The Times online charging....

jacaranda

I see the Times is about to start charging for much of its content online.

The Irish Times tried this as it proved disasterous for them. While the FT charges successfully, mainly because it has specialist financial information which is not easily available elsewhere, my guess is that the Times will find that there is such competition for mainstream news, that few peolpe wil choose to pay them and instead flick over to other newspapers or the BBC website for news.

It will be interesting to see how much advertising the Times online loses if their readership declines, and to see if those paying online even come close to making up the difference.

jdivision

jacaranda wrote: »

The Irish Times tried this as it proved disasterous for them.

Out of curiosity how do you know that?

jmcc

jdivision wrote: »

Out of curiosity how do you know that?

They only had around 38K subs from what I remember (The stats were in some speech given by one of the Irish Times management and I've only had one mug of coffee so my recall might not be 100%.). It was badly thought out, badly implemented, and it ended badly.

Regards...jmcc

jacaranda

jdivision wrote: »

Out of curiosity how do you know that?

I hope JMCC has answered your question satisfactorily.

For me, the interest is what happens the Times and how it works and wonder do you have any thoughts?

jmcc

jacaranda wrote: »

For me, the interest is what happens the Times and how it works and wonder do you have any thoughts?

The English Times isn't a provincial paper like the Irish Times. It has a large audience and may be able to get away with imposing a subscription service. Unlike the people in the Irish Times, Murdoch and his operation have some experience with subscription services. It is hard to say whether it will be highly successful. For a subscription service, the size of the audience is important. The other aspect is the uniqueness of the content. If it is typically available elsewhere or competitors provide it for free then it is a problem. The Irish Times' unique content was generally its windbaggery (OpEds and whinges by hasbeens, neverweres etc). The Irish Times bundled its windbaggery with its news so that the reader had to pay for all of the newspaper. On the web, the model is different. The reader has far more control. This means that a subscription product has to be tailored to the reader much like the way that Sky tailors its TV packages. This kind of thinking and complexity is probably eons beyond the approach that the Irish Times used with its failed subscription model.

Regards...jmcc

jdivision

jmcc wrote: »

They only had around 38K subs from what I remember (The stats were in some speech given by one of the Irish Times management and I've only had one mug of coffee so my recall might not be 100%.). It was badly thought out, badly implemented, and it ended badly.

Regards...jmcc

I disagree TBH, I think it was less than 10k from memory, but it was a lot more revenue. Newspapers can't survive on online ads frankly
As for the Times here, it's stuck in the past, can't adapt and to be honest it's an awful product that could be improved immensely realtively quickly.

jacaranda

jmcc wrote: »

The English Times isn't a provincial paper like the Irish Times. It has a large audience and may be able to get away with imposing a subscription service. Unlike the people in the Irish Times, Murdoch and his operation have some experience with subscription services. It is hard to say whether it will be highly successful. For a subscription service, the size of the audience is important. The other aspect is the uniqueness of the content. If it is typically available elsewhere or competitors provide it for free then it is a problem. The Irish Times' unique content was generally its windbaggery (OpEds and whinges by hasbeens, neverweres etc). The Irish Times bundled its windbaggery with its news so that the reader had to pay for all of the newspaper. On the web, the model is different. The reader has far more control. This means that a subscription product has to be tailored to the reader much like the way that Sky tailors its TV packages. This kind of thinking and complexity is probably eons beyond the approach that the Irish Times used with its failed subscription model.

Regards...jmcc

Both The Times and the Irish times are national papers. What differs is the size of the nation!

The problems the both face regarding subscriptions are the same, and the main problem is competition.

While the FT is a successful subscription service on the net, the information is collates is not easily found anywhere else. Hence people who need that information are prepared to pay for it.

The information found in the Times (and the Irish Times) is readily available elsewhere. And the question is why shuold I pay for The times,when I have access to the same information in many other national daily newspapers, both UK based and non UK based, and also have free access to the BBC website which is widely regarded as more up to date and interactive and has better coverage than the Times?

jmcc

jacaranda wrote: »

Both The Times and the Irish times are national papers. What differs is the size of the nation!

The Irish Times is a provincial Dublin newspaper with delusions of grandeur. It is not a national newspaper in modern terms. It had a good reputation once but that was largely built up in the absence of online media.

The problems the both face regarding subscriptions are the same, and the main problem is competition.

