Would you pay for access to online news?

[sam76]

THE loyalty of readers accustomed to getting their news online free is about to be tested, as Australia's largest newspaper groups prepare to charge for access to their websites.

Fairfax Media is considering two levels of access, one free and the other incurring a charge, as newspapers move to protect declining revenues.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/fairfax-news-to-charge-for-online-20090808-edm3.html

No mention of fees yet.

Does this spell the beginning of the end of free news from the maintream papers?

Will it work?

How much $$ is a fair amount to pay?

 

[Buckeroo]

THE loyalty of readers accustomed to getting their news online free is about to be tested, as Australia's largest newspaper groups prepare to charge for access to their websites.

Fairfax Media is considering two levels of access, one free and the other incurring a charge, as newspapers move to protect declining revenues.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/fairfax-news-to-charge-for-online-20090808-edm3.html

No mention of fees yet.

Does this spell the beginning of the end of free news from the maintream papers?

Will it work?

How much $$ is a fair amount to pay?

Not a hope - there are thousands of news outlets & there will always be thousands of freebies. Why would I pay to be brainwashed when I can get it for free.

Anyway, Murdochs pissed at the moment because of declining advertising revenues & his billion dollar profits are fading. Woe is me. He will just have to put up with the pain like everyone else.

Cheers

 

[DVEOUS]

Murdoch is a greedy prick!

I had, up until recently, been advertised my photography services in one of his local papers.

Now, after enquiring about their rates, I am advertising in the other Non-Murdoch local paper. The rates are less than half of what the Murdoch paper was.

See ya Rupert

 

[Tink]

Not a hope - there are thousands of news outlets & there will always be thousands of freebies.

Why would I pay to be brainwashed when I can get it for free.

Couldnt agree more...

 

[Smurf1976]

Actual news maybe (but not while there's freebies available...).

But I'd never pay for the outright propaganda that the mainstream press prints. A lot more people seem to be waking up to the reality of how dumbed down the media has become and that, not the online alternative per se, is cutting sales of newspapers.

Paris Hilton, Britney and every other celebrity - that's NOT news. It belongs on page 50, not page 1, if it gets published at all.

War somewhere, natural disaster somewhere else, forecast of another drought this summer in Australia and so on - that's news and it belongs on the front page or in the first few pages, not as a two line bit buried somewhere on page 30.

Every now and then, I know some news before any media outlet has broadcast / printed it. And in almost all cases what they report is at best a dumbed down version of the facts, at worst an outright fabrication. Once I became aware of this, I stopped watching TV news and stopped buying newspapers. If they can't accurately report something fairly simple that happend in their own state then I sure don't trust them to get it right with anything that's complicated, interstate or overseas.

They can't even get it right when they're handed the official media release with all the info. Sometimes they just print it word for word but more often than not they remove anything that sounds remotely complicated or involves numbers, which if it's a technical subject largely makes the whole thing pointless.

 

[Buckeroo]

Actual news maybe (but not while there's freebies available...).

But I'd never pay for the outright propaganda that the mainstream press prints. A lot more people seem to be waking up to the reality of how dumbed down the media has become and that, not the online alternative per se, is cutting sales of newspapers.

Paris Hilton, Britney and every other celebrity - that's NOT news. It belongs on page 50, not page 1, if it gets published at all.

War somewhere, natural disaster somewhere else, forecast of another drought this summer in Australia and so on - that's news and it belongs on the front page or in the first few pages, not as a two line bit buried somewhere on page 30.

Every now and then, I know some news before any media outlet has broadcast / printed it. And in almost all cases what they report is at best a dumbed down version of the facts, at worst an outright fabrication. Once I became aware of this, I stopped watching TV news and stopped buying newspapers. If they can't accurately report something fairly simple that happend in their own state then I sure don't trust them to get it right with anything that's complicated, interstate or overseas.

