Times and Sunday Times websites to charge from June

[4me2]

Times and Sunday Times websites to charge from June



Rebekah Brooks says the decision to charge comes at a 'defining moment'


The Times and Sunday Times newspapers will start charging to access their websites in June, owner News International (NI) has announced.

Users will pay £1 for a day's access and £2 for a week's subscription.
The move opens a new front in the battle for readership and will be watched closely by the industry.
NI chief executive Rebekah Brooks said it was "a crucial step towards making the business of news an economically exciting proposition".
Both titles will launch new websites in early May, separating their digital presence for the first time and replacing the existing, combined site, Times Online.
The two new sites will be available for a free trial period to registered customers. And payment will give customers access to both sites.
With newspaper sales in decline, companies have been searching for a business model that will make money from their websites.
But with so much news content available for free on the internet, NI's decision to charge is seen by many people as a high risk strategy.
Ms Brooks said the decision to charge came "at a defining moment for journalism... We are proud of our journalism and unashamed to say that we believe it has value.
"This is just the start. The Times and The Sunday Times are the first of our four titles in the UK to move to this new approach. We will continue to develop our digital products and to invest and innovate for our customers."



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8588432.stm

[Ginnerfreak]

They must be hoping that the rest of the industry follows suit. If not then they will be isolated and avoided by the on-line news reading masses. Why would you pay £1 to read the same news thats free on many other sources.

This must be a strategic move away from the web as a medium for revenue growth. Are they really hoping that the web doesn't catch on??

[super mike]

Users will pay £1 for a day's access and £2 for a week's subscription.

Somehow I don't think they will.

[Freddy]

Disagree. I'm sure you guys are happy with dog bites child 'news' stories and hold DF as your news provider. Some of us want descent content written by sensible journalists. That has to be paid for. Have you guys been stealing newspapers all these years or paying for them?

It's no coincidence that the iPad is launching shortly.

Bring it on. This is welcomed in my eyes. If it is not for you then fair enough but only an idiot would dismiss it.

[bobo06]

Well I work for a big media group in belfast I had to go to this big meeting last September and this topic came up. The company I work for is going to start charging for access to there site I don't know when but they are doing it. The Internet news is killing the newspaper that's why IMO big media groups will all follow suit. And if this keeps me in my job then so be it. I to would support this to. Well rant over I've got 120,000 papers to print

[flumperino]

I'll stick with BBC News, thank you!

[Ginnerfreak]

Disagree. I'm sure you guys are happy with dog bites child 'news' stories and hold DF as your news provider. Some of us want descent content written by sensible journalists.

Clearly we are not your intellectual equals Sir.. I don't know how you can be sure about what I, and other df subscribers are happy with Freddy...

I believe that there are many quality news providers on the web who manage to pay "sensible" journalists a fair wage by using advertising for revenue.

Also, do all intellectuals hang out in C*ntsville?

[StephenDon24]

Problem is other media providers will never charge. BBC (esp given their charter), Sky, CNN etc - those whose major platform is TV/Radio. Interent news is definitely having a negative effect on printed media sales but for the aforementioned digital media companies its no threat so why would they charge? Its win win for them.

[CeeJay]

This reminds me a little of the way that the music industry tried to deal with file sharing. It was clear to the majority of consumers that their business models were totally out of date virtually over night and it took them years before they took their blinkers off and got around to dealing with it.

If i can get the same information elsewhere for free then thats what i'll do. Simple as that.

OK, i aknowledge that some of the articles that these traditional newspapers print may not be available anywhere else and are worthwhile reading so i would consider paying for these but i need to know they are there in the first place. To have a "closed" website where i have to pay to read everything is just not the way to do it. How on earth are these newspapers going to attract new customers to their websites when they don't know what they are missing?

They should follow the lead of other types of websites and have a mixture of both free and paid for content. Breaking news should be free, end of. Then maybe have special articles and extra features available to subscribers. Maybe have all articles free but unless you subscribe you don't get to see photos, videos. More adverts for non subscribers etc. The list of possibilities is pretty much endless.

This is going to be a case study for the whole of the industry and is going to be watched very closely and could lay the foundations for a model that is practical and good for everyone. But, from what i've read its looking destined to be a complete fookup.

[yankee]

People will pay for this.. The Times covers topics that other papers don't in such detail e.g. science. And as Freddy said, some people want to read articles by decent journalists. Whilst this might not affect the majority of the population, I can't see their readership being too affected.

[SiE]

the papers are doing badly at the moment as people are experiencing enough doom and gloom in their own lives without having to pay to read about a load more depressing news.

Its the goverments fault like everything else at the moment

[MsDG]

Whooooooa there horsey...

There is no doubt that the Times newspaper is a quality newspaper, however their website?
It just covers stories in the shit, brief way that every other news website does!

Who the fuck would pay a £1 a day for that?

[CeeJay]

they are going to make two seperate brand new websites (one for the times and one for the sunday times) supposidly before they start charging. they are set to come online in May and be trialled for a month before people have to pay.

