The Times has slumped massively in journalistic and editorial quality over the last 10 years. I occasionally read the odd online times article when directed there by a news aggregator like Google News, but barely go there by choice while it's free, let alone if I had to pay £1 a do so.

So who would you pay to read online? (this I spose touches on the STW Premier argument too, which coincidentally I do pay for, but not necessarily for the extended content (interviews dont float my boat) but to continue to support STW so that the forum and magazine can survive.)

Id be happy to pay for a sub to, say, Prospect or The Economist. Probably the FT too because it has financial value to my work.

But the only newspaper Id pay to read online would be the Guardian, but since I already pay for a paper sub Id want a heavy discount. I enjoy reading a paper at the table with the Mrs so wouldnt wholly replace it with an online sub.

and I wouldnt pay for a sub to any pron given there's so much free grot around on tinterweb 😉

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8588432.stm

So who would you pay to read online?

No one – I detest reading articles online

would not do it yet, still like the paper form!

'tis the future though isn't it, the ipad is set to make some pretty sweeping changes to the publishing industry if what i've heard at conferences is anything to go by.

I'd willingly pay for absolute gems like this.

Check out the writers name.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7065824.ece

samuri – Member

I'd willingly pay for absolute gems like this.

Check out the writers name.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7065824.ece

Genuinely loled!

Is the question about paying for online content or paying for a level of quality that doesn't satisfy you?

Journalists have to be paid and the format of spreading the news has to be paid for. Isn't it just the same as paper format, your money, your choice.

Personally I prefer reading hard copy and not online and wouldn't pay.

I'd prefer not to give money to Murdoch is my starting point, so that'd be no then.

I guess it's just a graceful way of the times scaling back it's website. I imagine it's subscription base will be very small, as it's got no niche interest such as the FT, and it will fall out of the public conciousness as no one will link to articles on it.
I assume that they've decided that a smaller readership that pay, and less advertising, will loose them less money than the current model.
But as I have the business acumen of a small turnip, I could be wildly wrong 😉

No, not when the value added over free sites is minimal.
My suspicion is that most people don't really want much from their news coverage beyond a bit of outrage, tittilation and a brief summary of current events. The internet provides all this in spades, without going near the newspaper sites.
[

information wants to be free

news doubly so

I wouldn't pay for the hard copy so no way would I pay to go online.

Plenty torys buying the paper though…

no

murdoch is the antichrist

besides the odd comedy bit of burlesconi bashing that they so love and the right wing christian USA nut jobs that post on some of the talkbacks its a dreadful paper that i cant be arsed with

It's like going back to 1995. Remember when Microsoft tried to charge for content on its website?

I think the concept of paying for content is a reasonable one, but the pricing is way off the mark. Maybe (at a push) £5 per month, but no more – and not for the Murdoch press.

BBC Licence fee debate anyone?

i wouldn't pay for any website, most of them i only visit to pass the time at work when its quiet. i'd probably get far more work done if they all started charging money!

I've donated money to Wikileaks, but that's about all I've paid for online.

If it came to it, I'd pay for the Guardian.

Who makes money out of internet pron these days anyway? Like the OP says, there's so much free stuff out there…how niche would you have to be?

It's an interesting debate, one that's been rumbling on for a while.

I think it comes down to one thing: do you value The Times enough, ie, do you and have enough of a relationship already with the writers, cartoonists and maybe even the photographers to continue that relationship on-line?

If not, and you're a casual user, the the Guardian on-line has stated it's staying free, so you can use that, or the BBC's on-line content is a good overview, but you should also be aware that certain specialist titles such as the FT already charge for their on-line content.

Not sure if they won't have to re-consider this in 6 months TBH as the one thing that's propping up these titles is advertising. If you don't get passing trade, relying solely upon an established client base your ability to attract new advertisers might be greatly reduced.

A rock & a hard place, so good luck to them!

