Times Online Says Competitors Will Go Out Of Business Without A Paywall

Predictions

from the a-lonely-existence-indeed dept

Tue, May 25th 2010 4:57pm — Mike Masnick

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.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: journalism, paywall, sunday times, times of london
Companies: news corp.

86 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

cc (profile), 25 May 2010 @ 5:10pm

If I were his competitors I'd be saving up right now, and would make sure to provide THE most amazing content EVER, just in time for the paywall.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2010 @ 5:46pm

Mike, you are so wrong. When this paywall goes up and makes millions of dollars and saves this newspaper, will you finally admit you know nothing about this business?

This newspaper and business expert has made an unchallengably genius decision. He's a professional who gets paid millions to decide things like this based on insider information you simply don't have.

Seriously, if you knew what you were talking about, wouldn't you make a living giving content away for free?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Buzz Saw (profile), 25 May 2010 @ 6:06pm

News == Boring
I don't even read news all that often. I definitely would never pay for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Coasty (profile), 25 May 2010 @ 6:13pm

I don't know who 'Anonymous Coward' replier #2 is, but I suspect he/she doesn't get out much in the 'real' world!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2010 @ 6:25pm

Re:
So do you have any rationale for your opinion, or did you just post to say "neener neener you're wrong"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2010 @ 6:26pm

Re: Re:
I think it's sarcasm.

The sad things is, he sounds exactly like TAM, and TAM is serious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Esahc (profile), 25 May 2010 @ 6:35pm

Re:
I really hope this is sarcasm?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz, 25 May 2010 @ 6:37pm

Re:
"Seriously, if you knew what you were talking about, wouldn't you make a living giving content away for free?" It seems, from my point of view, this is exactly what Mike does.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 25 May 2010 @ 6:39pm

"The content will be opted out of Google..."

Which is another way of saying the content will be invisible to 99.999999% of internet users.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2010 @ 6:47pm

actually, it appears they are doing a few things right here, similar to the WSJ model. most importantly, they are trying to stake themselves far above the circle jerking, self-copying web media that is often short on facts and fast on replication. you can get sort of the story online, or you can get the whole story with the Times.

the individual content pages may be opted out of google, but the main page will likely be visible, crammed with keywords, and generally getting plenty of action. yes, their traffic may drop dramatically, but if what they are losing is freeloaders, have they really lost anything except expense?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard Corsale, 25 May 2010 @ 6:50pm

Re: Re:
yeah, the last line tips the hat. Thats the formula for a quality sarc-mark.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PopeRatzo (profile), 25 May 2010 @ 6:55pm

Ironic
Rupert Murdoch is in for a very hard lesson in free market economics.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NAMELESS ONE, 25 May 2010 @ 7:10pm

well this is funny
my website with free news has been around for 18 years.
and i dont need advertising
i dont have porn on it
i do not take donations

HOW is this possible...that 40000-50000 unique ips a month means i am doing it all wrong
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JEDIDIAH, 25 May 2010 @ 7:16pm

The Times is no Journal.
If this paper was so great, it would not need the paywall to begin with. People would be willing to spend money on real subscriptions and on ocassion even import these papers into other markets (like the WSJ).

Murdoch's problem is not free, it's consumers having easy access to competitors. It's easier to see what sort of dreck he's peddling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 25 May 2010 @ 7:26pm

Re: Re: Re:
"The sad things is, he sounds exactly like TAM, and TAM is serious."

You didnt know, TAM was always just being sarcastic ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 25 May 2010 @ 7:27pm

Good idea!
Well, bully for him! Frankly, I'm fed up with all of this newfangled-media and interblog reporting.

In my day, people read news the way it should be read. By picking it up off the floor of the subway, when someone tossed it after their commute to work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2010 @ 7:27pm

hi #2
Wow, the Times must have a clone army waiting just off-world to assassinate all the other news groups and force us all to read the Times. Did I guess right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 25 May 2010 @ 7:35pm

Running bet ....
Okay I am creating a betting pool. In 5 subscription increments. The winners gets an "Techdirt Crystal Ball" from Techdirt’s CwF + RtB on me.

here are the numbers
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
.
.
.
36-40 - I am choosing this range (I like the number 38 for a reason)
.
.
.
100,001-100,005

Take your guesses, its on me and its a free "Techdirt Crystal Ball" from Techdirt’s CwF + RtB.

