Leicestershire live £2:99 per month.

[davieG]

On a PC with Adblock 

[PhillippaT]

10 hours ago, davieG said:

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

Same here - I feel like I still need to 'stay in the loop' a bit with Leicester(shire) in general, and it helps with that. 

[Tommy G]

Better off lobbing 3 quid out your bedroom window, its naff

[Babylon]

6 hours ago, Footballwipe said:

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.

It's as good as already gone, the model needed to change a long time ago. In it's current state Leicestershire Live is a joke and I doubt anyone is paying any money for that click bait trash. 

 

I'd like to think a more modern version will eventually take it's place somehow. 

[Foxmeister]

6 hours ago, Footballwipe said:

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.

It's not so long since The Mercury was the go to place for all LCFC news. Who pays journalist's wages, other than advertisers, if no one will stump up 10p a day to keep abreast of local news?

[dynamark]

Cmon its hardly news is it. All the transfer stuff stuff last month was utter tripe.

[Groby_Blue]

I prefer to use the spotted pages on Facebook for all the local news I need. 

 

It's excellent for finding out who's dog is shitting on number 38's drive and which slag is banging Shazza's hubby while she's doing a shift down the hairdressers. 

[dynamark]

Latest scoop Jamie Vardy age 37 has 10 goals for Leicester and wants to continue as long as possible.Whoever would have thought ?

[BertFill]

6 hours ago, PhillippaT said:

I feel like I still need to 'stay in the loop' a bit with Leicester(shire) in general, and it helps with that. 

BBC has a Leicester news section. Their website's much less annoying (yes, I know that's a pretty low bar!).

 

And Radio Leicester's on BBC sounds, except when there's a City match on.

[Free Falling Foxes]

I can honestly say I wouldn't view Leicestershire Live if they paid me £2.99 per month.

[Golden Fox]

20 hours ago, Jonaldinho said:

I’m biased as I worked as a journalist but £2.99 isn’t too bad

 

18 hours ago, Wymsey said:

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

I pay £1 a month for The Athletic. Been that rate for over a year and they haven't caught up with me yet...

 

So £3 a month seems high for this in comparison, considering the quality. 

 

I do enjoy The Athletic, but mainly for the 49ers and Giants NFL/MLB stuff. For Leicester, Rob usually posts once a week or so with a different take on a story connected to the game. Its usually a good article, but given that volume, I wouldn't recommend subscribing from a purely Leicester City perspective. 

[iancognito]

The Mercury is best summed up by the fact all it's top writers over the years have ended up elsewhere from Richard Broadbent to James Sharpe and obviously Rob Tanner. Blackwell will end up doing the same.

 

It's become an increasingly lame publication over the years and putting it behind a paywall when there are free sources out there is just out of touch short-sightedness. It hasn't worked for a majority of the national press that have tried it so the local version has no chance.

[Chrysalis]

Half of it is articles that are national but put on the website as filler.

Half of the rest is trash articles, probably also as filler.

 

If they want money, they need to become proper journalists.

[Nod.E]

Reach websites take it to the extreme, so I do understand the anti ad perspective in this context. Reach do a really poor job of following the IAB's LEAN initiative. Especially on the 'N' (non intrusive) element.

 

However, generally speaking, you either accept that the content is monetised by ads, or pay to access it. 

 

The entitlement to expect quality, free content is as galling as it is disappointing.

 

If nobody pays subscription costs and if there are no ads, guess what? The content goes away.

 

People don't like advertising as a rule, I get that, but if they like and want free content, they have a vested interest in good advertising that works.

 

As far as I'm concerned, let Reach fail and hopefully the fallout is an industry that demands better advertising standards.

 

Yes I work in advertising, yes I'm the devil yada yada, and I'm not just saying it because I'm in the industry (there are many, many things wrong with it - I wouldn't go so far as to champion the industry), but the free internet doesn't work without it. Many businesses don't either.

 

While we're at it, consent pop-ups are more annoying than 95% of ad experiences I encounter, and the data used is non personally identifiable anyway. What's wrong with receiving ads more relevant to you? Bonkers.

