Metropol

SN2005 wrote:

Hymagumba wrote:I was once told at a local rag's office that it costs more to print the thing than the cover price, therefore the ads partly subsidise the paper in addition to raising money.

It certainly does. I know for a fact that the £1 cover price on The Guardian covers about 50% of the printing costs, with the rest being covered by adverts as you said.

Does the same not apply to the interwebs? In print they stick things in columns and follow a set layout, identical to a CMS... In print they pay for the printing with ads and to make some money, same as paying for hosting/bandwidth...

They're nearly identical.... but you're right, I wouldn't pay for it. Broadcast is now subscription unless you clever enough to say.. Google the article and read it though their referral for free Not only that but I often find week/monthly publications out of date by the time I read them, not necessarily the case with newspapers but certainly not an issue online.

I know someone who freelances at The Times, and he said that there was some talk of including a code somewhere in the physical newspaper which could be used to gain access to the website. Not sure if this will happen or not though.

I know that I definitely wouldn't pay £104 a year just for access to their website. I'll get my news elsewhere. It seems odd that they've chosen a very high profile newspaper to trial this with, I mean, what if it fails completely?

Ugh, that is outrageously cheap. I think £10 a day would be better, might cut down on the number of leftist plebs who read the thing.

My Comments elsewhere sum up my views, no need to rewrite for here ....

It's an attempt that I think will fail when the advertisers withdraw from the sites in question.

News International (as usual) are not being consistent in this. Why are Sky News, The Sun and NotW sites not going pay at the same time, go figure. They had previously said that all would go pay simultaneously.

It's interesting to note that NI's plans are different from originally planned, they were to charge on a micropayment basis for each item (19p per item was mentioned in one article). I guess that the payment structure was far too complex to operate this model.

It's part of the get at the BBC Murdoch attack, he gets the money, annoys the readership, they complain, He then blames someone else (BBC) ploy.

As for my browsing habits, The Times WS is good, but unless I am desparate to read a specific article I wont bother. The Press Association news feed is as good, if not polished, and there'll always be some newspapers that wont charge.

In the US though print journalism is in chaotic decline and access to almost all Newspapers will be going Pay by Christmas to compensate. TV news sites also are going Pay too.

I'd guess that the eventual outcome will be a reversion to a free but much more limited online web presence for The Times, supplemented by a Pay App-driven content for mobile devices for PT commuters and international travellers.

cdd wrote:might cut down on the number of leftist plebs who read the thing.

I thought it was a centre right paper.

Ronnie Rowlands wrote:I thought it was a centre right paper.

It is, compared to your views!

Long time since this was brought up, but now we have the paywall up The Times has all but disappeared from search indexes, however have had some strange results tonight with a couple of links from Google going straight into the new Times website, without passing through the paywall. I suspect a Google Glitch or third party link farming showing up, but I thought it worthwhile noting as the security could be leaking afterall.

Meanwhile....

http://www.thedrum.co.uk/news/2010/08/1 ... -branding/

I don't really see why Sky need to object - aside from both logos featuring a lowercase sans-serif 'sky', there really isn't that much in common.

WillPS wrote:I don't really see why Sky need to object - aside from both logos featuring a lowercase sans-serif 'sky', there really isn't that much in common.

I doubt this frivolous suit is down to Murdoch or his board directly - more like the corporate lawyers giving themselves 3 years worth of work.

A smart board of directors would have seen it will cost them more to defend the trademark than any confusion could possibly cost them.

Idiots.

Sky won. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/11 ... trademark/