every Tuesday at the same restaurant. He was a Broadway producer, actor and musician, and worked with Orson Welles and the like. There was another one about five male friends who meet for lunch every wednesday, and have done so for the last 25 years. They also have a series of restaurant "reviews" where they go to restaurants (notice a theme here ... I like the dining section) and interview some people at the table, why are they out for dinner, what did they eat, how do they know each other, what did they talk about. There was one which was about the restaurant in the Four Seasons hotel, all high-powered business lunches, and the next was about a soup kitchen. Such a cross-slice of NY life. Amazing.

OP posts:
NetworkGuy · 02/07/2010 08:45

The fact there was charging was given a mention today on R4 "Today" show. Figures from a web monitoring analyst was that there had already been a 60% drop in readership with just the need to register and 90% drop is expected.

Other newspapers gaining readers (possibly as a result) have included the Independent, Guardian (and one other was mentioned - don't remember which).

MmeLindt · 02/07/2010 08:58

I have not read Times since they introduced the paywall and do not intend to as I only read one or two articles a day.

Murdoch was silly. He should have got together with some of the other papers and worked a deal out together. As I mentioned on the other thread I would pay a subscription of say, £10 a month, to access several newspapers online.

Off to have a look at the NYTimes. I wonder if they will start doing more UK news once they realise that so many Brits are reading.

Have never read the Independant but will give that a go as well. I find relying on the DM for news is not a good idea.

90% drop is huge though, not sure how long they can continue. They must have lost all their advertisers?

BadgersPaws · 02/07/2010 09:39

"90% drop is huge though, not sure how long they can continue. They must have lost all their advertisers?"

Well 90% is apparently "expected", it's not happened yet.

And advertising is a funny thing, being able to show that you have a dedicated audience of paying subscribers about whom you have many of their details can actually be quite valuable compared to having a larger audience but no idea of who they are.

So that's the direction that News International are heading in.

On the other hand the Standard are going for the opposite approach of boosting their circulation as much as possible by going free (while still having no real idea as to who reads the paper).

Interesting times....

NetworkGuy · 02/07/2010 09:40

" not that much happens all the time "

Take a glance at newsnow.co.uk - it updates every 5 minutes and has headlines from 30,000+ websites, worldwide. Most stories will be in English, wherever the source.

You can 'home in' on various areas of interest and view a few days back in many main subject areas.

I admit I tend to go straight to Technology but it can be handy for a single word search (free) of headlines if some person or place is in the news.

Songbiirdheartsfootball · 02/07/2010 10:04

Switched to the Independant

NetworkGuy · 02/07/2010 13:23

MmeLindt - from the analyst on R4 - the web advertising is apparently very low in terms of income.

As BadgersPaws indicated, a subscriber base is considered valuable - though I don't know quite what info is required as I have not filled in the 'free subscription' form or looked today at the PAYR (pay as you read!) form.

I used to get free copies of 2 or 3 weekly / monthly 'industry' publications, posted to me, as someone in employ is seen to have a chance to influence buying decisions.

The 90% drop might be more likely from today, but even so, that is what News Int. expects and while in the short term the cost of advertising may not increase, one would expect it to be the target for certain advertisers looking for those they consider to be 'discerning' and willing to pay for access to the paper.

Subscriptions at the office and home will be 'standard' for anyone in a boardroom, and advertisers will be happy to pay to get their message in front of such rich, powerful, eyes.