The Times hits a 'pay wall!'

[Bumpa STIKKA]

Link to the article...

The Times and The Sunday Times will start charging for their websites from June, it was confirmed today.

News International, the newspapers€™ parent company, announced that readers will be offered a day€™s use for £1, or £2 for a week€™s subscription. International pricing has been set at $2/‚¬1.5 a day or $4/‚¬3 for a week.

The two titles will launch new websites in early May, separating their digital presence for the first time and replacing the existing site. There will be a free trial period and payment will allow access to both thetimes.co.uk and thesundaytimes.co.uk.

Rebekah Brooks, chief executive of News International, said: €œAt a defining moment for journalism, this is a crucial step towards making the business of news an economically exciting proposition. We are proud of our journalism and unashamed to say that we believe it has value.€

Mrs Brooks added that News International€™s two other titles, The Sun and The News of the World, would follow.

In January, the New York Times announced that it would charge some frequent readers for access to its website. The Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal already have adopted online subscription models.

Bloody bastards stole my idea!

I can't wait to see if their regular readers got half as much shit as I did when we went to a 'pay wall!'

[Bumpa STIKKA]

jayil london wrote:

I will miss your comments too. Unfortunately, all good things come to an end.

Michael KNIGHT wrote:

I think it highly likely that you will find that this move will be counter-productive, and that you have assumed too high a value for your services in a market offering so many excellent alternatives.

J Briggs wrote:

I buy the Times every day and will continue to do so but I wouldn't want to pay for anything on-line. The internet ethos is based on the free movement of information and it is unlikely that people will pay for something which is widely available elsewhere. Mind you, I would miss all of the readers' comments. They often show a lot of insight into joined-up, real-world thinking.

jayil london wrote:

I'd be glad to pay £1 per month.

peter french wrote:

And what do we get for this ,?the same cut down editions we get now. No supplements. Ah well its over to the others till thay follow suit and then its the good old TV for our news.
I live in Spain and to get a hard copy it costs me over 3 euros or 3 quid and that without supplements , an absolute rip off. So Times charge UK prices for your hard copy here and I,ll buy but that. Any hope of that ? I dont think so.

James Coles wrote:

I think it is a bold move and one to be respected. Are journalists meant to work for free? Remember there are those who put their lives on the line in Afghanistan and Baghdad to report on the war. And face it, Newspapers are dying out, so you need to look to the future - people consume more media from computers, iPhones (and soon to be iPads) nowadays and that is only going to continue with the next generation.

News sites cannot be free any longer. The BBC is more of a reporting site, and that should remain free due to the license fee. The Guardian is losing over £100k a day and only survives due to the profits from Auto Trader. I am looking forward to the design of the new sites, and having a free time period gives a great opportunity to convince people to subscribe.

Liam B wrote:

£110 per year to read news which you can watch on TV or find elsewhere?
No thanks but good luck.

Nigel Lilburn wrote:

"Can pensioners get free access?"

Why on earth should pensioners get free access? They don't get free copies at the newsagents (unless I'm missing something).

Graham Holliday wrote:

As a paper subscriber very pleased to learn that we don't have to pay additionally for web-site access. Its a shame to see quality news providers having to charge but it goes with the territory & they aren't a charity!

Mark Jones wrote:

It's a real shame you have decided to go this path. Come June i'll be looking for my news elsewhere. Unfortunatley the BBC have dumbed down their content so much that it's not readable anymore, but i'm sure there's other free news sites out there.

Keith Sanford wrote:

I believe that we all appreciate a commercial requirement to produce revenue and having been a daily reader of the ToL over an extended period, I'm proud to say that it has always delivered an interesting, rewarding, clear and an informative 'read'. However, as other comments have supported, ToL is not the only news website available and whilst, yes, all news websites may go this way in the fullness of time, the old expression, 'it's not the money, it's the principle', comes to mind?

Will Thorne wrote:

I'm happy to pay £2 a week for the Times website - all the papers will follow suit very shortly. I just hope they don't pester us with those irritating pop-up ads though!

Roger Hyam wrote:

I'd be willing to pay if we lose the ads - or at least lose the moving ads. I'll not pay to have someone wave car insurance in my face .