And good luck

David
[ link to this | view in thread ]
charlie potatoes (profile), 25 May 2010 @ 7:36pm

Getting what I pay for ...
Ok, so after I give Murdock my dollar, what do I use to line the bottom of my bird cage? It's the only real value I see in newspapers of today. The city of Dallas has one newspaper... one ... haha. It's as big a neocon bubba as are the majority of my fellow Texans. The Republicans scream "liberal press" when anyone dares contradict them. Yet every newspaper in Texas regularly endorses the Republican slate. Texas used to be Mississippi with better roads. Now our only good roads are tollways, built by Republicans by their brothers in law. Newspapers can stick it up their ***, I'll never give them a nickel.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 25 May 2010 @ 7:36pm

Re: your TAM is showing
"Mike, you are so wrong. When this paywall goes up and makes millions of dollars and saves this newspaper, will you finally admit you know nothing about this business?

This newspaper and business expert has made an unchallengably genius decision. He's a professional who gets paid millions to decide things like this based on insider information you simply don't have.

Seriously, if you knew what you were talking about, wouldn't you make a living giving content away for free?"

bwahahahahahahahahahhahaha

(deep breath)

aaaaaaahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Never ceases to amaze the depths the Big Media corporate shills will stoop to to try to convince someone, ANYONE, that they are the end-all, be-all of how to monetize content. Just wow. I applaud you. That is the biggest load of drivel I have ever read. I dont see a sarcmarc or other indicator of sarcasm, so I assume you actually believe that big, steaming pile of shit you just typed.

Are you unaware of other such attempts in recent years? The ones that FAILED UTTERLY? Like that one that put up a paywall and got THIRTY FIVE subscribers? No? You might want to brush up then.

This WILL fail, its not even a question except to those paid to spout the nonsense you are spouting. There is no way in hell they will EVER get within a SNIFF of the kind of subscribers they need to make this work. Not unless they have content that no one else has, and that a lot of people want. But if its just "the news" then this is FAIL of the highest order. Mark these words now: It will take less than 1 year for them to fold this up and declare it a failure. I will be back in 1 year to hear your mea culpa.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2010 @ 7:39pm

Re:
you can get sort of the story online

Bullshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 25 May 2010 @ 7:53pm

Re: Running bet .... The RULES
"Take your guesses, its on me and its a free "Techdirt Crystal Ball" from Techdirt’s CwF + RtB." If you guess the correct 5 subscription range.

The rules are simple
1) you can guess once a day

2) AC's may apply but mike and his crew will have to determine who you are.

3) all guessing to be done here in this thread

4) I the creator of this Running bet may only guess once 36-40 is my range

5) The running bet continues from the day the paywall goes up to the day it comes down, the newspaper folds, the newspaper goes chapter 11 or equiv, the newspaper is sold, or two years pass.

6) rule number 5 may be extended to include acts of god, financial, or any other events that cause the paper to close its doors. Rule number 5 may only be changed pre-failure event, not after news has broken about the failure of the "Times Paywall experiment". Simply put the rules cant be changed after the fact only before. I will think of other failure scenarios over the next couple days and add them to number 5.

7) You must post your bets off the main thread Re: Running bet .... to prevent the thread from becoming one character per line in threaded mode.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard Corsale, 25 May 2010 @ 8:28pm

Re: Running bet ....
i'd say > 105k .. can I do that? I mean, it's the NY Time's. EVERYONE in Manhattan reads it daily and think about how many of them are a. well off and mobile ready. and b. have subscriptions already, they just upgrade with an additional fee and it's done.

I don't know what a Crystal Ball is.. but I think your waaaaaaay off base on this one :). I know the others haven't done so well, but the Times is different for a number of reasons. If you've ever lived in NY you'd understand. It's more than news, it's a part of the culture... So yeah I'll say closer to one million within a year.

