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

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:
ivykaty44 · 02/07/2010 15:34

I was thinking thi morning - I do get free news through the radio - I don't have to pay tv licence as I don't have one and radio is free to listen. listening tpo radio 4 new is far better than the bbc news on tv espically in the mornings - why I don't know?

NetworkGuy · 02/07/2010 16:22

You know you can download (some) BBC TV shows using iPlayer and watch them later, without the need for a licence.

If you watch shows 'live' via the internet (assuming no TV) then you still need a licence.

I think TVL want to change that (after all, most people who can download could view live). Glad to say they'd have a real problem with my machines - (a) some are Linux so can be set to come up with no 'desktop' but an unfriendly command prompt, and (b) the BBC speed test shows the only thing usable is streaming audio (ie radio) services, not TV.

I download at least 20 GB of BBC TV shows, and use "Demand Five" and 4oD too.

ivykaty44 · 02/07/2010 16:58

I watch stuff on my pc - I never watch live streamed tv, only ever stuff that was on last week or yesterday. Really though the only program I watch is nieghbours and have watched ..um a film with Martin Clunes about a school - classic stuff and a couple of episods of come dine with me.

My dd2 watches waterloo road and east enders when she remembers.

As for the licencing people I have withdrwan consent for them to knowck on my door - they keep threatning and in the next town we had a 12 year old raped as the man said oh I have just come to look at the whatever to get in the house - so wrote to tv licencing withdrawing consent to knowc the door!

if they want to sit outside and use their van and electronic equipment they sure can -as I have no tv -they have threatened me that they can still catch me they will ahve a job!

Itsjustafleshwound · 02/07/2010 17:10

eatyourveg - Times+ members get free access to the websites until 31 Jan 2011 - perhaps it will continue, but I doubt it!

catinthehat2 · 02/07/2010 17:30

The Times goes over a cliff

Check out the graph, I would be despondent if I were a columnist who nobody reads any more. And if I were a rival editor, I would be considering the paywall thing very deeply. It's kind of Rupert to test it out for everyone else - but it will only work if all the big papers do it at once. And that would be a bit monopolistic & illegal.

NetworkGuy · 05/07/2010 09:22

There's a Guardian item critical of Sunday Times.

"Memo to Sunday Times: should you charge for editorial taken from a free website?"

NetworkGuy · 05/07/2010 09:23

A sad "PS" for the OP... Some journalist at Bloomberg has suggested NYT should charge too.

UnquietDad · 05/07/2010 09:27

I don't have a regular online newspaper. I just look at whichever one takes my fancy. I just don't look at the Times now. I barely notice it's not there.

catinthehat2 · 05/07/2010 11:17

I too have barely noticed - even though it is there at the moment, there is little chance I'm going to the bother of registering

Also, I've never seen the point of non attribution. 1) it's so obvious when a story hhas been lifted 2) if you put in a link, links come back your way bringing readers with them. It's so basic now.

bramblebooks · 05/07/2010 12:13

I just miss Caitlin Moran's column - but I buy the weekend times anyway and can catch up on her there.

As the others said, I'm getting my news from the radio / bbc website and now browse other papers online.

bluecardi · 05/07/2010 12:14

Just read the other papers like before just not the times

bluecardi · 05/07/2010 12:15

strange thing is I used to read it online & buy on a regular basis for the crosswords but now don't

abr1de · 05/07/2010 12:19

I think the Times is right to make readers pay. This view that anything that's on the Internet must be free is not right.

mackerel · 05/07/2010 12:20

I switched. I used to read The Guardian, The Independent and The Times for a cross political look at the news but have just cut out The Times.

catinthehat2 · 05/07/2010 12:45

I think the idea that anything that's on the Internet must be paid for or it's not authoritative is not right.

theyoungvisiter · 05/07/2010 12:55

"This view that anything that's on the Internet must be free is not right."

I don't think it's a question of right or not right. It simply a practical issue that with so much free news coverage out there, there is no compelling reason for most of us to pay.

So far the only newspapers that have managed to make the paying model work are those that are offering specialised information unavailable elsewhere.

I read that The Times reckon they "only" need to maintain 10% of their traffic to make money, but I seriously doubt they will do this. I doubt if even 10% of their traffic is dedicated Times readers, let alone dedicated Times readers prepared to shell out cash.

sethstarkaddersmum · 05/07/2010 13:01

switched.
I used to like several of the columnists but not enough to be bothered with registration etc.

I wish the Mail would charge. I have a serious DM online habit that I can't break. It started off ironically but now I can't give it up. (Me and about 60% of Mumsnet if the links on here are anything to go by.)

missedith01 · 05/07/2010 13:06

Mr Murdoch doesn't get any of my cash ... haven't forgiven him for Thatcher yet. So I didn't even look at The Times when it was free ...

catinthehat2 · 05/07/2010 13:09

There's a school of thought that this Times thing is solely to cater to Ipad users who are so dumbtastic they will pay for anything if it's set up to look good on their machine.

I think that view is so controversial that I could not possibly defend it. But I think DH the person who relayed it to me would be interested to know if anyone else thought the same as him.

canella · 05/07/2010 13:26

Really not sure how thetimes thought asking people to pay for news would work when no other mainstream news charge - if you were in a shop and there was a selection of free newspapers would you pay £1 for one that isnt any better than the others?

I'm another switcher which makes me a little sad since i'd been a dedicated sunday times reader till i left the uk last year.

Wonder if he would let the online version fold rather than reverse the pay to read decision?

NetworkGuy · 05/07/2010 15:55

"I doubt if even 10% of their traffic is dedicated Times readers, let alone dedicated Times readers prepared to shell out cash."

There are certainly going to be company purchases, so whether the MD buys it with his own CC and reclaims it as a business expense, or there's a company credit card at the company address and they purchase it (then allowing access to all staff - after all, most traffic from a firm may well show a single IP address - that of the router linking the firm's machines).

In the past it was common for small local radio stations to buy in several daily papers and either photocopy articles or snip the papers, to have trash stories for the presenters to fill time between music tracks. How many "topical issues" have you heard on local radio which is based on some newspaper article (usually attributed).

It seems quite easy for me to expect tens of thousands of people paying for the online copy (saving their firm plenty) as that makes it a simpler cut and paste job (probably - depends how much copy protection is applied).

Think how many are involved in finance, economics, etc, or simply businesses where they have someone checking the papers for good / bad PR, takeovers, what competitors are doing, etc. The Times probably still has that kind of readership, all routinely funded by employers.

If this is cheaper and more convenient for the customer, it has the added advantage of making sheets of paper obsolete, saving the publishers too: no deliveries, no transport delays, fewer union members or mechanical problems to stop a print run, no 'returns' of unsold copies...

I think that unless subscription numbers are far too low and advertising revenue does not (say) quadruple, the days of the printed Times paper may be numbered.

The statistics on subscribers will show that they are more affluent, or corporate, buyers and thus better targets for high end cars and other goods, so the 'quality' of the readership will allow a hike in advertising rates, and claims that only discerning businesses advertise with them.

In the past, wasn't the Guardian a very popular paper for job adverts.. how did the Times compare ? I suppose a cut in the numbers of high earning civil servants will perhaps boost purchase of the Times, while Government departments will be lost from the job adverts across the board.

theyoungvisiter · 05/07/2010 17:03

But by and large companies still use print versions or cuttings services - which are unaffected by the change.

If they do switch to a better online version then that will actually lose The Times money. As you say - a whole department can use a single login, as oppose to half a dozen print copies.

The bottom line, though, is that most newspaper consumers are casual readers. The Times can't possibly sustain their readership based mainly on company PR depts etc.

However one big change is that The Times content will no longer be available on lexis nexis - not sure how that will pan out but it excludes The Times from a big research database. It remains to be seen whether people will choose to pay a fee on top of lexis' not inconsiderable charges in order to add The Times to their research pool. I suspect they may make do with all the other papers already on there.

catinthehat2 · 05/07/2010 17:16

LexNex v intersting point, hadn't realised that would go (!)

New posts on this thread. Refresh page