They can't even get it right when they're handed the official media release with all the info. Sometimes they just print it word for word but more often than not they remove anything that sounds remotely complicated or involves numbers, which if it's a technical subject largely makes the whole thing pointless.

Nicely put Smurf, basically sums up the general media.

Cheers

 

[Julia]

Definitely not. But I would pay for ABC Radio news and current affairs.

 

[Calliope]

You already have to pay for online access to Financial Review articles ,and it's not cheap. But you can probably claim it as a tax deduction

 

[Prospector]

Have to laugh at Murdoch - he says quality journalism doesnt come cheap and so he will have to charge for it. Only problem is, his online (and paper) news productions are full of rubbish and the stuff that is cheap to buy from external sources - namely your Paris does Dallas kind of stuff. Seriously, who does he think will actually buy this stuff?

 

[So_Cynical]

Ill pay as long as its ridiculously cheap and there's some sort of extras, i reckon for the pay model to work it cant be just a pure news service, it will need to be tacked on to facebook/flicker/youtube...some sort of community based site.

 

[disarray]

the future looks something like this ...

 

[Calliope]

Definitely not. But I would pay for ABC Radio news and current affairs.

You already do.

 

[nulla nulla]

Have to laugh at Murdoch - he says quality journalism doesnt come cheap and so he will have to charge for it. Only problem is, his online (and paper) news productions are full of rubbish and the stuff that is cheap to buy from external sources - namely your Paris does Dallas kind of stuff. Seriously, who does he think will actually buy this stuff?

Given the amount of product placement we see in news shows and particularly the unwanted popups on the internet news links, I think they would have a cheek trying to charge the end user for access.

 

[sam76]

the future looks something like this ...

Is that for real or a mock up?

 

[jono1887]

the future looks something like this ...

lets hope not

 

[Julia]

You already do.

Not in any realistic sense, Calliope.
I reckon I get hugely more than 6 cents per day of value from the ABC.
(That's what it was the last time I checked.)
I doubt Rupert is envisaging anything so inexpensive and will be offering far less in the way of quality.

 

[Monario]

Murdoch is a greedy prick!

I had, up until recently, been advertised my photography services in one of his local papers.

Now, after enquiring about their rates, I am advertising in the other Non-Murdoch local paper. The rates are less than half of what the Murdoch paper was.

See ya Rupert

Thats great to hear, however advertising costs are based on circulation levels, you maybe paying half as much, and you are probably only reaching a 3rd of the community that you were!!

 

[Monario]

Hard copy paper is hard to beat for me, all the news and adds local council info etc. in one spot...

It takes much longer to search for all the info on the net than it does in a paper, and its much more portable!!!

 

[Boggo]

Not in any realistic sense, Calliope.
I reckon I get hugely more than 6 cents per day of value from the ABC.
(That's what it was the last time I checked.)

I agree with you Julia, add to that SBS World News and forget the rest with their 12 minutes of news including what Paris Hilton is up to this week and 18 minutes of ads and self promo issues.

Is CH9 losing the plot ?, even 60 minutes only went for 45 minutes tonight !

 

[ROE]

THE loyalty of readers accustomed to getting their news online free is about to be tested, as Australia's largest newspaper groups prepare to charge for access to their websites.

Fairfax Media is considering two levels of access, one free and the other incurring a charge, as newspapers move to protect declining revenues.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/fairfax-news-to-charge-for-online-20090808-edm3.html

No mention of fees yet.

Does this spell the beginning of the end of free news from the maintream papers?

Will it work?

How much $$ is a fair amount to pay?

Most of the stuff you get for free are just piece and pieces of a full paper
I cant see anything wrong pay 50 cents - $1 for electronic copy of
the paper..

There are million of people subscribe to Wall St Journal for 30 cents a day

arf.com is not serious about providing online service, they are there to offset their revenue but not a real serious online model.

they cost $4.50 a day, who the hell pay that sort of money unless
you are a large fund manager..

They come out with 50 cents a day subscription like wall st journal
I pay in an instance.