On the other hand, if others adopt it, they will find out the hard truth, that yeah the Times IS different
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2010 @ 9:05pm

Do it already
Come on Murdoch, just do it already! Quit talking about it, lock up your content behind the paywall and start letting that money roll in.

So tired of hearing about this. The sooner it fails, the better off everyone will be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
drkkgt (profile), 25 May 2010 @ 9:16pm

Re: Ironic
no he wont. when it fails he will blame the government for not protecting the industry, the other news agencies for their sloppy but free media, and the people for not knowing "real" news and the proper cost of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mirradric, 25 May 2010 @ 9:27pm

Re: Running bet ....
I'm choosing the increment after the 1 that you chose. Reason? 42 sounds much better than 38.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2010 @ 9:31pm

The Times is probably right--many of their competitors will not put up paywalls and will go out of business (just not as fact as The Times...).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Adda, 25 May 2010 @ 9:53pm

I subscribed to the Times.
There are several newspaper I am ready to pay for - NY Times, The Times, The Guardian, - and I do not need Google to get access to them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 25 May 2010 @ 10:18pm

Re:
"short on facts"

Yeah, that pretty much describes the average Murdoch-owned rag and it'll be nice to have one of his propaganda outlets off the publicly-viewed web. It'll be nice for more reputable competitors such as the BBC and The Independent the take some of that valuable traffic and restore some balance to the online mainstream media. Now, if only the Daily Fail could take the same boneheaded move...

Oh, that's not what you meant?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 25 May 2010 @ 10:24pm

Re: Running bet ....
I'm going to bet 110-115. Also, if I can bet on #5, I'd say two years, and they take it down.

Incidentally - this is the Times in the UK, not the NY Times.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 25 May 2010 @ 10:31pm

Re:
That's great for you. I personally will pay for the occasional physical copy when I'm in the UK (especially if they have a decent free DVD or discounted book with the paper - regional restrictions mean they're not available on the stupidly expensive Spanish-printed copies, so I never buy them here), and give them the occasional click when linked from other sources. I will never pay them a subscription because while the free content could be valuable, I don't value it enough to get out my credit card.

The point is, you're probably in a minority, and the majority most likely think more like I do. The argument is that the paywall will lower their readership considerably, and it seems like a counter-productive move to block large numbers of people rather than build a workable business model to monetise their visits. It will be interesting to see how the brand survives after removing all casual visits, but the prediction is pessimistic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Profit Consultant (profile), 25 May 2010 @ 10:41pm

And they are going up agains Page 3?
As long as the Sun has Page 3 for free and all of the rest, then I think this will go the way of AOL and the Dodo for now.

How much price testing was done? I think none...

Murdoch is a smart, smart guy, but he is not perfect.

Cheers,
Andrew
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Profit Consultant (profile), 25 May 2010 @ 10:48pm

Re: Re: Running bet .... The RULES
I would say 100,000 simply because they will buy that many themselves to make it look like a success and just carry it off the books. But, I don't think it lasts 6 months.

But then again, it could be a Pet Rock and who knows then?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2010 @ 10:54pm

6500 and it ends in utter failure in 3months
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Big Al, 25 May 2010 @ 11:13pm

Re: Re: Running bet ....
Actually, it's The Times. London.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 25 May 2010 @ 11:30pm

Re: Re: Running bet ....
I mean, it's the NY Time's.

Heh. Actually, it's not. It's the Times of London. Totally different paper...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MadJo (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 2:09am

if it ain't got an RSS feed for me to peruse, it ain't worth my time.
I'm assuming that because of the paywall, I won't be able to 'subscribe' to an RSS feed? Well then I don't have any business on that news site.

So long, farewell Times. We hardly miss ya.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 2:22am

Re:
have they really lost anything except expense?

Expense?

What expense?

There is no espense.
That is the point....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 2:32am

Murdoch was successful in the past but..
Most successful businessmen are one trick ponies. They had one idea which worked (maybe in several different contexts) at a certain time - but times change and the idea that used to work won't any more.

