Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rupert Murdoch to charge for access to Times and Sunday Times online
The Telegraph ^ | 3/26/2010 | Rupert Neate

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: dinomedia; dinosaurmedia; enemedia; media; murdoch; news; rupertmurdoch

1 posted on 03/27/2010 12:22:33 AM PDT by bruinbirdman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

Rupert Murdoch in for a world of financial hurt in this arena ping!


2 posted on 03/27/2010 12:43:33 AM PDT by pillut48 ("Stand now. Stand together. Stand for what is right."-Gov.Sarah Palin, "Going Rogue")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman
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”.

Actually, it's a crucial step in the extinction of The Times and The Sunday Times. There's no content there worth paying for. Online advertising might not provide the same revenue as subscriptions, but the days of newspaper subscriptions aren't coming back.
3 posted on 03/27/2010 12:44:10 AM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

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 ?


4 posted on 03/27/2010 12:45:05 AM PDT by Kellis91789 (Democrat: Someone who supports killing children, but protests executing convicted murderers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

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.


5 posted on 03/27/2010 12:48:58 AM PDT by Arthur McGowan (In Edward Kennedy's America, federal funding of brothels is a right, not a privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

This is like being taxed twice. Don’t we already pay to view the internet? Why would we want to do it twice?


6 posted on 03/27/2010 12:56:45 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

Murdoch is charging for the web page not the internet access.


7 posted on 03/27/2010 1:00:40 AM PDT by School of Rational Thought (Most interesting man in the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: freekitty; AnotherUnixGeek
"There's no content there worth paying for. Online advertising might not provide the same revenue as subscriptions, but the days of newspaper subscriptions aren't coming back."

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

8 posted on 03/27/2010 1:05:10 AM PDT by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: School of Rational Thought

We would still be paying twice. Are you going to pay twice for the newspaper or magazine you buy?


9 posted on 03/27/2010 1:22:08 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

It works for the Wall Street Journal.


10 posted on 03/27/2010 1:22:35 AM PDT by JohnLongIsland ( schmuckie schucks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

I think this may be Rupert’s rosebud moment...God love him.


11 posted on 03/27/2010 1:27:19 AM PDT by wardaddy (Greetings Comrade!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnLongIsland
"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."

"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

12 posted on 03/27/2010 2:17:18 AM PDT by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

I gave up my print this year after a lot of years. I found myself reading online 90% of the time.


13 posted on 03/27/2010 2:33:34 AM PDT by JohnLongIsland ( schmuckie schucks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman
I guess I am the only one who sees it as Murdoch "going Galt" on this. He is making the "looters" pay for what they get from HIM. The website is his intellectual property, and in my opinion he has a right to at least try to capitalize on it.

Time will tell whether it works or not, but I applaud him for the effort.

14 posted on 03/27/2010 4:53:26 AM PDT by PalmettoMason (The shattered skulls of tyrants should be used for traction under the boots of justice. T. Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

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.


15 posted on 03/27/2010 4:54:19 AM PDT by UCFRoadWarrior (National Security begins at the Border)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnLongIsland

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.


16 posted on 03/27/2010 5:21:29 AM PDT by T-Bird45 (It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JohnLongIsland
It works for the Wall Street Journal.

The WSJ tends to have content that is more relevant to the folks who can read and think.

17 posted on 03/27/2010 5:26:07 AM PDT by pointsal ( try MagicJack if you have had enough of Verizon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PalmettoMason

The question then is...will you buy it?


18 posted on 03/27/2010 5:30:49 AM PDT by EBH (Our First Right...."it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: EBH
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.

19 posted on 03/27/2010 5:42:31 AM PDT by PalmettoMason (The shattered skulls of tyrants should be used for traction under the boots of justice. T. Nugent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

It’s too late, Rupert. There are a thousand ways to get the news without you.


20 posted on 03/27/2010 6:00:25 AM PDT by Malesherbes (Sauve qui peut)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kellis91789; AnotherUnixGeek; bruinbirdman

Murdoch (and others) are trying to double dip on content - advertising plus subscriptions. The notion that “news” organizations are giving their “content” away for free is utterly ridiculous, they just don’t get all the revenues they used to get from the print, but that model has been dead and buried.

Trying to charge full price for “news” or content that is freely available everywhere else (albeit, possibly, in some other, “non-exclusive” form) is only going to drive majority of users away and will reflect in lower prices for advertising (paid per K/M eyeballs). That’s a death knell for Web-zines.

The WSJ / FT subscription model is not appropriate or viable for non-financial, non-business, general-purpose newspapers; also WSJ / FT have a much wealthier roster of subscribers and need in immediate news access which could cost them or make them multiples of subscription price.

BTW, WSJ site under Murdoch had become very bloated and much less responsive than in the past, and number of subscribers have left it or use it much less for that very reason.


21 posted on 03/27/2010 3:02:07 PM PDT by CutePuppy (If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CutePuppy

I get my subscription fee back on coupons.


22 posted on 03/27/2010 3:03:18 PM PDT by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

That’s about the only way they can “sell” subscriptions today; but if you think about it, they are actually “selling” you an advertisement form third parties which already have paid them for it...

Not that it’s a concern for most people - they are making a decision based on their own cost-benefit analysis, in this case value and convenience of coupons vs cost of subscription.


23 posted on 03/27/2010 4:09:52 PM PDT by CutePuppy (If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Kellis91789
You appear to be counting incorrectly. "Newspapers always made their money with advertising."

True, but not only from advertising: you received a newspaper only upon paying for subscription. Always. Since times immemorial.

"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."

That's the problem: the content is NOT paid for by subscriptions any longer. Murdoch merely seeks to compensate for that drop. The issue is very simple: you read the newspaper, whether on your computer's screen or in print; you therefore pay for the content. Just like a book or anything else.

24 posted on 03/27/2010 8:45:39 PM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: freekitty
"Don’t we already pay to view the internet?"

To whom and for what do you pay to "view the Internet?"

25 posted on 03/27/2010 8:46:57 PM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: freekitty
"We would still be paying twice."

How is that?

26 posted on 03/27/2010 8:47:33 PM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark

“True, but not only from advertising: you received a newspaper only upon paying for subscription. Always. Since times immemorial.”

Wrong. The subscription price roughly covers the cost of the physical printing and delivery of the paper version. Providing the *content* was paid for ONLY by advertising. The online version brings in ADDITIONAL advertising revenue, yet is DOES NOT have anywhere near the printing and delivery costs.


27 posted on 03/27/2010 9:24:54 PM PDT by Kellis91789 (Democrat: Someone who supports killing children, but protests executing convicted murderers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Kellis91789
You shoud've reread your post: TQ: “True, but not only from advertising: you received a newspaper only upon paying for subscription. Always. Since times immemorial.”

Kellis: "Wrong."

What's wrong? You can name a newspaper (other than the throw-aways "community" publications) that was delivered to you without a prescription? Please do so.

"The subscription price roughly covers the cost of the physical printing and delivery of the paper version."

That WAS true until recently, and only APPROXIMATELY so. There was such approximate correspondence between sources of revenue and costs. You make it sound, however, as if the managers/owners targeted the prices towards such breakdown. That is profoundly false.

"Providing the *content* was paid for ONLY by advertising."

The premise is false, hence the conclusion (whatever it may be) is inconsequential. The whole debacle exists because advertising no longer offsets the costs of gathering content.

Your hectoring lone, by the way, make your departures from facts and logic all the more silly rather than accidental. Perhaps you should refrain from it.

28 posted on 03/28/2010 2:42:10 PM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson