Johnston Press websites start charging for news

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8385342.stm

One of the UK's biggest newspaper firms is starting to limit access to online content from six of its titles.
The Johnston Press websites will either ask users to pay £5 for a three-month subscription to read the full articles or direct them to buy the newspapers.

This will be interesting to keep an eye on..

[Flyboy]

I wonder how much Murdoch paid them for this little experiment?

It had to happen, sooner or later - unless you have google-size advertising base to gather revenue, the cost of gathering/publishing the news has to come from somewhere.

Not happy about it, but understand it.

[Stuart]

The thing is, it will happen. I daresay other publishers are going to do it as well.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

It had to happen, sooner or later - unless you have google-size advertising base to gather revenue, the cost of gathering/publishing the news has to come from somewhere.

Not happy about it, but understand it.

It is an issue for the business if they can't compete. It is not the concern of the customer.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

It is an issue for the business if they can't compete. It is not the concern of the customer.

Of course its the concern of the customer, if the business ceases to exist, the customer loses.

Sites in the pilot scheme include the Worksop Guardian, the Ripley & Heanor News and the Whitby Gazette.

Just up the road from me, not that I ever read it anyway.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Paul M

Of course its the concern of the customer, if the business ceases to exist, the customer loses.


Just up the road from me, not that I ever read it anyway.

I am not responsible for any of my suppliers if they go bust. There are many more suppliers in the market, as there in the media world. If I want news, I just use any of the hundreds of search engines available to me to find that news. If this media group wants to take the Murdoch dollar, they are welcome to it.

Besides which no one owns the news..all it takes is for a blogger ,twitterer on the spot to 'break' the news to the whole world.

But most print papers have some sort of filtering/screening/validation process (most) - can we honestly say that for most bloggers?

They may break the news, but how is the in-depth detail and back-story gathered? Usually by experienced reporters.

Re bloggers - whilst some are excellent, some are Perez Hilton.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Besides which no one owns the news..all it takes is for a blogger ,twitterer on the spot to 'break' the news to the whole world.

The day we're left to rely on citizen journalists to find out what's happening in the world, we wil be right up the creek. For all their faults, only professional news organisations have the resources to get all the places they need to go, and to get access not only to sources of information but also sources of validation.

Bloggers etc have their place in the mix but they are not a substitute.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I am not responsible for any of my suppliers if they go bust. There are many more suppliers in the market, as there in the media world. If I want news, I just use any of the hundreds of search engines available to me to find that news. If this media group wants to take the Murdoch dollar, they are welcome to it.

The consumer *is* ultimately affected because their choice is reduced. You say there are enough suppliers in the market. That may be true, at the moment. How about ten years time when all bar two or three have gone bankrupt? This is what will happen with newspapers if they don't get more revenue. The free news model being used at the moment is not (sadly) sustainable for the long term. Clearly, Advertising rates are not currently high enough to sustain them.

Blogs and amateur news sites are not the answer. Amateurs do not have access to the resources that professional journalists have access to. As Chris says, they have their place, but they should not replace the pros. It's also worth noting that people make decisions on who they vote for based upon what they see and read in the media.. Give control of the media to one or two companies (as is already happening), and you give those companies the power to pervert the course of any election. That has an impact on *all* of us.

In short, it is extremely naive to assume that you will not be affected if the professional news organisations don't make more money.

[Flyboy]

Then the nature of the relationship between the media and their advertisers need to change. The media companies need to charge more for their advertising then. I cannot see that is the fault of the consumer. The media companies need to resume the same level of revenue they had before, so why not charge them the same rates as they would have if they had printed the advert in the newspaper?

Because that is not how internet advertising revenue works - it tends to be on the pay per click method of many micropayments.

Also, how can the media companies charge more in the middle of a recession, when most companies are cutting their advertising budgets?

[Kymmy]

And now Google have given them a tool to make this profitable

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8389896.stm

Newspaper publishers will now be able to set a limit on the number of free news articles people can read through Google, the company has announced.

[Mr Angry]

So begins the demise of the "Freetard" mentality.