Rupert Murdoch's business ideas have now passed their sell by date. He is now a dinosaur just like the old print unions that he broke 25 years ago. He used technology to break then - his smarter/newer competitors will use technology to break his business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Analmouse coward, 26 May 2010 @ 2:58am

Good ol' Rupert. gotta love this guy.
I reckon less than 1000 subscribers in the first six months. (if its a major success then I will (cry a little and) consent to give up all predictive comments)

Even if it fails, Rupert will still blame everyone else and run to the new coalition asking for them to ban the bbc reporting the news, google from being a search engine (or pay exorbitant rates for the privilege), isp's for letting people use the internet etc etc. (basically a long list of competitors or those he deems to be stealing from him).

All because they blatantly steal money from the private sector, as demonstrated by his big paywall experiment.

W*-K£$

plus £1 a day, £30 a month, wtf pricing is this? that's the same as the print copy (without being able to use it as a firelighter or spillage moper upper)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2010 @ 3:33am

Playing chicken with the internet?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 4:36am

Re: Re: Re: Running bet .... The RULES
Okay you are in the running with the range of 999,996-100,000

In all actuallity I think what they are going to do is a free trial that requires a credit card with a sleazy "you need to cancel within 30 days" clauses in the fine print. Then do repeat billing. With the legendary savior of the news and print industry, the iPad app, I am not sure how this repeat billing would work.

The range I choose 36-40 is low balling it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 4:38am

Re: Running bet ....
I am changing the wording of the rules to the person who comes the closest without going over the actual number of subscriptions. It make it so that there is a winner in the end.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 4:42am

Re: Re: Running bet ....
I choose 38 because thats the number of subscriptions Newsday on Long island got with their paywall.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 4:48am

Re: Re: Running bet ....
choose a 1-5 or 5-10 range (ie 101-105 or 1,006-1,010 etc), the rules have changed to be "the winner is the one who is closest without going over". That means there will be a winner in the end.

I will put you down for range 105,001-105,005 and above.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 4:53am

Re: Re: Re: Running bet ....
Mike

Do you think should I throw in a 3 month subscription to the Times of London also?

Big Ole Grin ... David
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 4:56am

Re: Re: Running bet ....
41-45 and above. I wonder if rupert murdoch will learn the meaning of life the universe and everything from this? ... ;)

Or were you refering to agent mulders apartment number?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 4:59am

Re: Re: Running bet ....
I will add the duration as a bet also. Do you think I should do it as how many weeks, or how many days? Days would probably be best it allow more people to get involved.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Call me Al, 26 May 2010 @ 5:00am

No more Times for me
I'm a pretty heavy consumer of news websites in the UK. I've got feeds for The Telegraph, The Times, The Guardian, The BBC and I read a lot on all of them and I know which bits I like, which I don't and I flick through them depending on what I am interested in at that moment. Of the three actual papers I probably read The Times the least because a lot of what is written there is drivil.

It seems that Rupert thinks I should be paying roughly £1,460 a year for my newspaper consumption (£1 a day! seriously wtf!), an amount I find comfortable as I hope I'm getting a more balanced view of events. As it turns out I pay £0 and will continue to do so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SomeGuy (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 5:22am

Re:
you can get sort of the story online, or you can get the whole story with the Times.

Even now, with the Times available for free, I'm not convinced that's true. They seem to be as reliable (no more and no less) than any other news publication out there. Unless their plan is to dramatically step up their game after the wall goes up, they're just being narcissistic. And if that IS their plan, no one will notice because it'll be hidden from them. I can't think of any worthwhile site that charges even $1 a day; what makes these guys so great?

but if what they are losing is freeloaders, have they really lost anything except expense?

Eyeballs. As Mike noted above, the whole business of newspapers has been selling ads, and no one wants to buy ads on a page that has little readership. Sure, freeloaders might not give you money directly themselves, but the extra attention makes your site more attractive to people who WILL pay you.

