|
|
Post by mrs moustoir on Mar 27, 2010 13:04:18 GMT 1
Heard this week that the Times will start charging for people to view its online edition. I like to keep up with the UK press online but won't be paying £1 a day to view it and don't know anyone that would. They are planning a huge marketing campaign to change the way people view news online. Is this an own-goal for Mr Murdoch or a sign of things to come? news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8588432.stm |
|
|
|
Post by lif on Mar 27, 2010 13:15:36 GMT 1
Someone will still offer free news and clean up on the market, or Branston will see the opportunity.
|
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Mar 27, 2010 13:34:56 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by jackie on Mar 28, 2010 15:17:40 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by tobyjug on Mar 28, 2010 17:27:15 GMT 1
used to like dandelion and murdock when I was Young
|
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Mar 28, 2010 17:30:16 GMT 1
Burdock TJ, burdock. (he's getting on a bit, poor old chap...)
|
|
|
|
Post by tobyjug on Mar 28, 2010 17:48:46 GMT 1
ooops sorry, it's these new varifocals
|
|
|
|
Post by BartyB on Mar 28, 2010 18:58:53 GMT 1
Bottom line is someone has to pay for jounalism, my guess would be that like print there'll be a divide between sites that are riddled with ads and those for which you have to pay.
I've not read the link attached (due to being on a slightly dodgey 3G connection) but from what I heard on the TV this morning the charges proposed are £1 for a day or £2 for a week neither of which seem to bad.
The alternative is news generated by TV/Radio (both media are desperate for new income streams)
Or Wikki news
I think we'll all end up paying
|
|
|
|
Post by tobyjug on Mar 29, 2010 6:54:01 GMT 1
Pay 50p a day to watch news on Sky, can see no reason to pay ruppee baby any more for the same thing
|
|
|
|
Post by blu on Mar 30, 2010 17:31:44 GMT 1
I think a £1 is ridiculous
|
|
