Posted on 03/27/2010 12:22:33 AM PDT by bruinbirdman
Murdoch has decided to block the 20m online readers of The Times from accessing the paper free of charge on the internet.
From June, anyone wanting to read The Times or The Sunday Times online will have to pay £1 a day or £2 a week for the privilege. Those who subscribe to the printed edition will be able to access the paper’s planned thetimes.co.uk and thesundaytimes.co.uk websites as part of their subscription.
Analysts warned that The Times risks losing “almost all” of its online readers when it erects the so-called “pay walls”.
Rebekah Brooks, a former editor of The Sun and chief executive of News International, the British subsidiary of Mr Murdoch’s News Corp, said the move was a “crucial step towards making the business of news an economically exciting proposition”. She said The Sun and The News of the World, News International’s two other British newspapers, will also introduce charging for online access.
Mr Murdoch, who has accused Google of “stealing” his newspapers’ stories and revenue, plans to introduce online charges for all of his newspapers.
James Harding, editor of The Times, agreed that the paper is “going to lose a lot of passing traffic”, but said charging is “less of a risk than just throwing away our journalism and giving it away for free”.
Claire Enders, head of Enders Analysis, said Mr Murdoch is living in “dreamland” if he believes many Times readers will pay for access. “They may get 100,000 regular readers to sign up, but it’s not going to be millions, and it’s going to take years,” she said.
Times Online, the newspapers’ current website, had 20.4m unique visitors in February. Ms Enders estimated that the website collects about £15m to £18m a year from online advertising, which would drop massively
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Rupert Murdoch in for a world of financial hurt in this arena ping!
This makes no sense.
Newspapers always made their money with advertising. The charge for the paper itself was no more than enough to cover the actual printing and delivery costs.
The costs associated with hosting the online content are miniscule compared to the paper version’s printing and delivery costs, and the content has already been paid for — it’s the same content they created for the paper version.
Yet, they don’t think the additional advertising revenue online will cover the online hosting costs ?
Google has made BILLIONS from advertising—and when most people who use Google are asked about it, their response is, “Google has ads?”
A big mistake by Murdoch.
This is like being taxed twice. Don’t we already pay to view the internet? Why would we want to do it twice?
Murdoch is charging for the web page not the internet access.
I'm registered at The Times in order to comment. I also subscribe to their news alerts (no cost).
Last Friday, The Times sent me an E-Mail inviting me to preview their "exciting, stunning, new TimesOnline format rollout". The preview required a login. After all the hype, the final click of the mouse connected to NOTHING.
yitbos
We would still be paying twice. Are you going to pay twice for the newspaper or magazine you buy?
It works for the Wall Street Journal.
I think this may be Rupert’s rosebud moment...God love him.
"It works for the Wall Street Journal. "
I subscribe to the WSJ print edition. The full content of WSJOnline in not included in my subscription. Murdoch will only give a 50% discount.
yitbos
I gave up my print this year after a lot of years. I found myself reading online 90% of the time.
Time will tell whether it works or not, but I applaud him for the effort.
I wonder if his Islamic Terrorist-supporting buddy Prince Alalweed bin-Talal told him to start charging for the online Times? Murdoch seems to be listening to his Hamas-funding, CAIR-funding terrorist buddy a lot recently.
WSJ = content worth paying for, IMO. I don’t currently subscribe in any form but if I saw a need and had the funds, WSJ would be on top of my list.
The WSJ tends to have content that is more relevant to the folks who can read and think.
The question then is...will you buy it?
If I want it badly enough to pay for it, yes.
But I don't expect the fruits of another's labor for free.
It’s too late, Rupert. There are a thousand ways to get the news without you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.