The game changes if online advertising really is dying, but it seems to be working well for Google.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2010 @ 6:49am

Re:
sorry, what 'expense' are they saving?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tom, 26 May 2010 @ 6:56am

Re: Re: Running bet ....
has murdocjh pre-sold subscriptions to various corporations (perhaps for free) already though - a bit like microsofts sales figures?

can i have 6,666?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 8:08am

Re:
5996-6500 and above it is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 8:11am

Re: Re: Re: Running bet ....
6,666-6,670 and above

I really have to build a web site for this ... :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 8:35am

From my limited investigation on subscription prices for The Times and The Sunday Times, it seems that they are asking about £6 a week.
With the £1 a day for the online edition, they're asking MORE money than for the paper subscription.
It makes absolutely no (business) sense to me, why anyone would do that.

But I might be wrong on the subscription price, they don't really list it anywhere on their website.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Liam (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 9:30am

Re:
How do you "save up" news?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2010 @ 10:36am

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).

Given your self-entitled man-child demographic how could you possibly be surprised about this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 26 May 2010 @ 10:44am

Re: your TAMhole is showing
"Given your self-entitled man-chil"d demographic how could you possibly be surprised about this?

Oh good, so your edict of "debate the ideas not the person" is now void, right? So we can slam you as well all we want and not get any complaint that we arent "debating the issues", right? RIGHT?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 11:13am

Re:
Given your self-entitled man-child demographic how could you possibly be surprised about this?

You must be confusing us with a different site, perhaps like the entertainment industry sites that assume they're entitled to keep their business model the same forever, and the gov't should step in any time any bit of technological progress threatens them.

That's the only entitlement mentality I see around here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2010 @ 11:21am

Re: Re: your TAMhole is showing
I'm not TAM and am very much in favor of "debating the person" should that person be a self-interested, self-entitled, idiot who claims otherwise.

Supposing you're able to rationally defend man-babies throwing diaper-soaked tantrums over having to register/pay for certain content, you may then proceed to debate my person with as much vile and ridicule as you can muster.

Good luck! (You'll need it)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JimmieCA (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 11:33am

Pay for something you can get free many times over
nudge nudge, wink wink
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 12:37pm

Re: Re: Re: your TAMhole is showing
"you're able to rationally defend man-babies throwing diaper-soaked tantrums over having to register/pay for certain content"

No tantrums at all just annoyance.

If I see a login screen I go elsewhere. The majority of the people who hit the subscription screen know whats next, fill in this intrusive information, now fill in the next page of info, now on the next page provide your credit card for your "free" trial good for 30 days. You can cancel your subscription at anytime, provided you can find the cancellation page.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vastrightwing, 26 May 2010 @ 12:49pm

Spin Meister
I can hardly wait to read the spin which will be published after there are 500 subscribers. "This exceeds our expectations and has been a fabulous success! We're not interested in raw numbers, but ensuring that our valued customers enjoy and appreciate the curated news and the eloquent writers, whom we employ, etc. etc."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Crosbie Fitch (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 12:58pm

Re: Re: Ironic
And that may be precisely what he expects. He can afford to create a paywall even though he knows it will fail - because he wants to hasten the final solution, i.e. taxing the Internet.

Look foolish in failure in exchange for reaping the far bigger prize that can be brought about as a consequence of that failure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2010 @ 2:26pm

Re: Re:
You must be confusing us with a different site, perhaps like the entertainment industry sites that assume they're entitled to keep their business model the same forever

Of course no one in ANY industry is entitled to the same business model forever. What they ARE entitled to is defense from ILLEGAL and unfair competition (you do recognize the legal concept of "unfair competition" don't you?). Technological innovation has not superseded the IP industries in the same way that cars superseded buggies (your favorite shitty analogy). Nothing superior has replaced movies, music, books, or videogames. If some newer form of entertainment does comes along (that is the transcendent equivalent of the automobile) the demise of the incumbent industries, though plainly disruptive for current participants and melancholic for sentimental old timers, will be untenable, just as the demise of vaudeville and silent film (for instance) was untenable. Unfortunately there is no "automobile" equivalent on the horizon for any of the incumbent creative industries, there is only a new form of distribution, easily utilized for ILLEGAL purposes so that the "buggie whips" (still very much in demand) can now be easily appropriated without recompense to their makers. I'm not aware of any good analogical equivalents to this -- the ones commonly espoused by Silicon Valley teat suckers and freeloaders the world over (ice, whale blubber, buggie whips etc) are only superficially relevant as historical examples of disruptive technologies but delve any deeper and it becomes obvious how different they are to the current situation as copyrighted works are neither naturally-occurring resources nor superseded by some brand new competitor.

and the gov't should step in any time any bit of technological progress threatens them.

