Pay Per View news sites and charging for online content
- Thread starter marty21
- Start date
marty21
One on one? You're crazy.
YouSir
Retired from Urban
Fnar, missed it, fool that I am.
untethered
For industry & decency
longdog
What is it you can't face?
Sooner or later companies are going to have to realise that the internet is a telecommunications medium and not a broadcast medium.
If you have a product that is unique and that people want to buy you might make money but if there is a free alternative you're fucked.
If you have a product that is unique and that people want to buy you might make money but if there is a free alternative you're fucked.
YouSir
Retired from Urban
There's something terrifyingly wonderous about your world-view, Untethered.
innit
c'mon, little life giver
untethered
For industry & decency
We should be grateful for small mercies.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I doubt this will work in the long run, the FT is paid for but as someone said earlier that's probably all expense account covered, who would pay for the Sun if the Mirror is free? Who would pay for the Times if the Telegraph is free?? That's not to mention a whole heap of news sites that could spring up online only to fill the gap...
untethered
For industry & decency
It might seem counter intuitive but I expect to see a much broader range of members.
It's a shame that the site hasn't been able to tap into the potential of its wider appeal until now.
Interesting times, eh?
You can't do that overseas now.
I can't view iplayer or listen to sports, never have been able to, 6 years here in Korea.
tendril
Coming up blastin' like Yosemite Sam
If Murdoch goes ahead and makes his newspaper websites, pay per view, what is likely to happen? Other newspapers are probably just waiting for him to make his move, and then join the rush?
The New York Times tried it, I think, and then stopped, as they got a lot less traffic (who'd have thunk it)
The FT does it, but the majority of the subscribers are probably paying for it on expenses as work related, so it has guaranteed readership and money coming in
The BBC can't do it, so people will just flock there for news anyway won't they? Advertisers like websites with heavy web traffic, so any free new sites will get more adverts as users will desert PPV sites surely, and if they do, then advertising revenue at the PPV site goes down
what does urban think?
The BBC do do it through the license fee.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
This would be the market that DMGT pulled London Lite out of about 2 weeks later, and the same market where neither LL or TLP ever made any money, and the longest standing evening daily, after being sold by DMGT to a Russian for a few quid + it's debts, is now a freesheet and by all accounts struggling without any competition. The local press market in London (e.g South London Press) is struggling just as badly as every other regional newspaper is because Londoners
1. Buy a national daily if they buy a newspaper at all
2. Are more likely than anyone else in the country to get their news online, via the radio or from TV.
It's a valuable media market, just not for newspapers anymore.
Google's announcement today regardin 'First 5 pages free, then you pay per view' is an inevitable response to NewsCorp dumping all it's content into Bing, and it'll be interesting to see how long NewsCorp lasts before they go back to Google because of the drop in traffic to their websites, and take what they're given.
marty21
One on one? You're crazy.
you can look at bbc websites without having a tv license
except murdochs swapped the support of the sun for a tory policy to force the beeb offline
(pure speculation btw, but im right)
the problem for murdoch is that google spiders cant cross pay walls so wont be able to index his trash anymore
that and given that no-one is likely to link to a pay site which means their page rank values will plummet
i think murdoch's got this wrong, hes an old man and he doesn't understand the internet and that comes across everytime you here him speak about it
this is the guy who bought myspace just as facebook was getting hip
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
I pretty much agree with this, but the first line is a technology fix - the question being would google do it?
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Google spiders *can* cross paywalls, if the provider wants them to. It's a pain in the arse for people searching but there are several sites who do it regularly.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
This piece is quite good and comprehensive, from a couple of weeks ago, about arrangements between Google and paywalls: http://searchengineland.com/josh-co...ls-partnerships-working-with-publishers-29881
Kidblast
Well-Known Member
It reeks of desperation.
It's getting embarrassing watching these people flailing around trying to harness the internet. It's not going to work.
You can implement any number of pay schemes you want but the only thing that you will guarantee is that whatever readers you did have will move to your competitors service which is offered free.
There's a good article in this weeks Economist on the subject.
"When Guardian readers were asked whether they would pay £2 per month to read their favourite paper online, 26% said yes. But if all newspapers charged? The proportion prepared to pay for the Guardian might have been expected to rise. Instead it fell to 16%"
It's studies show that when it comes to online news feeds British users are promiscuous and simply take it where they can get it.
It's getting embarrassing watching these people flailing around trying to harness the internet. It's not going to work.
You can implement any number of pay schemes you want but the only thing that you will guarantee is that whatever readers you did have will move to your competitors service which is offered free.
There's a good article in this weeks Economist on the subject.
"When Guardian readers were asked whether they would pay £2 per month to read their favourite paper online, 26% said yes. But if all newspapers charged? The proportion prepared to pay for the Guardian might have been expected to rise. Instead it fell to 16%"
It's studies show that when it comes to online news feeds British users are promiscuous and simply take it where they can get it.
Similar threads
