Pay for news?

[Daggers]

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.

BBC

Would you? Is that value?

There's a wealth of online news provision out there on the net, how can News International make this work? The Sun and NOTW are to follow shortly - but that's it.

Murdoch has spectacularly failed to convince everyone else to join him (including the BBC).

If the Daily Mail or the Sport were to adopt the same policy, how much could they charge?

[lou]

Well I wont be paying thats for sure - I'll just do without

[StanSP]

Surely just get the news from other sources on the net, but from a slightly different perspective?

It won't take long for the same article to be flying around the net anyway.

[purpleronnie]

I can understand why they are doing it (they can't lose really) but there's no way I'd pay to visit a news website.

[Alexikokopops]

I can understand why they are doing it (they can't lose really) but there's no way I'd pay to visit a news website.

Surely they can though? If traffic drops considerably then so will income from the adverts around the place. If the £1/£2 fee from the lower number of people doesn't cover this then they'll lose out. Obvious I assume they've done some kind of analysis to back up their decision, but it is feasible that News International could lose more money.

[James.]

I can understand why they are doing it (they can't lose really) but there's no way I'd pay to visit a news website.

What about the potential fall in advertising revenue if the number of hits falls?

If every newspaper did it then it'd work but I'm not convinced there's enough online newspaper loyalty to prevent people just going to an equivalent free one.

[Daggers]

Murdoch is cutting a Canute-like figure, demanding the tides of change reverse - but I reckon it's beyond his companies capacity to move with it.

If the service was unique then maybe, or if it added something extra to the news. At best I see it cannibalising print sales as readers go for the cheaper option.

[dandannieldanok]

I always use BBC for both news and sports news so unless they started charging then it doesn't affect me. As you say, there are so many places you can find news, I don't really see how this is financially viable.

[Edmund]

Surely they'd be better off keeping it free and raising money via advertising.

[Monk]

People pay for the Sun and NOTW online for very different reasons than the times .

If the Times was actually doing some decent reporting right now I wouldnt mind too much I guess.

The Guardian has by far the best website of any UK newspaper, quality content and good user interaction through their commenting system. Needless to say I won't be switching to pay to read Rupert Murdoch's copy and paste jobs.

[Guest Bilo]

This one is surely doomed to failure.

There are so many news agencies online, not least the BBC and Guardian, where news can be accessed for free that Murdoch's little brainchild will never get off the ground. As Monk rightly says, the Guardian website betters anything that the Murdoch Empire has to offer anyway. Humiliating failure is just around the corner Rupert.

Rightly so too, we already live in something of a dumbed down society and creating a situation where we have to pay for news headlines can only exacerbate the situation. The only thing this is likely to achieve is extra traffic to rival newspaper websites as most understand that free and easy access mean that advertisers will remain interested. Why do you think Facebook and Google will never charge? The loss of advertising revenue would be disastrous. From a purely biased point of view on my point, Murdoch suffering a decline in political influence can't be a bad thing.

[Jon the Hat]

This is why the BBC should not be writing online news. Video and radio yes, the written word no.

There is no reason really why this should be free. Will be interesting to see the results.

I personally value well written well sourced reporting, and would pay for it if necessary. I detest the approach to reporting which involves getting the ill informed and uneducated opinions of viewers and listeners and putting then out there like they somehow have something to add. If I want to read differing opinions I can find them in the blogosphere.

[Daggers]

The Guardian has by far the best website of any UK newspaper, quality content

I paid for the iPhone Grauniad app as it actually adds something. The Times and Telegraph just rehash the news wires and offer little else.

[samjohnson]

Ill keep with my good friend the BBC for news and sport

TBH... that story is just as good as robbery :l Theiving gits!

I bet Alistair Darling has something behind it :l

[BoneDog]

I can't wait for this to take effect. I will gladly pay £10 a week to read propaganda, bullshite and spin!

I think the whole internet will turn into a big corporation soon and alot of the free speech will be taken offline. I read a report not long ago that showed the plans for regulating the web in the next couple of years. Unfortunately I can't remember where I read it. Too much greenalina

[ozleicester]

Uncle Rupert has been putting this plan forward for a couple of years now, he has the New York Times which is within a paywall and there will be moany others soon.

Unfortunately he is living in the past, treating the internet much like an old newspaper delivery in that, you pay me $x and ill give you a paper. Times have changed and Rupert hasnt kept up.

In regard to the advertising $, the amount raised from internet "display" advertising is negligible, and the incredible reduction in readership means the "rivers of gold" that was advertising dollars are rapidly coming to an end.

On the down side, the less that the papers earn.. the less quality journalism we will see, and our airwaves and tubes will be filled with mindless drivel supplied by blind freddy of clacton. (or ozleicester of perth)

Of course the current journalists arent any great shakes either, however there are still a few who produce interesting and quality reporting, they will be put behind the paywall and less of us will get to read their quality work.

Until someone figures out how to make money from the internet, we are going to see many different attempts, but im confident this one will fail... we could we be witnessing the demise of the huge conglomerate that is/was News Ltd.

[Monk]

The problem the times has is that its content is shite. Even the sports paper is a shadow if its former self.

Fix the content, and perhaps you might get enough hits to drive through some decent ad revenue. The plan Murdoch has come up with is suicide though.

[hairy]

Rupert will now no doubt put all his political might against the BBC again. The might that has seen the BBC look to cut some digital services already and a suggested much reuced BBC website. But if we pay for the BBC service why should we not receive what we have come to expect? Rupert says its anti competition so only time will tell.