Leicestershire live £2:99 per month.

[foxgas]

I usually use LL to check in on City articles. Now they are attempting to charge me £2:99 per month if I view over twenty articles a week. I don't think I will be bothering, mostly false news anyway re transfers etc. Other than FT are there any decent free websites out there.

[Wymsey]

I'm willing to pay for high-quality content, but many articles they produce are hardly that..

 

Some of the news on there isn't news, such as 'Look how this person makes £10,000 a month from home' (for example)..

Edited 6 February by Wymsey

[Foxmeister]

19 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

I'm willing to pay for high-quality content, but many articles they produce are hardly that..

 

Some of the news on there isn't news, such as 'Look how this person makes £10,000 a month from home' (for example)..

Sounds good, have you got a link?

[Bert]

Half of the drivel they push out has a very misleading title and very little relevance to the current goings on at the club. 

[mod hero]

Just now, Bert said:

Half of the drivel they push out has a very misleading title and very little relevance to the current goings on at the club. 

Jordan Blackwell writes some half decent stuff, the rest is absolute nonsense.

[Jonaldinho]

22 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

I'm willing to pay for high-quality content, but many articles they produce are hardly that..

 

Some of the news on there isn't news, such as 'Look how this person makes £10,000 a month from home' (for example)..

It is click bait in order to drive readers to the website, thus increasing revenue from ads. A paywall, in theory, will reduce that as the income will be coming from subscribers and the journalists will have more opportunity to focus on actual news, which is what the subscribers are paying for. 
 

I’m biased as I worked as a journalist but £2.99 isn’t too bad - I recently subscribed for around a fiver a month for my local paper. The fact is that local news will die out unless more people are prepared to pay for it. 
 

 

[Jonaldinho]

I’ll add that the journalists are well aware when they are pushing out tosh but it’s usually pressure from above to get more clicks, which again equates to more revenue. 

[SecretPro]

Absolute shitrag 

[Adster]

14 minutes ago, Bert said:

Half of the drivel they push out has a very misleading title and very little relevance to the current goings on at the club. 

The headline titles are the worst ****ing part. 

 

They join two unrelated stories together with a title that contains the word "as" and think it's acceptable. The website is a ****ing mess with ads too. 

 

Avoid at all costs. 

[orangecity23]

Slightly worried that the higher ups at Reach PLC might not understand the things people are saying in this thread, so I've taken the liberty of translating things into their native language (ShitHeadLineIsh) so they can understand:

 

"Not Paying" - Leicester Mercury sent financial message as readers react to shock news

 

"Broke Soon" - Reach PLC sent shocking prediction following pricing bombshell

 

Leicester residents Subscription stance revealed as Reach PLC make decision:

[djskydiver]

Haven't gone anywhere near their site since it was Leicester Mercury, absolute trash website with the amount of ad's they inject on to the page.

[RonnieTodger]

Feel safer on pornhub than the Mercury’s website

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, Wymsey said:

I'm willing to pay for high-quality content, but many articles they produce are hardly that..

 

Some of the news on there isn't news, such as 'Look how this person makes £10,000 a month from home' (for example)..

But if you're earning £10k a month then £2.99 is nothing!

[Vacamion]

 

The website reminds me of the dirtier football streams:

 

All I want to find is football, and all I get is a massive load of arse, popping up and obscuring the thing I am looking for.

 

 

[jammie82uk]

57 minutes ago, Jonaldinho said:

I’ll add that the journalists are well aware when they are pushing out tosh but it’s usually pressure from above to get more clicks, which again equates to more revenue. 

The non-tosh articles are not much better as they are often littered with typos, also the poor souls must not have access to google maps as the local area and road names are regularly wrong 

[HybridFox]

1 hour ago, Wymsey said:

I'm willing to pay for high-quality content, but many articles they produce are hardly that..

 

Some of the news on there isn't news, such as 'Look how this person makes £10,000 a month from home' (for example)..

 

[Collymore]

Foxestalk is the best place to find anything out Leicester City.

 

Anything half true will come on here and then we all decide if it's worth the energy or not as the threads sink or float. 

 

 

[Voll Blau]

2 hours ago, foxgas said:

I usually use LL to check in on City articles. Now they are attempting to charge me £2:99 per month if I view over twenty articles a week. I don't think I will be bothering, mostly false news anyway re transfers etc. Other than FT are there any decent free websites out there.

Weird to read more than 20 articles a week of stuff you consider false news.

 

If you want good journalism, it needs paying for somehow...

[Wymsey]

What's 'The Athletic' like, as a subscription-based sports outlet?

[NYC Fox Fan]

2 hours ago, foxgas said:

I usually use LL to check in on City articles. Now they are attempting to charge me £2:99 per month if I view over twenty articles a week. I don't think I will be bothering, mostly false news anyway re transfers etc. Other than FT are there any decent free websites out there.

Foxes of Leicester is alright

[Leeds Fox]

2 hours ago, Foxmeister said:

Sounds good, have you got a link?

Start selling fake news articles online for £2.99 a month. Easy money 

[davieG]

I view it on my pc with Adblock and it’s perfectly readable obviously can’t say the same about all the contents and it’s best to ignore the titles. 
 

As @mod herosaid Jordan Blackwell writes some decent stuff

[ozleicester]

Fvck em... didnt give me a job there coz i was overqualified.. had to go and work for the Sheffield Star instead

[Footballwipe]

People in 10 years time.

 

"Did you see the council do that ridiculous thing?"

 

"No?"

 

"Yeah it happened like three weeks ago, a mate has just told me he read a 340 page council report on their website."

 

"Oh, no, I didn't hear, there was no coverage anywhere." 

 

"Well everyone trashed local journalism to the point it was no longer financially viable and we got rid of the BBC so there's literally no scrutiny on local democracy anymore because big media doesn't give a shit about it"

 

"Oh. Well I still hate Peter Soulsby anyway lol."

 

Leicestershire Live and Reach are not perfect. They absolutely are not. But careful what tf you wish for because when it's gone it ain't coming back. When you don't hear about local court trials, local issues, council decisions and council scrutinising, you'll whine and whine and whine about it but no-one gave a damn when local journalism was dying.

 

The reason LL is so crap now is because it has to cater to the lowest common denominator. It's been brow beaten for years. If people did actually pay for it in decent numbers it might be able to sustain itself, change its model and cater better to local people for local issues. Instead it gets castigated for trying to get some more money in the coffers whilst it tries to fight its seemingly inevitable demise.

[Grebfromgrebland]

If your want actual local news by actual journalists then this is the place to go....

 

https://www.greatcentralgazette.org/

 

 

Edited 7 February by Grebfromgrebland