The journalism will have to be good as well. It is no good regurgitating a press release that is available for free elsewhere. The fee has to be for added value above what is out there for free. I am fed up with reading things in print that I could have written myself by looking at a wikipedia plus one other relevant website. The Times isn't too bad on this but it is by no means perfect.

David Hooper wrote:

Two quid a week sounds fair to me.

Brooks peter wrote:

The TOL was/is a handy way oif picking up the news whilst taking coffee. I will refarin from judgement until the I have tried the new option & seen what the final price may be.

Nicholas Kieft wrote:

As an expat living in the US I have accepted slow downloads and advertising so I can enjoy a little bit of England. But not anymore. If you can not make enough money from advertising then there is a problem. I assume that your advertisers will be happy when they see the readership level drop. Good luck, bye and thanks Rupert another great business decision putting the customer first.

John Ellis wrote:

1. newspapers have never made money from sales.
2. Newspapers make money from advertising.
3. Video advertising is the easiest thing in the world to set up and IT PAYS.

Alistair Mackenzie wrote:

I don't know if it's a brave decision or a greedy one. If we pay, do the adverts go?

Charles Bockett-Pugh wrote:

It might just be worth it if
- No adverts
- Improved menu system
- Fast page loading

but I doubt it.

Steve C wrote:

As an ex-pat in china, I have enjoyed my daily visits to this web-site to keep me abreast of UK and world news, but having to subscribe..No thanks...Time to cash in all those years paying the licesnse fee and utilise the beeb site me thinks...its been nice reading, and thanks to all contributors over the last few years but bye bye

Scott Gilfillan wrote:

Sorry, I'm not paying to read Jimmy Dean's garbled football rants. Goodbye and good luck!

Christopher Stubbs wrote:

I worked in IT for all of my working life, now retired, there are people who are saying how they will not pay for on-line news, in another several years this will be the norm and you will look back in disbelief that you once got it for free. I remember listening to someone chatting in the street saying that the idea of having a phone that you could take anywhere with you was 'absurd', and more recently (15 years ago) that the idea of actually shopping 'over the internet' was absolutely ridiculous.

N B wrote:

With access to hundreds of free news websites, what make you think I will pay to read the times. Times online is a great website but it's not the only one around !

jayil london wrote:

Excellent news for all! especially the comments section?

(1) There will be less Islamophobia
(2) BNP supporters will not be able to push their agenda
(3) Less criticism Israel (aka anti-semitism)
(4) Most importantly, you'll get rid of me

Cathy Relf wrote:

A brave decision, although it won't be a popular one.

I initially thought it was going to be £30 a month, from the Radio 4 news - and I thought that was too expensive. However, £2 a week seems perfectly fair. It's a small price to pay for the high quality of the news and all the work that goes into the production of it.

I expect the Guardian and Independent will not be far behind. It's the way it must inevitably go. I think this will change reading habits for many people - I currently browse both The Times and the Guardian daily and also dip into several others. However, I suspect that once I have to pay, I will pick just one.

I've never expected to get something for nothing - and it puzzles me why other people do. If you value it, support it by paying for it.

Ah, but it was good while it lasted!

david taylor wrote:

This move was inevitable.But there will be other sections of the media who will resist as long as they can and,of course,there is always the good old BBC.I am a fan of the Times,always have been and I wish you luck.You are going to lose an awful lot of readers though.

Christopher Stubbs wrote:

Why on earth do people think this service should be free? I for one get great enjoyment by logging on to TOL and browsing the news, reading comments etc., some commentators say that there are other sources of free news, yes there are but for how long? For two pound a week it is good value. I admit I am retired and perhaps have more time to log on and browse but it serves as a good alternative to having The Times delivered to the door every day of the week, and to get my hard copy 'fix' I have The Times delivered at weekends only.

Davina Suderlund wrote:

At first glance, it looks a bit dear but I am going to reserve judgement until I view the free trial because I am expecting for that price a level of service and interactivity an order of difference greater than the free news sites. Can the Times deliver? If not, it will be a brief history of Times (on-line).