[BBK]

Personally I think £1 for a day is a little too steep for people to pay on a regular basis, so I would expect them to have more weekly subscribers, but thats probably more their core market. £1 - well, I'd rather buy the paper tbh, I don't know about the rest of you, but I still prefer to read from something in my hand. Maybe the iPad will change that, I don't know, will be interesting to see. I find it easier to read ebooks on my iPhone using that "Classics" app when I go away than cart books, so there's definitely something in that. Maybe the Times will be absolutely ground breaking - personally I think it will fail, but if you think about their model, any money is better than no money, and as more people are dropping print for screen, it certainly makes a lot of sense.

[Possy_99]

will be cool to see them fail, trying to tell us we need to pay for news when even nowerdays when itunes is 'a success' billions of people still use filesharing to get their music..

it's not like anyone has to break the law to avoid paying.. all they have to do is turn their tv on.. you can't tell me the likes of sky and bbc aren't up to par with the times' reporting.

I don't read newspapers much (maybe metro if I use public transport) but faced with the choice I'd rather pay less for it in print, then that way if I loose it I wouldn't really care, if sunlight happens to fall on it I can still read it.. etc etc..

..I remember not so long ago when breaking news came from scoial networks.. did the news companies have to pay for that?

£1 per day.. they're having a laugh.. what are the costs envolved in printing god knows how many papers and shipping a vast majority all over the country.. they'd be saving that cost if it were all online.. do we see a saving.. do we fcuk.. RIP OFF, therefore they deserve to fall flat on their faces.

..think of all the paperboys put out of work while the high-living city folk only get richer..

[TwoPlAnKs]

Expensive printed media is being killed by free news online, so they start charging for their online stuff too? Good thing there aren't any other news websites or that would be totally fucking stupid.

A group of journalists in Scotland who have been made redundant by one of the newspapers here are banding together to start up a low-expenses online-only news service, written by professionals and supported by adverts. That is clearly the future.

The iPad will make fuck all difference too, one of the many many failings with it is that it doesn't have an eInk screen. Am I fuck sitting and looking at the glaring screen on a massive iPhone to read the news when my own normal sized phone can do that for free anyway, and from the BBC.

I've tried many newspapers over the years, and although the Independent is OK, I thought it was a bit boring because it only really reported the actual news and not loads of bollocks. It avoided being neutral or balanced by just missing out stuff instead of lying about it. Other papers, especially the Times and co. just seem to lie. The BBC website is by far the best newspaper there is imo.

[super mike]

Bring it on. This is welcomed in my eyes. If it is not for you then fair enough but only an idiot would dismiss it.

I have to disagree, whilst I would much rather read The Times than most other sources I refuse to pay a ton a year for the privilege (when it has been free for several years). I imagine a lot of people will be the same, especially whilst there are many other free news sources.

If it does take off, then it will spread like wildfire I imagine and all the other mainstream, large news websites (bar BBC) will start charging. This is one of the reasons I really hope it doesn't take off, whilst the smaller non-biased news sources will be free, the quality of the writing will be (arguably) worse, especially with the 'opinion' columns and likewise.

[Sanj[UK]]

The iPad will make fuck all difference too, one of the many many failings with it is that it doesn't have an eInk screen.

I brought up this argument so many times lol, there's a reason why e-readers are still slightly expensive...lets see how many people burn out their retinas once this maxipad is out

[Freddy]

I have to disagree, whilst I would much rather read The Times than most other sources I refuse to pay a ton a year for the privilege (when it has been free for several years). I imagine a lot of people will be the same, especially whilst there are many other free news sources.

If it does take off, then it will spread like wildfire I imagine and all the other mainstream, large news websites (bar BBC) will start charging. This is one of the reasons I really hope it doesn't take off, whilst the smaller non-biased news sources will be free, the quality of the writing will be (arguably) worse, especially with the 'opinion' columns and likewise.

Investigative journalism costs money to produce, hence paying for it makes sense to me. I think once this takes off and lawsuits start flying to stamp down online plagiarism then free content will be reduced to hearsay and conjecture.

Of course we'll always have a great service from the BBC but we pay them a sub anyway. It's about choice and something I feel should be welcomed.

The Sun readership will dismiss this. Why wouldn't they? They can get their fill of gossip and bullshit from the web for free. They are hardly going to pay for digital subs just to see Mandy, 21 from London posing with hard nipples when they can download Horse Fisting vol. 1-7 whilst giggling at a cat playing the piano on YouTube.

[ZX7R]

I'm prepared to pay for decent online news that isn't owned by Murdoch. £1 quid per day takes the piss. I'd prefer to see something like 20 to 25 quid per year. What I don't want is to pay AND put up with fucking adverts on the site, including the bastard annoying 20 second video adverts you have to watch before getting to the main footage/story. Bunch. Of. Arse.

The iPhone Guardian app is great and I had no issue paying up for that.

I want to see Murdoch fail.