Charging for Times On-Line

  anchor 08:36 27 Mar 2010

click here

Would you pay £2/week?.

  anchor 09:18 27 Mar 2010

There will also be a charge to access The Sun and News of the World sites.

  GANDALF <|:-)> 09:33 27 Mar 2010

I think they have missed an obvious point here...people who read newspapers online do so because they are unwilling to pay for them....therefore they will be unwilling to pay for the website - or have I missed the blindingly obvious that the highly qualified financial advisers to The Times obviously know?


  michaelw 09:42 27 Mar 2010

I think Rupert's going to have to tighten his belt when no one pays for his news anymore.

The other papers are going to watch this with interest to see if it works. I don't think it will.

I used to buy The Standard for the best part of forty years. Then they went freesheet and I can't get it now. I've got used to reading only one paper. If that goes I'll just watch the tv news.

  anchor 13:48 27 Mar 2010

The Times website collects about £15m to £18m a year from on-line advertising.

On-line readership would drop enormously from the present estimated 20.4 million when people are asked to pay £104/year. Probably advertising revenue would also drop, (or advertisers would only be prepared pay much less), if fewer people are reading their ads.

Lets say, 100,000 people subscribe, (as has been suggested), this is about 1/200 of the existing readership. If advertisers only pay pro-rata to readership, then revenue from this source would be around £75,000.

Add this together to the readers subscription fees, you get a total of around £10.4 million.

This is less than they have at present.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Honor 9 Lite review

How Social Media has Propelled Political Graphic Design and Art in the Last Decade

The best kids apps for iPhone & iPad 2018

HomePod d’Apple : date de sortie, prix et fiche technique