Metropol

indeed the OED tends to favour the Z versions of numerous words such as colonization.

Chie wrote:The combined daily circulation of the national newspapers is 11,034,758 (July 2008).

The regional newspaper circulation is 2,868,544 (June 2008).

So that's just under 14 million people who definitely read a newspaper every day, but they probably share the paper with their partner/spouse, colleagues, leave it on the bus for other people to read, then there's the people who read them at libraries... it all adds up.

By the same token..



Circulation is quite clearly falling. It's not going to stay that high forever. Things are even more stark in the US.

What's interesting, though, is that in the US graph I linked to, the figures for the Wall Street Journal are actually increasing - which I suppose you could attribute to the fact that their type of business reporting is aimed at a specific audience, which wouldn't be able to find it elsewhere.

According to another survey the overall readership is much higher:

http://www.nrs.co.uk/downloads/pdf/down ... 200906.pdf

Anyway, there is an article in the financial section of The Guardian today which suggests "48% of British and American consumers would be willing to pay a few pounds a month for online news."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009 ... newspapers

That's a revenue potential of about £60 million per month, per website. Granted, the number of subscribers won't be that high in reality, but even a fraction of the estimated number of people willing to pay would bring in more revenue than the current £2 million per year brought in from advertising.

"There's not enough advertising in the world to make all the websites profitable," Murdoch told his Sky News network in Australia. "We'd rather have fewer people coming to our websites but paying."

I think he's right. There is also a big difference between newspaper articles and the free ones from the BBC News website. Newspapers are packed with extra information that the BBC simply doesn't bother to include. Murdoch's planned strategy makes complete business sense.

So the other issue is the Google thing. Personally, I'm not convinced that snippets of the article and a 'subscribe' link would work, because the huge majority of users will just hit the back button and click on a different article on the Google News page. Therefore rendering the snippet a bit pointless, as it might as well not be on the page in the first place.

Surely there's a benefit, though, in having prominent exposure on what would have to be the most popular website in the world? I would think that charging lower prices would be a good idea, since more people would make it possible to bring in more advertising revenue.

Given that the reason newspapers are so popular with advertisers is their massive reach, you'd need to have a fairly compelling business model to voluntarily reduce the size of that audience. They can't really charge more, because they don't target the sort of niche audience something like the WSJ does.

I wasn't talking about overall circulation, but rather the rate at which it's declining. The point still stands, though, papers are popular now but by the looks of things that won't always be the case.

I've just noticed that the Broadcast website is now subscription only. There's only one payment option and it's £150 per year I thought that was a lot but it turns out this is just an introductory offer. The price will rise to £215 at the end of December.

Chie wrote:I've just noticed that the Broadcast website is now subscription only. There's only one payment option and it's £150 per year I thought that was a lot but it turns out this is just an introductory offer. The price will rise to £215 at the end of December.

Yes, EMAP (the bit of EMAP that was sold to Apax and The Guardian and now does just B2B titles) are making all their websites pay.

The old website of Broadcast (which was something like produxion.com) went pay a few years ago and then returned back to free again.

I don' know how successful it will be having failed once before. The content isn't really essential reading any more and most people only buy it/read the site for jobs.. which aren't subscription. The magazine itself has gone downhill over the years as well as decreasing in size

Looks like Google is beginning to bend to Murdoch ...googlenewsblog

Sorry to drag this up, but it's been confirmed that The Times will start charging for it's website in June.

BBC News wrote:The Times and Sunday Times newspapers will start charging to access their websites in June, owner News International (NI) has announced.
Users will pay £1 for a day's access and £2 for a week's subscription.
The move opens a new front in the battle for readership and will be watched closely by the industry.
NI chief executive Rebekah Brooks said it was "a crucial step towards making the business of news an economically exciting proposition. This is just the start. The Times and The Sunday Times are the first of our four titles in the UK to move to this new approach. We will continue to develop our digital products and to invest and innovate for our customers."
Both titles will launch new websites in early May, separating their digital presence for the first time and replacing the existing, combined site, Times Online.

More here.

£1 per day?

Pfft - don't fink so.

£2 a week though?

Sput wrote:£2 a week though?

DON'T FINK SO.