Content cannibalism is also a major problem for publications with print and online versions. It may be cannibalising the print publication to drive the online version.

Regards...jmcc

jacaranda

jmcc wrote: »

The Irish Times is a provincial Dublin newspaper with delusions of grandeur. It is not a national newspaper in modern terms. It had a good reputation once but that was largely built up in the absence of online media.

Content cannibalism is also a major problem for publications with print and online versions. It may be cannibalising the print publication to drive the online version.

Regards...jmcc

As someone who rarely reads the Irish Times, I'll bow to your apparently superior knowledge of it.

This thread is really about the Times and it's decision to start charging for it's online service, and how successful we think that might be.

BrianD

I think that this time around it may work. There seems to be a shared agenda within the newspaper industry to move towards an online sunscription model. This was lacking last time the Irish Times tried it. The bottom has fallen out of the online advertising market so the advertiser supported moidel is less attractive.

Finally, the growth of mobile and apps is also important as it means that the online versions are now as portable as the print version.

jacaranda

BrianD wrote: »

I think that this time around it may work. There seems to be a shared agenda within the newspaper industry to move towards an online sunscription model. This was lacking last time the Irish Times tried it. The bottom has fallen out of the online advertising market so the advertiser supported moidel is less attractive.

Finally, the growth of mobile and apps is also important as it means that the online versions are now as portable as the print version.

The problem would appear to be that the online versions of all the other free papers are also as portable as their print versions, in addition to which sites like the BBC are only available online, (and are as portable as any newspaper online too).

Why would someone want to pay for the Times when so much of the same information is available free elsewhere?

Dundalk Daily

Murdoch is trying to force the pay wall back onto most of his publications, it wont work. The FT has an excellent online model but its content is quite niche and you will find that most of their subscribers are corporate subs as oppossed to individuals paying the sub.

With regard to the Irish Times, heres a piece I dug out from the SB Post when the Times announced they were removing the sub:

The Ireland.com site is one of the most popular news sites in Ireland. Its last audited traffic report from the Audit Bureau of Circulations - for the month of October - found it had 1.2 million unique users in one month.

However, it has built up fewer than 10,000 individual subscribers (implying revenue of around €790,000 a year for the site, since the annual charge is €79). The number of people paying for content is actually considerably higher, at 40,000, when you include corporate subscriptions and users of its paid-for e-mail services.

IRE60

The times/indo don't have the content. And, as for the 'person' on Talbot street who decided that their provincial newspapers were worth €40 a year was, well, fatigued making that decision - I would suggest.

Jonston Press just pulled their paywall as it didn't work. The FT will have the power of unique content as, say, will the economist.

And to set the record straight, for accuracy reasons, if nothing else - according the the Audit Bureau of Circulation and the World Association of Newspapers - the Irish Times is a National Newspaper - they are the decision makers on that one, not anyone's opinion as to their status.

jacaranda

IRE60 wrote: »

And to set the record straight, for accuracy reasons, if nothing else - according the the Audit Bureau of Circulation and the World Association of Newspapers - the Irish Times is a National Newspaper - they are the decision makers on that one, not anyone's opinion as to their status.

I think we are probably allowed to have opinions on it! The view expressed by the other correspondent that the Irish Times was a "provincial" newspaper is obviously incorrect geographically, although I rather think he meant it more in a sense of mindset!

Dundalk Daily wrote: »

Murdoch is trying to force the pay wall back onto most of his publications, it wont work. The FT has an excellent online model but its content is quite niche and you will find that most of their subscribers are corporate subs as oppossed to individuals paying the sub.

With regard to the Irish Times, heres a piece I dug out from the SB Post when the Times announced they were removing the sub:

The Ireland.com site is one of the most popular news sites in Ireland. Its last audited traffic report from the Audit Bureau of Circulations - for the month of October - found it had 1.2 million unique users in one month.

However, it has built up fewer than 10,000 individual subscribers (implying revenue of around €790,000 a year for the site, since the annual charge is €79). The number of people paying for content is actually considerably higher, at 40,000, when you include corporate subscriptions and users of its paid-for e-mail services.

It would be interesting to see how much they now generate in advertising revenue compared to the previous subscription service, and to see how many unique users they have per month now also.

I can’t see why Murdock wants to do this as it seems uncertain who will sign up and pay.

