Would you pay £2 per week to read the Times on-line?
25 May 2010, 03:09 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would you pay £2 per week to read the Times on-line?
Personally I don't think this is going to work... I stopped buying the Times about 5 years ago because it went down hill. Then for a while I'd go on-line to read the Jeremy Clarkson page on Sunday.... I don't even do that any more.
FTA
....The Times is charging £2 a week for access. Some estimates put the amount of online advertising gathered by the Times at under £20m a year. So if 'success' means matching today's online ad revenue with online subs, then Murdoch needs about 175,000 people to suddenly acquire the habit of paying for stuff online....
FTA
....The Times is charging £2 a week for access. Some estimates put the amount of online advertising gathered by the Times at under £20m a year. So if 'success' means matching today's online ad revenue with online subs, then Murdoch needs about 175,000 people to suddenly acquire the habit of paying for stuff online....
25 May 2010, 03:33 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 3,447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think its going to be very hard or impossible to change the web for free attitude people have.
In reality £2 a week is nothing, but we're so use to free resource on the net it may prove very hard to get people to pay
In reality £2 a week is nothing, but we're so use to free resource on the net it may prove very hard to get people to pay
25 May 2010, 03:54 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see it working. For me, I like to read the Sunday Times, which costs £2. So if I pay my weekly subscription, it costs the same and I don't even actually get a paper to take with me to read.
Its just not the same reading a newspaper online, if you really want to read the news its much nicer to have the physical product in your hands.
Its just not the same reading a newspaper online, if you really want to read the news its much nicer to have the physical product in your hands.
Trending Topics
25 May 2010, 04:04 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
i suppose if they filled the site with loads of really high quality ****, they might get a few subscribers
but even then -- one could easily ********** oneself to death without ever paying as so much **** is free
but even then -- one could easily ********** oneself to death without ever paying as so much **** is free
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 25 May 2010 at 04:31 PM.
25 May 2010, 07:57 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
With sales of the physical newspaper falling I suppose they still need to recoup the costs of news gathering, but it needs to be at a price which reflects the falling costs of providing this service given that they will no longer have to buy paper and ink, nor need to finance the massive printing presses or the buildings to house them and staff to run them. The advertising potential is massive if they can prove the size of their online readership, but scaring people away with high subscription rates will only reduce their current and future revenue potential. People will simply move on to whoever provides it cheaper or free, and so will the advertisers.
26 May 2010, 07:09 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
20
22 October 2015 06:12 AM
oilman
Trader Announcements
15
01 October 2015 11:55 AM