+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Will The Times paywall work?

  1. #1
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default Will The Times paywall work?

    In the UK, the Times newspaper has thrown a paywall around its online presence. If you want to read any of its articles of comment pieces, you need to subscribe. You can visit the front page, but if you click on any of the links it takes you to a subscription page.

    Now the amount may be small, £1 per 24 hours, or £2 for a week subscription, but it is already enough to reduce their traffic by over 60% and a lot of those people have gone to other sites for their news.

    Was this a wise move by the Times?

    If they keep just 10% of their reader base, who are willing to pay a subscription, then they will make a tidy profit. Will we see other major news organisations following along having been shown they can make a profit on it.

    Or are there too many bloggers and free sources of news to make this worthless?
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  2. #2
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    So much free news out there now that I do not think a general Newspaper could get even 10% of their readership to pay for online news. It seems like it should fail but then advertising is not paying the way either so they might simply be getting desperate.

    Pay Sites need to be fairly specific and somewhat special. Is the London Times that special? I'm guessing not. The Wall Street Journal would be my bet for pulling this off of any print newspaper I could think of.

  3. #3
    Oliphaunt The Original An Gadaí's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    90% FAIL but there's a vague sense in me that people value that which they pay for more than that which they don't. Perhaps the Times can prove its value above and beyond free news providers.

  4. #4
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    978 land
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    The New York Times tried this for a while then made everything free. I believe though they are also re-examining it, maybe charging for only some content.

  5. #5
    Oliphaunt Rube E. Tewesday's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    7,743

    Default

    I dunno if it will work or not -- the old media are having a lot of trouble figuring out a model that will work in Net world.

    However, here's an interesting article from "The Atlantic" about how Google, of all companies, is trying to help newspapers be profitable.

  6. #6
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    One paper that has made a success of it is the Financial Times, which has the majority of its news behind a paywall.

    But then it does deal in a slightly more specialised area with not as much of the general news.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  7. #7
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by CatInASuit View post
    One paper that has made a success of it is the Financial Times, which has the majority of its news behind a paywall.

    But then it does deal in a slightly more specialised area with not as much of the general news.
    Well that follows why I think the Wall Street Journal could do this. Same basic core content and level of trust.

  8. #8
    Elephant Feirefiz's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    802

    Default

    I don't think it will work unless essentially all the direct competitors are on board. The difference between free and even a small fee is very noticeable to the reader. In addition to that it is very difficult to create much loyalty in such a market where people are used to mixing outlets freely. In the print market the redundancy between nationwide general broadsheets doesn't hurt so much because people effectively choose one or at best a small number. Online it means that what sets one paper apart may very well not be enough to justify a subscription.

    The situation may be different with the various mobile devices. There paying for content is more accepted. Actually I wouldn't be all that surprised if the Times accepted that they won't make real money from desktop users for the foreseeable future and focused on that market instead.

  9. #9
    Oliphaunt Rube E. Tewesday's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    7,743

    Default

    Fiz has a good point. The app model, where payment for content is expected, is starting to create a distinct shift from the browser model, where free was the default. It will be interesting to see where it shakes out.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default

    I hope they can make it work. I really want traditional journalism not to die.

    I wish micropayments had taken off. There's a bigger barrier when you have to pull out your credit card and fill out a form. Maybe if a bunch of media outlets set up a single system where you can have an account somewhere and just click to pay a buck or so on any of the participating websites to gain access for the day/week/whatever, it might make it go down easier. I mean, I wouldn't hesitate to pay for a newspaper if I happened by a newspaper machine and there was something I wanted to read, but I do hesitate if I have to go through a bunch of rigamarole in order to pay.

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts