Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Times Says Rivals Will Go Out Of Business Without A Paywall 
Author Message
Legend

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 45931
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
Quote:
As Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. get ready to begin their latest paywall experiments with the Times of London and the Sunday Times, the company has revealed a few more details, and it looks like this particular paywall will be fairly complete. Unlike the WSJ, this won't be a "leaky" paywall. The content will be opted out of Google, and there will be no way to get to it, unless you subscribe at the rather hefty price of £1 per day. What's amazing is that the folks behind this experiment still think it's going to be a huge success -- even as nearly all of the papers' competitors are remaining steadfastly free.

In looking over the details, it seems pretty clear that it was set up by people with a very old school "print" mindset, even though they're trying to add some digital elements to it. Basically, they set it up to look just like a print newspaper. It's very much about "here's the news, now take it." There's little effort to allow the community to actually be a part of things. They do allow comments, but on a limited basis, and then there will be "video and slide shows." This is all about delivering information. It's not about engaging or discussing things. It's entirely "we're the experts, take the news as we see it." I'm sure there are some people who still want that kind of thing, but much of the world seems to be moving towards a much more participatory, community-based model.

Amusingly, the "comment editor" for the Times insists that he'll still Twitter links to stories -- it's just that no one will be able to read them. That seems pretty obnoxious. I know that even when I point to stories here on Techdirt that have a registration or paywall (even if there are easy ways around them, the readers complain). Pointing people to stories they can't read isn't particularly nice. On top of that, the comment editor, Danny Finkelstein, seems to have a bit of hubris about this whole paywall thing. He claims that his competitors, who will offer similar news stories for free "won't go viral, they will go out of business." I guess we'll find out.

Finkelstein, by the way, also seems a bit confused about the business of newspapers:

"We are unashamed about this," said Mr Finkelstein. "We are trying to make people pay for the journalism.... I want my employer to be paid for the intellectual property they are paying me for."

Except, in almost every case, that's never been the case. For pretty much all of the modern history of newspapers, the newspapers were not paid for their "intellectual property." Subscriber fees paid for less than printing and delivery costs. The money was made from selling ads, and the ads were sold because (at the time) the newspapers were the only ones who could bring together a community of local eyeballs that advertisers wanted to buy. But, by blocking that off (in the face of free competition) and limiting how useful the content is (by making it a lot less shareable or worth discussing), basically takes away that value, gives fewer reasons for people to gather, and fewer reasons for advertisers to pay. Perhaps I'm missing something about this plan, but it seems designed to destroy all the reasons why a news publication makes money in the first place, on the confused and wrong belief that newspapers have supported themselves via "journalism" at any time in the past. The journalism brought in the people, and the people brought in the ads. Skipping over those details seems like a pretty big risk.


http://techdirt.com/articles/20100525/1152209566.shtml

_________________
Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/


Wed May 26, 2010 1:03 pm
Profile
Doesn't have much of a life
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 5:52 pm
Posts: 1899
Reply with quote
I hope there is space for them on Murdoch's private failboat.

_________________
Image

My Flickr Page

Now with added ball and chain.


Wed May 26, 2010 1:44 pm
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
The PCPro podcast did a piece about New Scientists pay wall. Users had to register with the site, to see more than a few pages a month. It did not last long many people simply stopped visiting the site. The numbers of visitors must have plummeted. The Economist used to have restrictions as well but that seems to have ended. I think they are discovering that traffic falls off a cliff when they impose restrictions. I will admit that I have stopped with ad blocking because I have click to flash which stops flash ads which are bigger offenders in my opinion.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Thu May 27, 2010 12:52 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:27 pm
Posts: 12251
Reply with quote
Well, apparently internet web revenue in the UK is better than TV ad revenue:
http://www.fttxtra.com/general/uk-inter ... g-revenue/

Meanwhile, the Guardian is going the other way - encouraging web masters to include their content:
http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2009 ... ies-bloom/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/open-platform

The Guardian will keep revenue from any adverts served over their API.

It’s an interesting contrast: paywall vs open and free content. Who do you think will gain the most from this?

_________________
All the best,
Paul
brataccas wrote:
your posts are just combo chains of funny win

I’m on Twitter, tweeting away... My Photos Random Avatar Explanation


Thu May 27, 2010 11:42 am
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
I think that open with ads is the way to go. It is flash ads and animated ads, especially if they make a noise that are likely to get ad blockers installed. From what I read somewhere the advertiser does not pay if the ad is blocked so the website suffers. So as long as they do not use flash ads then they will not suffer from many people blocking flash. If it is behind a log in how many times a day will you do that. I must go to the BBC sites twenty plus times a day. If they put a log in I would probably visit once a day.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Thu May 27, 2010 2:06 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 5 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.