IRE60

"I think we are probably allowed to have opinions on it! The view expressed by the other correspondent that the Irish Times was a "provincial" newspaper is obviously incorrect geographically, although I rather think he meant it more in a sense of mindset!"

I agree wholeheartedly - I was just being particularly pedantic

BrianD

jacaranda wrote: »

The problem would appear to be that the online versions of all the other free papers are also as portable as their print versions, in addition to which sites like the BBC are only available online, (and are as portable as any newspaper online too).

Why would someone want to pay for the Times when so much of the same information is available free elsewhere?

I believe that we are in a transition period when it comes to media online. Clearly the web output of BBC, Irish Times, RTE etc. is fully supported and subsidised by their 'traditional' media output. As more and more media moves online and the "old fashioned" mediums fade the free model just wont work in the long run. Anybody can start a newspaper online but punters want the quality that they have got in the past. People will need to be paid for their work and some sort of subscription service will have to be place.

Even in situations like the BBC where they are publicly funded there is no obligation for them to provide this content to Internet users outside of the UK.

So while there is plenty of free news out there in these changing times it ain't going to last forever, at least not at the quality that we have been accustomed to.

jacaranda

BrianD wrote: »

I believe that we are in a transition period when it comes to media online. Clearly the web output of BBC, Irish Times, RTE etc. is fully supported and subsidised by their 'traditional' media output. As more and more media moves online and the "old fashioned" mediums fade the free model just wont work in the long run. Anybody can start a newspaper online but punters want the quality that they have got in the past. People will need to be paid for their work and some sort of subscription service will have to be place.

Of course they will have to be paid, but the nature of news is changing and "newspapers" will become obsolete sooner or later. While newspapers used to be the only source for news, with the internet they suddenly become just one of many sources. Think how quickly blogs have become popular, and how digital cameras and videos make it simple to send a picture around the works in seconds.

When we hear of a news story now, ( say the Adam Boulton & Mandleson story from last week, the majority of us don;t reach for our online newspaper, but go straight to Youtube to see it). The way we get our news is fast changing, and if newspapers don't adapt pretty quickly they will also fast become obsolete.

For example, look at the Irish Examiner site http://www.irishexaminer.com/ and look at the Daily telegraph site http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ and the Daily Beast's site http://www.thedailybeast.com/ . Out of the three, the examiner updates once a day, whereas the telegraph updates every few minutes. It's hard to see how the Irish Examiner can continue to make profits as it remains stubbornly non-interactive and still thinks in terms of a newspaper put out once a day, as opposed to an online resource which has to update continually to ensure its customers keep coming back and to attract new customers.

BrianD wrote: »

Even in situations like the BBC where they are publicly funded there is no obligation for them to provide this content to Internet users outside of the UK.

QUOTE]

I live in Dublin and watch the BBC tv iPlayer through a proxy server in the UK. If I can manage to do that, then I am guessing the BBC are not able to prevent anyone outside the UK accessing their TV service. Currently, the rest of the BBC website is available to anyone, either inside or outside the UK.

BrianD wrote: »

So while there is plenty of free news out there in these changing times it ain't going to last forever, at least not at the quality that we have been accustomed to.

I agree it isn’t going to last forever as I predict many newspapers (like the Irish Examiner) will go bankrupt unless they radically change. Having said that it may well be that the number of professional news organisations shrink, but it may well also be that the number of amateur news organisations will grow, as the internet becomes a cheap and fast way to publish.

Just because its on the internet doesn’t preclude someone from competing with any newspaper, just as has happened with the print editions since newspapers began. If The Times charges for online content, then its possible someone else might step in and charge less for different or better content. The internet opens this up for competition much more easily than in a print version, and I think we are in for interesting times in the News industry.

IRE60

Lets keep this on course. The reason that the ‘net is full of information is because that information is gleaned from professional news gathering organisations and then in turn by aggregators.

If you are advocating that we now get our full diet of ‘news’ from bloggers, Facebook and Tweets once you prophecy of the newspapers demise comes true – that is surely is a sprint to the bottom.

Your saying that all newspapers should concentrate on the ‘net. I would advocate they should concentrate on where they get their profits form with a weather eye on the future.

Only one news group in the world makes more money on line than off.
You also predict the rise of ‘armature news organisations’ – really, where’s the credibility there.

