Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
would you pay to read online news?
I pay for a newspaper because I can't read a computer on the bus/train to work.
I wouldn't pay to read a story online, at all.
if it ever came to be, i would illegally download my news instead. would make current affairs more exciting at least.
not online news
*waves goodbye to Murdoch*
*gives him a massive kick up the arse on the way*
how much is the Sun? about 30p? he won't be able to charge very much for the online version.
probably because it had "JADE SPOKE TO ME FROM THE DEAD SAYS MUM"
you pay like, very little for a physical newspaper, and I imagine some of that money goes into manufacturing costs etc. Plus it has to be resold at newsagents and things right? For that money you also get access to loads of news stories. I don't generally read as much news on the internet as I would in the newspaper so the charges would have to be sub pence for me to even consider it. Which I wouldn't anyway.
just put the radio on, right?
'In order to stop readers from moving to the huge number of free news websites, Mr Murdoch said News Corp would simply make its content "better and differentiate it from other people".'
No-one told me Murdoch was a comedian.
Also, I don't really see how this is going to work in a country where there exists a news organisation that is obligated to provide a news service on the internet and everywhere else for free.
In America, well... if people can't get Fox News for free, I don't know what they'll do...
If you mean the BBC, then that's a long way from free.
So as a comparison with this, it is.
What are you, a wise guy?
Okay, we all do pay for the services that the BBC provides. However, the bbc.co.uk site is free at the point-of-use: Anyone can access it for free, regardless of whether you've paid your license or not - that's what I meant.
I read it all the time. But if that's available "for free", then why would pay for other forms of news? You wouldn't. So how do other papers and websites make money? They can't. So they disappear - leaving only the BBC. And I'm not going to start making stupid comparisons about state-controlled news and Stalinist Russia etc etc - the BBC on the whole is an excellent news provider. But I don't want it to be the only one. So I undertand Murdoch looking for ways to provide revenue - and pay-for sites have worked in certain situations (Wall Street Journal, FT etc).
There is the Google way - directed advertising. Lots of companies (including DiS) appear to be doing alright out of this... for now. And then there's the knowledge that a website sufficiently popular with its users may well be able to solicit donations or other forms of support - see Wikipedia.
What's different here to the story that was out about this a month or two ago?
Newspapers should stop sulking too.
If people have been indoctrinated into seeing no problem at all shelling out 10p for every text message, 50% of which say 'lol c u l8r babez', then paying a small amount of money to keep newspapers alive shouldn't be that much of a stretch.
I love newspapers and all the history of it and find it quite sad to see some if the oldest either shutting up shop or on the verge, so me personally, I wouldn't mind paying, say £4 a month for all BBC stuff or whetever. You can complain all you want about dumbing down and the lack of quality writers, but if the revenue ain't there it's not likely to get better any time soon. Web advertising is not close to being the cash cow print and classifieds were.
I think the main problem is making it a simple process. I hate even having to even log into sites, so making an arrangement to pay would drive me spare. Even a system where you paid in fractional amounts per story read - like 0.25p per story - via an account and got a bill for it at the end of the month, for certain sites I think in theory I could support that.
A few quid a month seems perfectly reasonable.
Can only see this backfiring and seeing the Telegraph/Independent/Mail and to an extent the Guardian (I say to an extent because I am unsure how many Times readers also read the Guardian, I read the Times and Guardian but I imagine more people read Times/Telegraph or something like that, although this may well be utter bollocks and is based entirely on my family's newspaper habits) website and ad hits going up whilst NewsCorp loses out big time. And the BBC News site will get even more hits.
I'm not sure how it's all sustainable as it is, but then I can't see many people agreeing to pay either. I think The Guardian makes a big loss, is supported by Auto Trader money and can't last on its advert income for its online stuff.
The future looks pretty bleak for newspapers and their online coverage, unless people start accepting they will have to pay for stuff, which I think they will when there are no other options. At the moment it seems unpalatable because there are other options out there.