No, but the government SHOULD step in to defend our constitutional rights when ILLEGAL activity (technological or otherwise) threatens them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tom, 26 May 2010 @ 2:39pm

Re: Re: Re:
You seem to be getting very excited about very little.
Sure sales of music on cd has dropped 12% in a year - but people are still buying music - a lot. And digital music ( which now counts for 50% of music sales has gone up 50% in the last year). whihc means ( and my maths is bad) that music sales has dropped only 9% or 6% not sure which. But there is a recession on, phones mp3 players and ipads dont have cd players so there is bound to be a drop. The point is that pirating is not really a problem. In fact it probably is a benefit. Free, news or whatever is something to work with not fight against. Don't be so angry about ti all. there's lots if not more money to be made (if money is your thing).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2010 @ 2:44pm

Re: Running bet ....
I'll take 86-90 (89 is the exact number I want)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just Another Moron in a Hurry (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 2:48pm

Re: Re: Running bet ....
Thats me. the 89 guesser.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2010 @ 3:57pm

Re: Re: your TAM is showing
Good work genius
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2010 @ 4:01pm

Re:
I like how when you go the their sister site thesun.co.uk, the search box right at the top states that the search is "enhanced by Google"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 5:40pm

Re: Re: Re:
Of course no one in ANY industry is entitled to the same business model forever.

And yet, you're hear making exactly that claim. Odd then, that you seem to disagree with yourself.

What they ARE entitled to is defense from ILLEGAL and unfair competition (you do recognize the legal concept of "unfair competition" don't you?).

The problem is that "unfair competition" is often what the legacy industry defines upstart competition to be. You do know that when automobiles were introduced, many localities passed laws effectively outlawing them, right?

Technological innovation has not superseded the IP industries in the same way that cars superseded buggies (your favorite shitty analogy). Nothing superior has replaced movies, music, books, or videogames.

Heh. Well, that's your opinion. You do realize that when cars first came along, they were dirty, smelly, broke down more often and were significantly less reliable than horse & buggies.

I would suggest you look at the history of disruptive innovation, and how markets move from one technology to another. Unlike you're claim they don't happily sit around and wait until they decide something is "better" and then make the shift. The shift happens much earlier, when things are messy. The companies that resist -- such as your employers -- tend to get flattened.

If some newer form of entertainment does comes along (that is the transcendent equivalent of the automobile) the demise of the incumbent industries, though plainly disruptive for current participants and melancholic for sentimental old timers, will be untenable, just as the demise of vaudeville and silent film (for instance) was untenable. Unfortunately there is no "automobile" equivalent on the horizon for any of the incumbent creative industries, there is only a new form of distribution, easily utilized for ILLEGAL purposes so that the "buggie whips" (still very much in demand) can now be easily appropriated without recompense to their makers.

That's your position as someone who sucks from the teat of the old industry. Clearly a very large number of individuals have moved to a competing distribution system than the one that pays for your mortgage. You can whine and complain all you want, but you won't stop progress.

I'm not aware of any good analogical equivalents to this -- the ones commonly espoused by Silicon Valley teat suckers and freeloaders the world over (ice, whale blubber, buggie whips etc) are only superficially relevant as historical examples of disruptive technologies but delve any deeper and it becomes obvious how different they are to the current situation as copyrighted works are neither naturally-occurring resources nor superseded by some brand new competitor.

Your inability to recognize what's happening in the market you're in speaks more to your own blinders.

Good luck to you, sir. You're going to need it.

No, but the government SHOULD step in to defend our constitutional rights when ILLEGAL activity (technological or otherwise) threatens them.

Yes, just like how cars were declared illegal if they didn't have someone walking in front of them waving two red flags.

