osbaldwick Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 The Times and Sunday Times newspapers have unveiled their new-look websites as they prepare to become the first in the UK to charge online readers for content. Readers who register will be able to access the websites for free until late June, after which they must pay £1 (€1.20) for the daily Times, and £2 for a week's subscription. The new websites replace the single timesonline.co.uk site for the two papers, part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. 'We're taking a big step.... In recent years information and news has been free on the Internet,' said Times Editor James Harding. 'Our feeling is that it is time to stop giving away our journalism, and that's because we feel that we are undermining the value of our journalism,' he told BBC radio. With newspaper sales in decline and advertising increasingly moving online, owners have been searching for a business model that will make profits from their websites. Mr Murdoch announced last August plans to charge for online content from all his newspapers. The Times and Sunday Times move makes them the first British titles with a paywall for all their content rather than for selected articles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pick It Down Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 The Times and Sunday Times newspapers have unveiled their new-look websites as they prepare to become the first in the UK to charge online readers for content. Readers who register will be able to access the websites for free until late June, after which they must pay £1 (€1.20) for the daily Times, and £2 for a week's subscription. The new websites replace the single timesonline.co.uk site for the two papers, part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. 'We're taking a big step.... In recent years information and news has been free on the Internet,' said Times Editor James Harding. 'Our feeling is that it is time to stop giving away our journalism, and that's because we feel that we are undermining the value of our journalism,' he told BBC radio. With newspaper sales in decline and advertising increasingly moving online, owners have been searching for a business model that will make profits from their websites. Mr Murdoch announced last August plans to charge for online content from all his newspapers. The Times and Sunday Times move makes them the first British titles with a paywall for all their content rather than for selected articles. What's the point, loads of others will still be free and you get better news/comment from forums and blog sites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samwise Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 I think that Mr Harding will find that the general level of reporting standards covers the 'value of our journalism' part. People have been getting it for free because that's just about what the reporting is worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichB Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Theres no money now in online porn, so how do they expect to get money for opinion pieces on current affairs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mega Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 The World has moved on, i NEVER buy Autocar now, just read it on line. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saving For a Space Ship Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Bart' Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 'Our feeling is that it is time to stop giving away our journalism' Shame, coz I long ago reached the conclusion that it was time for me to stop paying for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 £1 to read 80% AP/Reuters/press release junk that a Times journalist didn't write, 18% sport/weather/letters, 1.9% idiotic opinions from idiotic commentators like Anatole Kaletsky, 0.1% actual journalism where somebody who works for the Times does some digging and finds out something nobody in the wider world knew before. No thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone baby gone Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Just go to Reuters / PA. They are the source of 97% of everything that appears in the newspapers anyway. Times and Sunday Times about to become even less relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepLurker Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Currently, most websites are monetized by placing ads, and this is usually measured in terms of CPM (cost per mille; how much ad revenue you get for 1000 displays of a webpage). * How much money you can make from ads on a website is an annoyingly murky and vague subject - but I won't go far wrong if I say that £1 CPM is within the right order of magnitude. So, the typical reader of The Times is going to read - let's argue - 100 pages a week. With a subscription of £1/week, this will translate to a CPM of £10. Methinks that either 1. My estimates of CPM are way out and The Times website has been making a very tidy profit from its ads 2. They're being a tiny bit greedy with their subscriptions. * I know that this is Captain Obvious to the geeks here, but I'm writing for the other 90% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichB Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Currently, most websites are monetized by placing ads, and this is usually measured in terms of CPM (cost per mille; how much ad revenue you get for 1000 displays of a webpage). * How much money you can make from ads on a website is an annoyingly murky and vague subject - but I won't go far wrong if I say that £1 CPM is within the right order of magnitude. So, the typical reader of The Times is going to read - let's argue - 100 pages a week. This will translate to a CPM of £10. Methinks that either 1. My estimates of CPM are way out and The Times website has been making a very tidy profit from its ads 2. They're being a tiny bit greedy with their subscriptions. * I know that this is Captain Obvious to the geeks here, but I'm writing for the other 90% Surely your maths would make that 10p? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saving since 2005 Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Has anyone seen the new times website that will be behind a paywall in a month? £2 a week buys access http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kinesin Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Currently, most websites are monetized by placing ads, and this is usually measured in terms of CPM (cost per mille; how much ad revenue you get for 1000 displays of a webpage). * How much money you can make from ads on a website is an annoyingly murky and vague subject - but I won't go far wrong if I say that £1 CPM is within the right order of magnitude. So, the typical reader of The Times is going to read - let's argue - 100 pages a week. This will translate to a CPM of £10. Methinks that either 1. My estimates of CPM are way out and The Times website has been making a very tidy profit from its ads 2. They're being a tiny bit greedy with their subscriptions. * I know that this is Captain Obvious to the geeks here, but I'm writing for the other 90% IMO are been very greedy with the online subs, but the somehow WSJ is charging $18/month for their ipad app; more expensive than their print & combined online subs package at $12/month Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@contradevian Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Not sure how this will work out for them.Been playing around with Ubuntu/Chrome on my Netbook. Chrome has some handy plugins that will download RSS feeds from the Telegraph, NYT, The Indie and so on... Currently these are free feeds. So best of luck to them. It makes some of the human news feeds on here redundant! If you got a subscription that gave you online access to a range of titles/magazines then it would be worth considering. But a single title, just wouldn't be attractive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepLurker Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Surely your maths would make that 10p? Thanks for the question - I clarified my original post to make my thinking (hopefully) a bit clearer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolf Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 I like The Times website but most of the commenters are right-wing redneck Yanks. No doubt they will pay to read their sh1t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jadoube Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 'Our feeling is that it is time to stop giving away our journalism, and that's because we feel that we are undermining the value of our journalism,' he told BBC radio. For me, their "journalism" is not worth paying for. They are about to find out how many people are willing to pay to be told what Murdoch wants them to hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live Peasant Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 IIRC the Washington Post tried this a while back and dropped it. The craven attention seeking whores that are the columnists found that very quickly they became irrelevant and left out of the media discussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichB Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 Thanks for the question - I clarified my original post to make my thinking (hopefully) a bit clearer. Sorry, I think I missread your post. What you are saying is that: 1. Assume the average punter hits 100 pages a week. 2. Advertising pays £1 per 1000 page views. 3. Therefore it takes 10 punters to earn the website £1/week. Alternative model: 1. Assume a subscription model of £1/Week/Punter. 2. Therefore the same 10 punters earn the website £10/week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone baby gone Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 Sorry, I think I missread your post. What you are saying is that: 1. Assume the average punter hits 100 pages a week. 2. Advertising pays £1 per 1000 page views. 3. Therefore it takes 10 punters to earn the website £1/week. Alternative model: 1. Assume a subscription model of £1/Week/Punter. 2. Therefore the same 10 punters earn the website £10/week. Except, none of the 10 punters subscribed. They just started reading The Telegraph or The Independent instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepLurker Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 Sorry, I think I missread your post. What you are saying is that: 1. Assume the average punter hits 100 pages a week. 2. Advertising pays £1 per 1000 page views. 3. Therefore it takes 10 punters to earn the website £1/week. Alternative model: 1. Assume a subscription model of £1/Week/Punter. 2. Therefore the same 10 punters earn the website £10/week. Yes Think I need to hire you as my Communications Director Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Deflation Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 I suspect the only way of reading the online Times for free post-June will be via torrent websites. I still don't expect there'll be many takers. You don't need to be a student of Martin Lewis to know that paying two quid a week, or over a hundred pounds a year, to read information that is readily available elsewhere is a silly waste money. Don't think it'll last long, though. Online readership plummets, so online advertising revenue plummets, other papers don't follow suit, so the Times eventually becomes free again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Bart' Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 somehow WSJ is charging $18/month for their ipad app; more expensive than their print & combined online subs package at $12/month Yes, but they are selling to Apple users, who often aren't the sharpest tools in the box when it comes to spending more money than they really need to. (Dons flame retardant suit and ducks for cover.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolf Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 I reckon they'll do an FT and still allow one article to be read so long as it comes via Google. This gives a back door to read the entire site for free Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichB Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 Yes, but they are selling to Apple users, who often aren't the sharpest tools in the box when it comes to spending more money than they really need to. (Dons flame retardant suit and ducks for cover.) Coo, thats almost a decent pr0n sub... Reckon the adult services providers could get a boost out of selling syndicated news and financial advice to their punters... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.