Guardian online going behind a paywall?

Viewing 12 posts - 41 through 52 (of 52 total)
  • Guardian online going behind a paywall?
  • I like Lost in Showbiz 😳

    loddrik
    Member

    Bstards, to appease tge shareholders no doubt. All shareholders should be shot. Clarkson included.

    Roy Greenslade is crap, it must be said. You’d have thought that as the digital guru he styles himself as he would have noticed people rarely comment on his pieces and that most that do seem to hate him. I would take that as a cue to stop…

    IanMunro
    Member

    Pleae God can we stop calling it a paywall. There are plenty of other suitable words and phrases about to indicate charging for a service, we don’t have to invent a new one. Grrr

    We could have
    Monetary Partition
    Fiscal Fence
    Toll Door

    for a start.

    2tyred
    Member

    I suspect the OP has the wrong end of the stick… Alan Rushbridger (for it is he) has very firmly nailed his colours to the mast that the Gruinard will not charge for online content while he is editor. If the paper is about to start doing that then he will almost certainly be for the high jump and News International will be doing all it can to settle scores with him for his role in the NoTW story.

    When were Rusbridger’s colours nailed to the mast? Certainly not last year:

    For his part, Rusbridger said he would be “crazy to be fundamentalist” about rejecting paid-for access out of hand. So he welcomed Rupert Murdoch’s decision to experiment and, though sceptical about it being successful, would not be averse to following suit if it was.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/may/19/paywalls-johnwitherow

    Wasn’t presenting this as a fact btw, just something interesting to come out of a conversation!

    Grimy – thanks for the input.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jan/25/guardian-editor-paywalls

    I maintain unequivocally that if the Guardian (or as Kelvin Mackenzie has it, The World’s Worst) abandons free access online or moves towards any kind of online paywall that Rushbridger will be gone.

    Premier Icon chakaping
    Subscriber

    So it’s not a paywall, it’s a tax on Apple users.

    Smart move if you ask me.
    😉

    don simon
    Member

    Pleae God can we stop calling it a paywall. There are plenty of other suitable words and phrases about to indicate charging for a service, we don’t have to invent a new one. Grrr

    Why not?
    New products new ideas, new words, isn’t the world a gorgeous place?

    I don’t see why it shouldn’t be paid for?
    Newspapers are businesses, aren’t they?

    Will they be keeping all that public sector job advertising behind the paywall, too?

    If so, that could have a very big impact. Surely that’s about the only revenue that’s been keeping the Graun not waving, just drowning just about afloat for years. Will it still be seen by sufficient numbers of people* to make it worthwhile as an advertising medium?

    * People willing to pay for it, that is.

    Premier Icon chakaping
    Subscriber

    Will they be keeping all that public sector job advertising behind the paywall, too?

    Read back, apparently it’s not a paywall but a charge for the iPad app.

    Will only cover a very small section of their users and I presume they can still use an iPad to look at The Guardian in a standard web browser.

    Ah, OK, I see. My fault for not reading the whole thread first!

    I’d imagine it will all go behind a paywall at some point though. Hard to see how else a newspaper can make money these days.

Viewing 12 posts - 41 through 52 (of 52 total)

The topic ‘Guardian online going behind a paywall?’ is closed to new replies.