This has to be a troll. I've just read one of STW's more vocal Tory apologists write:

Id be happy to pay for a sub to, say, Prospect

and

But the only newspaper Id pay to read online would be the Guardian

😀

The newspapers are finding life difficult – The Independant has just sold for £1. Too many people, like me, just watch the news every evening and read whatever is freely available on the internet. When I have time I like to read a quality paper – usually The Telegraph 😉 – but mostly I find I don't have the time.

Telegraph iPhone app, BBC website and occasionally BBC news (if I can wrestle the remote from 3 daughters) does it for me.
Almost never pay for a newspaper, too much crap.

The Telegraph a quality newspaper? – I didn't think they had any journalists any more just bought in content as and when.

Samuri – Check out the writers name.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7065824.ece

Ha! I really really hope that's his actual name!

Ha! I really really hope that's his actual name!

Making up journalists? Well I never…. 😉

No way would I pay at that level. I might pay £1 a month.

Murdoch is trying out a way of making money from his websites – at the moment the whole web has real difficulty in getting people to pay for content and various models have been proposed – this is one but I am sure its doomed to failure The model on which STW runs is a better bet I think – basic content free and the option of paying for more. quite a lot of stuff is done like that.

somewhere someone needs to find a way of making the web pay. Adverts won't always do especially with ad blocking software being available

ourmaninthenorth – Making up journalists? Well I never….

"Errol Day" – that's even better!

somewhere someone needs to find a way of making the web pay

I think micro-payments are probably going to be the only way really
a couple of pence per article etc.

Personally – I won't pay for any web content

I'll never read the guardian. I won't even click links to it.
I would really like to find an absolutely politically impartial paper which just conveys news and allows me to make my own mind up about it without any slant/bias. Anyone know of one?

Your best bet is either o pick a couple from different ends of the spectrum and read the same story in each or allow for the bias of that paper.

I believe the Guardian is closer than many. Its just that the rest of the press has such a right wing bias.

Or find the paper that suits your bias and read that

Thanks TJ,
I disagree on the guardian though, I see it as the lefts version of the mail.
The problem is that I have views on either side of the fence so that I will completely never agree with any paper. Hence the impartial newspaper request.

I would pay a small fee to read a website….AS LONG AS THEY HAD NO ADVERTS!

I disagree on the guardian though, I see it as the lefts version of the mail.

To me, you've just described the Independent 🙂

I would pay a small fee to read a website….AS LONG AS THEY HAD NO ADVERTS!

I suspect the advertising revenue would fall anyway once they introduced a subscription service.

Buy the independant most days. Have it as an app on the phone. I prefer the paper version. The electronic version is somehow unsatisfying. Don't really want to pay for on line content but I would if that was the only access.

I pay for the crossword membership, since that was the only bit of the paper I missed not having.

Panda

No. Not while the Independent/Guardian/BBC are effectively free and definitely no to Murdoch.

i wouldn't pay for it. i just don't care to read it constantly enough that it would be worth it for me. plus i hate murdoch but that didn't stop me buying sky in the past, so maybe that's an elephant.

too bad micropricing never took off.

I'd always understood that the charge for 'real' newspapers was simply to recoup some of the costs of printing and paper and that all the money was made through advertising. The costs online news must be much lower, so surely the online advertising model must be wrong?

The Guardian seem to have the right idea. Make the web version free and then charge for an application version, which has slightly more functionality.

Don't buy newspapers just read them in Costa coffee instead, enough free internet news sites out there without paying Murdoch.

80% of bishops take The Times
the other 20% pay

Murdoch probably isn't looking to make a success of the pay-website. More likely, he's expecting it to fail – then he can turn round and claim that the BBC website is stifling competition, just like he's done with other areas.

The internet's not exactly old is it. Plenty of time for other models to develop.
Personally I'm getting sick of 50% of my screen (& CPU) filling with flashy, jumpy, incredibly irritating messages for things I don't need.
It's like getting stuck on CBBC.

Seeing though that even if you pay for Sky, you have to watch adverts, I can't see it being any different for the Sunday Times.