TheBoySaunders.com

“Can we change the world? No, but hell, we can all try.”

The Times and the Sunday Times websites moving to a pay model?

Good excuse to remove the Times from my daily news rotation. I don’t believe for a second that anyone even remotely tech-savvy under 30 would pay for content they can receive for free elsewhere.

Countdown to Murdoch’s humiliating climbdown in 5…4…3…

This entry was posted on Friday, March 26th, 2010 at 12:17 pm and is filed under Media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

5 Responses to ““Can we change the world? No, but hell, we can all try.””

JC Says:
March 26th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
I can see this going one of two ways.

1) It will be flagged up as a ridiculous move. OK the Times is a respected publication and has a good name behind it, personally I think it shows a continuing slide towards a slightly more intellectual version of The Sun but there you go, and is well respected across the globe. However there are plenty of other organisations that can offer similar claims, the BBC off the top of my head, and they’re for free. As such it will last about 6-12 months the Times websites will lose revenue on advertising and traffic will drop,

2) It will be a case of someone had to be the first and we’ll see a domino effect. Newspapers must of taken a massive hit with more and more people going online for their news. As you say why would anyone pay for what they can get for free? It’s possible more and more quality newspapers will follow suit and in the end you’ll end up with the same situation with the only free information being from less reputable sources.

Personally from Murdoch’s point of view I reckon it’s worth a punt as worse case scenario he loses a little bit from the advertisers best case he can build some major income. However I agree with you I can’t believe that it’s going to end up any other way than the climb down. Certainly in this country where the BBC will never convert to a paid for site.
SisterSaunders Says:
April 8th, 2010 at 8:22 am
Agreed. I have stopped visiting The Times website already after hearing that ridiculous news. Their website was crap anyway, although it is getting a revamp for when the charges come in.

I’m happy with my other free news sources. I agree that whilst we still pay a license fee (not sure what I think about that one) the BBC will remain a good quality free news site. And even if not, the internet masses will always find a way to circulate news stories for free even if all sites were to become paid!

Goodbye Rupert, I won’t be missing you.
JC Says:
April 13th, 2010 at 9:15 am
Having had a look at it they seem to be selling it as offering extra services such as being able to ask journalists extra questions.
Phil Saunders Says:
April 14th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
That might be how they’re advertising it, but they’re removing all free content from June.

Personally, I’m already phasing out the Times website from my rotation. The Guardian, The Independent, The Huffington Post and The Mail (yes, the Mail, but only when read in conjunction with Tabloid Watch) are perfectly adequate.
JC Says:
November 2nd, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Looks like the numbers have tumbled

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11671984

Down from 21 million to 2.7 million people who have been to their front page and only 100,000 subscriptions. Of course there is an argument that it’s an increase of 100,000 people who actually give the Times any money…..

“Can we change the world? No, but hell, we can all try.”

5 Responses to ““Can we change the world? No, but hell, we can all try.””

Leave a Reply