Read more.Quote:
Rupert Murdoch?s great experiment extends to The Times websites to compensate for declining ad revenue.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Rupert Murdoch?s great experiment extends to The Times websites to compensate for declining ad revenue.
Think Ill spend that £100 a year on something fun...and read my news somewhere else! :)
So the response to falling ad revenues is to drive most of the readers away too. Uh huh. Riiiiiight.
Ha ha. Ho ho. Ho ho ho.Quote:
You can register for the new sites here.
I was tempted for .... well, zero nanoseconds, actually.
Did the Times have a website?
Apparently so. I wonder how long it'll last? Flash in the pan??
Is it wrong to wish that this goes horribly, horribly wrong for Murdoch and costs him a shedload of cash?
Anything that helps to drive his pernicious touch out of our media the better! The fact that he is doing it himself (or his company) just makes it seem all the sweeter.
The way to keep your ad generated revenues is to keep your readership high by delivering a high quality product that people want to read. Personally I probably check this site 4-5 a day (at least) as there are always new articles popping up that I want to read, and a decent forum that I occasionally comment on. This is just one of those nice sites that helps me idle away those precious minutes when i can indulge my interests.
The best comment I seen on the Times website in relation to this story was how are under 18's or those without a means to pay for the Newspaper (online) meant to read it.
I don't think it's wrong - what you're wishing :)Quote:
Originally Posted by pollaxe
I guess I'll be getting my news somewhere else then. The Times' RSS feed has been getting worse and worse to be fair, when you try to read more of a story it links you to the front page these days :( Anyone got any recommendations? I quite like reading the news rather than some attempt at turning real-world events in to a soap opera, which seems to be hard to come by in the press these days.
I'm fairly sure that some of the American newspapers already tried this, and are now in deep, deep, doo-doo..
Its always the same though, people with "popular" websites that have free access always assume that people will keep reading them if they charge for it.
In an age when there is content overload, and most things are duplicated in multiple locations, unless you have massively superior content, people will move to something else very quickly, simply because its free.
Sadly, sometimes it also causes the death of a good site because someone thinks they can make money out of it.
FT.com online has been ppv @ £1.95 per week for quite some time now.