Competition has always been around, what normally lasts is quality.

starfish12

i am an avid reader of the times online site, and having given it alot of thought will probably subscribe to the new service.
I completely agree that 'news' is available on the bbc site for free, and if that was what i used the site for I wouldnt be inclined to pay for it.

However the comment, features and other non traditional news articles are the main draw for me, and alot of my colleagues/friends.

The times employ some great columnists IMO and as I enjoy reading their content, which isnt readily available everywhere I have no problem paying a nominal subscription charge.

jacaranda

IRE60 wrote: »

Lets keep this on course. The reason that the ‘net is full of information is because that information is gleaned from professional news gathering organisations and then in turn by aggregators.

If you are advocating that we now get our full diet of ‘news’ from bloggers, Facebook and Tweets once you prophecy of the newspapers demise comes true – that is surely is a sprint to the bottom.

Your saying that all newspapers should concentrate on the ‘net. I would advocate they should concentrate on where they get their profits form with a weather eye on the future.

Only one news group in the world makes more money on line than off.
You also predict the rise of ‘armature news organisations’ – really, where’s the credibility there.

Competition has always been around, what normally lasts is quality.

Newspapers have to have more than have a weather eye on the future, they have to actively plan for it. Any who don't will be left behind and may wither on the vine. Whenever an industry changes with new technology, those that embrace it and exploit it to the full are usually the winners, and those who don't are the ones who go bankrupt.

I agree that competition thrives on quality, although having said that i don't consider the SUN or the Daily Mail to be quality, but they are both very successful commercially. Quality is subjective, it seems.

IRE60

In its defence, The Sun's website fills a big niche in the web space. They get 1.4mill people a day with over half of that being outside the UK - so their are reusing their content to redeliver it to another audience.

As an aside, Pearson, publisher of the FT pulled out if the eABC audit today - that's the audit of their website conducted by the ABC - their argument - its not all about Volume, which the eABC thrive on - its about the quality of their audience!

jacaranda

I heard this morning on the Today programme that the Guardian makes €40m per annum from its online website. While thats a drop in the ocean for a national UK newspaper distributing its product traditionally via newsprint, for an online service which doesn't have the costs of distribution, it's a remarkably healthy figure. I can't see the times taking 1% of that figure in subscriptions.

I wonder will the Times also go after quality and not volume for its sales? !

IRE60

If that's the case - that's very healthy!
Likewise the Times backed out of the eABC as well saying that the cold volume figure is not a good indication of the truth behind it.
Way back when, I was looking at figure for a uk paper and their reach of a particular drink.
The research said the paper reached 8% of those drinkers. No big deal - but its an overall figure.
But when you applied what's known as volumemetrics and looked at their actual consumption of the product it transpired that the papers readers we high consumers of the drink and accounted for 22% of the products consumption - now that's a completely different deal.
It highlights the difference between reach straight cold numbers numbers and 'quality' numbers.

RichTea

jacaranda wrote: »

I heard this morning on the Today programme that the Guardian makes €40m per annum from its online website. While thats a drop in the ocean for a national UK newspaper distributing its product traditionally via newsprint, for an online service which doesn't have the costs of distribution, it's a remarkably healthy figure. I can't see the times taking 1% of that figure in subscriptions.

I wonder will the Times also go after quality and not volume for its sales? !

Crikey. I didn't realise they made that much.

Whatever happens with The Times is likely to govern what a lot of newspapers go for in the future.

mike65

Speaking of my favourite online news site, the Grauniad has introduced a subscription service, Extra which is very much "additional content" mainly lifestyle/arts material. It'll be intereting to see how well it does and if thats as far as the paywall extends. The paper/site is a major outlet for government and related job adverts and the new admin is cutting back on such material. They also do digital eds of the hard copy for a price.

IRE60

"Nine out of ten people would be unwilling to pay the £1-per-day or £2-per-week fee to access the new websites of The Times and The Sunday Times, a survey has found.

Most of those that consume news online would be unwilling to pay for content regardless of the supplier, said the study examining digital entertainment activity, as 71 per cent believed there was sufficient free news content available across the web"

OK - but that 1% represents 13,000 people per day, ergo, £1.3m p.a. (the maths are particularly sketchy here - but you get the point)

kpbdublin

The fly in the ointment for the London Times is The Guardian, a high quality rival that will stay free. But with no effective business model for its online operation it is hard to see how The Guardian will make money. Maybe The Times withdrawal will enable The Guardian to reach a critical mass that will enable it to be profitable, but that is only a remote possibility.
It is hard to see people paying for the I Times Indo and Examiner unless they put up a paywall together.