[ozleicester]

1 hour ago, Nod.E said:

Reach websites take it to the extreme, so I do understand the anti ad perspective in this context. Reach do a really poor job of following the IAB's LEAN initiative. Especially on the 'N' (non intrusive) element.

 

However, generally speaking, you either accept that the content is monetised by ads, or pay to access it. 

 

The entitlement to expect quality, free content is as galling as it is disappointing.

 

If nobody pays subscription costs and if there are no ads, guess what? The content goes away.

 

People don't like advertising as a rule, I get that, but if they like and want free content, they have a vested interest in good advertising that works.

 

As far as I'm concerned, let Reach fail and hopefully the fallout is an industry that demands better advertising standards.

 

Yes I work in advertising, yes I'm the devil yada yada, and I'm not just saying it because I'm in the industry (there are many, many things wrong with it - I wouldn't go so far as to champion the industry), but the free internet doesn't work without it. Many businesses don't either.

 

While we're at it, consent pop-ups are more annoying than 95% of ad experiences I encounter, and the data used is non personally identifiable anyway. What's wrong with receiving ads more relevant to you? Bonkers.

Advertising has always been the backbone of the news paper industry.. the old classified "rivers of gold" backed up by general news advertising. However the media barons misread the internet I was working for News Ltd in the 90s-2000s and the bosses chose to ignore the threat and therefore lost their position and power.

"In my day" the general news pages had to have 75%  (good) editorial with the % dropping the further back you went until you got to sport and it went back up, this meant the advertising was valuable as it was limited and also because it was surrounded by strong editorial... it had a better chance of being read and thereby being "successful". Modern papers and websites have weak editorial and massive overpublication of ads... therefore, no readers, ads dont work = low revenue for ads = more ads needed to meet budget = less readers and the everdecreasing circle.

The only people who read newspapers now are boomers and they (eventually) are a dying market. Unless the owners come up with a real altrernative the death of newspapers is already here.

The current advertising model online fails becuase they havent worked out how to adequately monetise ads without them damaging the really important editorials.

The fact that they now sell "editorial" has destroyed trust and the next generations will never fall for it. There used to be a very strong wall between Advertising and Editorial (in my workplace.. there was a literal double brick wall between them) now they work together and that makes editorial weak, unreliable and untrusted... and people only come to the paper/site for the editorial.

A new business/model is required, but until the existing barons are dead... that wont have room to come through.

 

[Mike Oxlong]

On 06/02/2024 at 20:13, 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)..

Is that on the OnlyLeicesterFans website where you sit still in front of a webcam for 80/85 minutes and then get up and walk out of the room ? 

[FLAN]

Nice click bait article posted on twitter about cannon not named in 25 man squad 

[Gazza3]

Headline about Tom Cannon not in our squad and then it turns out it's a complete non story. Why bother 

I really can't see anyone paying for this 

[Buzzard]

This speaks for itself. Absolute mess.

[boots60]

Leicestershire live is brilliant.

Instead of wasting valuable time trawling the Internet for Leicester City related rumors this site will cut & paste & do it all for me.

I like the adverts too, as how else would I know what to buy?

 

[An Away Move]

On 06/02/2024 at 20:38, Jonaldinho said:

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. 
 

 

Appreciate where you are coming from, but I feel like it’s gone too far already. A friend of mine is a prominent magazine editor. She was made redundant and the sales/advertising department become responsible for overseeing content., I.e., get rid of the people who write better content and put their job in the hands of the revenue people. It’s a joke. The Mercury / Leicestershire Live is a shadow of what it was. I wouldn’t want to pay for it now as it’s mostly click bait (to drive sales via advertising). 

[Danizen]

 

Sneakily trying to hoover up all that 'Kate Missing' web traffic. 

 

There's literally no other reason to word it like that...or report it at all.

[Chico1958]

I'll stick to LCFC NewsNow Ta

[Wymsey]

I would consider paying it; but only if they produce 100% local and necessary stories, as well as no adverts.

Edited 12 March by Wymsey