News - News Corp to charge for all news websites

[GheeTsar]

While it may be inevitable, it raises some concerns. Possible outcomes of mass uptake of direct payment news based sites could be:

- Fewer sites per topic (People would probably not pay for two subscriptions covering the same topic. Microtransactions would get away from this but have higher overheads)
- An increase in political power for "free" to visit sites (even more power to the BBC for instance)
- Resentment of advertising when you are already paying for the site, so possibly more advertising revenue for advert funded sites

IMHO this will just lead to another funding niche. It will work well for some news sites, but not all.

[Saracen]

I agree, things will change, some will gain and some lose. I htnk about the only thing that is certain is that those that can't or won't adapt as tings change will wither and die. Some probably already have or are at least in terminal decline.

But in some ways, it's healthy too.

You're right, if we have to pay for access, almost all of us will restrain the breadth of our access, to a limited number of paying sites (maybe one, maybe none), and the free sites. Not everybody will be willing to pay at all, and that will mean business driven to the free sites - I agree there, too.

But the upside of that is that the free sites will see an increase in traffic, which in turn will justify an increase in advertising, or ad rates.

It also gives a better foothold for new launches. I'm not necessarily taking about national news sites, but smaller, targeted site. Right now, it's hard to compete with large, established sites because there's something of a catch-22 .... you struggle to attract traffic if you haven't got all the bells and whistles, and a broad depth of content. For some strange reason, more (IMHO) emphasis is often put on equipping sites with the latest bells and whistles, the latest fancy web technology, with streaming video and so forth, than on pure, quality content. Small sites struggle to keep up with that. Perhaps people will start to focus on the quality of content if they have to make a more considered decision about which sites to spend time on, because they're paying to do so. As it is, most web users (including me) are gadflies .... they flit from one site to the next and if I don't like what I see or can't find it, pretty damn quick, I'm off.

But people will pay attention and think a bout what they really want from a site, if they're paying for it. It might also make them value what they get a bit more. It will certainly make them assess the content more critically. I regularly go searching for the answers to technical issues or queries, and I'm sure most of us here have found the same as I have .... the quality of information on some sites is absolutely dire. And in 20 years of writing for various publications, I've come across countless instances where information, or websites or even sometimes in print, is flat-out wrong. For instance, someone reviewing a product saying it doesn't do or have x-feature, when, as I've reviewed the same product, I know full well it does do or have that, because I used it. Or conversely, saying it does have something when I know full well it doesn't, 'cos I've got one on my desk at the time.

I've seen computer magazines/websites get it badly wrong. I've seen photo magazines publish a review of a product as if it were a production item when, in fact, production of that item was delayed and they won't be available for several months .... where I know the item is a beta or pre-production unit, because I've just asked the company concerned how come production units are available and I didn't know about it, only to hear a lengthy and fairly vitriolic rant about publications that break non-disclosure agreements and portray early samples as production units. Of course, the readers don't know it's a pre-production sample, so take ant comments (and criticisms) at face value.

Anyway, back on point ..... if some sites start to charge, there;s an opportunity for smaller and new sites to spring up, on a smaller scale, and they'll get a level of attention they wouldn't have got before because, initially at least, they'll have to be free to access, or they won't get any visitors at all.


In other words, there'll be (IMHO) structural changes, but the maturing of the web will see both casualties and opportunities. Hopefully, it won't all be bad news.

[aidanjt]

If people wont use the Sky website for free, what makes them think people will pay to use it?

[johner]

good, i hope all 'main-stream' news sites do this, no one pays and they shut down, we might then actually get the real news then rather than the crap that is published to influence us 'useless eaters' to follow the elites global agenda.