If they all put up a paywall they may not get many subscribers but they might encourage a few internet freeloaders to buy the hard copy.

jacaranda

IRE60 wrote: »

"Nine out of ten people would be unwilling to pay the £1-per-day or £2-per-week fee to access the new websites of The Times and The Sunday Times, a survey has found.

Most of those that consume news online would be unwilling to pay for content regardless of the supplier, said the study examining digital entertainment activity, as 71 per cent believed there was sufficient free news content available across the web"

OK - but that 1% represents 13,000 people per day, ergo, £1.3m p.a. (the maths are particularly sketchy here - but you get the point)

Just because 9 out of 10 people say they wont pay, doesn't mean 1 out of 10 people say they would, or will, pay.

jacaranda

kpbdublin wrote: »

The fly in the ointment for the London Times is The Guardian, a high quality rival that will stay free. But with no effective business model for its online operation it is hard to see how The Guardian will make money. Maybe The Times withdrawal will enable The Guardian to reach a critical mass that will enable it to be profitable, but that is only a remote possibility.
It is hard to see people paying for the I Times Indo and Examiner unless they put up a paywall together.

If they all put up a paywall they may not get many subscribers but they might encourage a few internet freeloaders to buy the hard copy.

To think that the Gruainad and the Times have similar readerships would be to make an error. Their readerships are almost totally different and few, if any, readers of the Times will defect to the Gruainad. They are much mroe likely to defect to the Telegraph which is much more akin to the Times in terms of its readership profile.

I loved the Yes Minister vignette where the newspapers were described as follows; "The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country, The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country, The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country, The Daily mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country, the Financial times is read by people who own the country, the Morning Star is read by people who think the country should be run by another country, and the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it already is" . And what about The Sun? " The Sun readers don't care who runs the country so long as she has bit tits!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M

mike65

Probably the funniest and cleverest moment in a great series.

jacaranda

mike65 wrote: »

Probably the funniest and cleverest moment in a great series.

While not wishing to derail the thread, for my money it was the best british tv comedy of all time. Witty, funny and insightful at times. Although its now over 25 years old, the scripts were so good that it really still seems fresh and new.

Why can't the BBC still do this sort of wonderful stuff? Why have RTE never done a good comedy?

mike65

The BBC do - The Thick Of It. Okay its very much horse for courses and much "nastier" but it feels pretty accurate to me!

IRE60

jacaranda wrote: »

Just because 9 out of 10 people say they wont pay, doesn't mean 1 out of 10 people say they would, or will, pay.

I didnt feel the obverse was necessary to actually state, but....

9/10 say they wouldn't pay
1/10 said they would.

jacaranda

IRE60 wrote: »

I didnt feel the obverse was necessary to actually state, but....

9/10 say they wouldn't pay
1/10 said they would.

I will bet you that 1 out of 10 people in the UK don't, despite what they are reported as saying.

speedboatchase

I signed up so I could see what the fuss was about and if there was any new features or anything like that to justify the spend. There really isn't though, and sites like the BBC and the Guardian have much, much more content for free. If the Guardian went this route I would probably pay but the Times just doesn't seem to offer enough content or unique features to be a premium experience. I like the new look for the site though

kpbdublin

jacaranda wrote: »

To think that the Gruainad and the Times have similar readerships would be to make an error. Their readerships are almost totally different and few, if any, readers of the Times will defect to the Gruainad. They are much mroe likely to defect to the Telegraph which is much more akin to the Times in terms of its readership profile.