Watch out, buddy. You're about to get run over. Time to update your world view.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
aaa, 26 May 2010 @ 6:16pm

Paywall's won't work
Unless they're offering content that's unique and can't be found elsewhere for free, this model won't work. I'm guessing that a large percentage of people browse news sites from work. Are these people going to pay $1/day just to read news from a particular Website? I doubt it.

Even those who read news online from home will probably find this price outrageous, especially when the same news can be read for free on thousands of other Websites. And if most of the big news sites decide to follow suit and charge, most people will turn to smaller sites or well known blogs that will remain free.

I really doubt this will work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 7:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Running bet ....
86-90 or above is yours.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 7:14pm

Re: Re: Running bet ....
by the way I am you as

111-115 and above and
96-110 and above

so as to keep with the 5 subscription range. I should have started at 0 it would have made it easier.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 7:18pm

Re: Re: Re: Running bet ....
"by the way I am you as"

should read

"by the way I have you in for"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 8:46pm

Re: Re: Re:
"What they ARE entitled to is defense from ILLEGAL and unfair competition (you do recognize the legal concept of "unfair competition" don't you?)."

So you want legal and fair competition ... Big Ole Grin ... you have come to the right place.

Would you like to know how to take on the entertainment industry? Its simple, open standards, a fair open copyright system, community, accounting, fair use, social networking, and here is a big one "defined rules".

Defined rules are, rules that dont require negotiation, that dont require a great monetary outlay, that the monetary outlay is predefined for each circumstance, that people understand at a glance, that does not change based on the groups you are dealing with, that is a central source, that when agreed to dont change and cant come back to haunt you, where individual items are ranked on the chances of causing legal head aches.

Now lets have some fun and explore the future based on defined rules.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 8:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
oops hit submit not preview again, new keyboard.

To finish up and not go on a 5 page rant. Imagine two systems one that you can get you sued for using media, where the rules are not defined and open to interpretation. One where you cant get sued and the rules are defined. Which would you choose to use to create art?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Profit Consultant (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 10:53pm

Re: Re: Running bet ....
Second Guestimate...Just want to have this covered. 13 :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tuscan Tony, 27 May 2010 @ 2:54am

Running Bet
Is the 1,200-1,300 range taken?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That's News, 27 May 2010 @ 6:37am

Re: Re:
Anonymous Coward, I am a journalist and editor of both print and digital titles.

You are wrong. As is Mr Murdoch.

Mr Murdoch is attempting to use an old business model to deal with a new situation. It will not work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 6:40am

Re: Re: Re: Running bet ....
LOL ... lucky thirteen it is

11-15 and above is now taken.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That's News, 27 May 2010 @ 6:40am

Re:
Gosh. That'll please the website advertisers. Just watch people queue up to advertise there. Oh. Sorry. No. They are queuing up to leave.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 6:47am

Re: Running Bet
No its not and its in 5 subscription increments. (see here for the rules, and to make a bet)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe, 28 May 2010 @ 6:45am

Re: Re: Running bet ....
Er No.

It's not the NY Times. It's the London Times. Once it was a great newspaper but them Rupert Murdoch bought it.

He decided to break the printers union and that led to a massive strike. The reporters who were worth anything refused to cross the picket line and left to start "The Independent".

It's never been the same since.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Mad Hatter (profile), 28 May 2010 @ 9:02am

Suicide
The Time is headed for bankruptcy unless the board of directors kicks Murdoch out. Oh, wait, he owns the board of directors. Bye Bye Times!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Boraxo (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 1:53pm

You're missing the point
The strategy here is that online free viewing steals from print sales (I'm not saying that's true, I'm saying that's what Murdoch thinks is true).

So you put the online behind a paywall. You generate a few dollars, but mostly you boost print sales, instead of online cannibalizing print.

What Murdoch should be doing is maximizing online revenue: yield management strategies to price ad sales like airline seats, finding ways to increase premium ad inventory and target the ad sales better, improving the demographics of the eyeballs he's selling.

But he's old school: eyeballs on print ads are worth more, maximize those. Its like Detroit scrambling to make SUVs more poopular as the price of gas rises.
[ link to this | view in thread ]