Paula Arkwright wrote:

On reflection, and having read posters' comments that they will go elsewhere, I think I will be subscribing. Yes, there are lots of other free news sites but I like the layout, content and quality of this one. £2 a week isn't much and I don't think Times Online outshines most of the other sites. I also suspect that most, if not all, of the other news sites are going to have to follow suit in time, particularly as their hardcopy distribution numbers fall in this internet age.

W O wrote:

It will be interesting to see how this pans out, but £1 per day? Unless the standards markedly improve, I can't see this working. I have a feeling most people (including me) look at news websites simply to browse the news so paying that much per day won't be worth it. I also enjoy a lot of the comments and views from other readers so if they no longer contribute then it's goodbye and good luck from me.

steve wilson wrote:

A brave move, one question: why does it cost more to view overseas? I agree with the other comments here and come June I will be viewing elsewhere.

John Smith wrote:

It will be interesting to see what this does to on-line reader numbers. If it falls off a cliff other providers will think twice but if they are largely unaffected this might be a template for others to follow.

Kevin R wrote:

No thank you. There are plenty of other, free, news sources on the Internet.
March 26, 2010 9:06 AM GMT on community.timesonline.co.uk

Mark Robinson wrote:

Well, thanks for the free reading up till now - it was nice while it lasted. I understand that - as a business - you want to make money. But I don't consider it worth the price. So, sadly, I must say, "Bye!"

[Bumpa STIKKA]

(Bumpa STIKKA @ Mar. 26 2010,17:32) The internet ethos is based on the free movement of information...

I always have a good chuckle when I read and hear people saying that!

[guydesavoy]

(Bumpa STIKKA @ Mar. 26 2010,17:32) Nigel Lilburn wrote:

"Can pensioners get free access?"

Interesting how similar the comments are

But I note that your silence on the Pensioner VIP access issue has always been deafening

[Bumpa STIKKA]

Old people have more money than young people... we should charge them MORE!

[Snick]

Last time the NY Times tried this, their ad revenue plummeted and they reversed the decision months later.

[pacman]

It seems the Times are not alone. Taken from today's Drudge Report:

The Wall Street Journal plans to charge 17.99 dollars a month for a subscription to the newspaper on Apple's upcoming iPad, it reported Thursday.

How exciting to be in the vanguard of a new social phenomenon!!      

[guydesavoy]

It's all about Rupert

[pacman]

Rupert, the little Aussie bleeder...        

He was reported this week as being worth 5.8 billion & he still needs to charge for his news service.

How many other news services must be watching to see how it is received? They would all do it if they thought they could get away with it.

[Bumpa STIKKA]

This has been my best week for sales since we started our 'pay wall.'

We have a great product and for a few pennies it seems as though there are many who would agree.

It'll be harder for the newspapers because there are many alternatives to choose from.

There is only one well organized, intelligent and properly moderated forum for intelligent ladyboy lovers...

...and then there's us!  

[pacman]

...and don't forget that people want what they can't have.

No one values that which is given away for free.

[JaiDee]

(Bumpa STIKKA @ Mar. 26 2010,21:01) This has been my best week for sales since we started our 'pay wall.'

Now THAT is pretty funny!!


And I really hope that all the haters and doubters who gave you shit back when this place moved to a pay site structure still read here and are seething with anger and jealousy right now.

*Prediction; the NY Times is out if business on-line AND on the streets by 2015.

This website?  probably not  

[blonde_havoc]

(pacman @ Mar. 26 2010,20:59) He was reported this week as being worth 5.8 billion & he still needs to charge for his news service.

Who cares how much money he has? Business is business. By your logic, Bill Gates should just give out free copies of Windows 7 because he's already a billionaire.

[whore]

JaiDee @ Mar. 26 2010,22:38

*Prediction; the NY Times is out if business on-line AND on the streets by 2015.

This website? probably not

Thats the old saying for you. Sex sells.

[geezer]

I always thought BumpaStika was Rupert Murdoch in disguise. I wonder how many other billionaires post here? My other suspicion is that tourot is really Ted Turner, looking at the websites he quotes you know it makes sense. You read it here first remember.