I loved the Yes Minister vignette where the newspapers were described as follows; "The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country, The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country, The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country, The Daily mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country, the Financial times is read by people who own the country, the Morning Star is read by people who think the country should be run by another country, and the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it already is" . And what about The Sun? " The Sun readers don't care who runs the country so long as she has bit tits!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M

Wonderful bit of Yes Minister. I don't agree that the online readerships between Times and Guardian are necessarily all that different. Politically they are closer than they were 20 years ago. The Guardian has reached out beyond its alternative/vegetarian/Labour base. It supported Clegg in the election. I know of Tories who read The Guardian since the Daily Telegraph went downmarket.
I am not convinced that many will pay for The Times unless all the others do the same.

jacaranda

speedboatchase wrote: »

I signed up so I could see what the fuss was about and if there was any new features or anything like that to justify the spend. There really isn't though, and sites like the BBC and the Guardian have much, much more content for free. If the Guardian went this route I would probably pay but the Times just doesn't seem to offer enough content or unique features to be a premium experience. I like the new look for the site though

I have a bookmark file for newspapers on my pc, and have logged into the Times two or three times recently only to be whizzed to a site to get me to pay. I haven't been tempted to pay and just select the Independent or Telegraph or IHT or one of the many other newspapers in the file.

What will be interesting to get some figures for those who have paid, and who continue to pay, for the service.

IRE60

jacaranda wrote: »

What will be interesting to get some figures for those who have paid, and who continue to pay, for the service.

The holy Grail! News Int dropped out of the eABC last month so that their first months figures wont be available to the masses. They did it on the back of the arguement that hits/pageviews/visits take no account of qulaity and the agencies :rolleyes: just look at all hits as the same currency. I agree somewhat that the quality is a real issue, but in the absence of an alternative...

pumpkinsoup

It's more than a little ironic that the IT would consider charging for content when their most read story today is one lifted from the free website boards.ie.

kpbdublin

pumpkinsoup wrote: »

It's more than a little ironic that the IT would consider charging for content when their most read story today is one lifted from the free website boards.ie.

It is very much a two way street. Boards relies heavily on stories from the papers, which are often copied and pasted directly.
It will be interesting to see what will happen when the papers are charging and other sites are lifting stuff. Will Murdoch and the publishers clamp down on web sites for using material?
Of course there is nothing wrong with quoting from any source so long as it is attributed.
But what view will they take on entire articles being lifted?

pitkan

I used to read IT on line every morning until I was restricted to their front page. So I turned to the Irish Independent and will probably stay put.

IRE60

A survey today by Harris/PCUK suggested that of current Times On line (UK) viewers, that if a paywall was introduced how likely would they be to wedge up:

Extremely Likely 4%
Very Likely 2%
Fairly Likely 4%
Somewhat Likely 13%
Not Likely 76%

They will loose the vast majority of their viewers, but will they make up for in in revenue, that's the question?

BrianD

pumpkinsoup wrote: »

It's more than a little ironic that the IT would consider charging for content when their most read story today is one lifted from the free website boards.ie.

What was the story? A lot of newspaper content is about public interest storries that are happening on other media e.g TV soaps, big brother etc. No difference if they are writing about something on boards.ie or any other web site.

jacaranda

pitkan wrote: »

I used to read IT on line every morning until I was restricted to their front page. So I turned to the Irish Independent and will probably stay put.

When you say "IT" do you mean the Irish Times?

pitkan

Hi jacaranda, yes I mean Irish Times.

Gekko

Has anyone else had a problem registering on the new Times website?

When I put in my email address the site just freezes and nothing happens.

uvox

pitkan wrote: »

I used to read IT on line every morning until I was restricted to their front page. So I turned to the Irish Independent and will probably stay put.

The Irish Times online has been free for years. There was a period of charging (4-5 years) but that's well ended (and btw, you can get your free @ireland.com e-mail address back now too).

The Irish Sunday Times (or whatever) is now behind a paywall. According to media reports there are problems with the implementation, but I can't verify since I didn't register as frankly I can read it for free in Spar until the Polish girl says 'Buy newspaper or leave.' It's flacid stuff.

speedboatchase

Well, today's the day - the charging has begun. €1.50 for the month and then €3 a week afterwards. Staring at the sign-up screen, not sure whether I should take the plunge

IRE60

Great to see the bitching has begun!

Guardian (who are taking a very lofty position in this - even when they are hemorrhaging money themselves) have a front page splash extolling the virtues of 'free web'

jacaranda

speedboatchase wrote: »

Well, today's the day - the charging has begun. €1.50 for the month and then €3 a week afterwards. Staring at the sign-up screen, not sure whether I should take the plunge

I will not be paying for The times online. It's only one of a number of good newspapers i read online and I'd rather read other papers for free than pay for pretty much the same content.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.