Times to charge £1 a day for access to online content

14. @ripsnorter - I highly doubt that Murdoch would ever look at the model that Lebedev has used for the Evening Standard. Don't forget that News International had their own Freesheet in The London Paper. This is a very risky business model and the only afternoon freesheet that survived (the Metro is different IMO) was the Evening Standard. Even that was paid for at the time and only recently became free again. There isn't enough room for more than one freesheet in the market (again I believe that the Metro and ES are different as they are distributed at different times of the day) as the advertising budgets don't allow for this.

As for paying for online content, the WSJ has done this with some success, but then it is far more targeted than The Times. As has been stated, they would need to offer exclusive content and features that no-one else could (easily) replicate.

For the idea of football content, Murdoch said that all of his sites would be paid for which includes the Sun. This is where the ownership of Sky Sports could come into its own. Again, I'm not sure of the legality of it, but he could use the Sky archives to show exclusive clips of the games from the weekend which expert comments. That's one way that he could produce content that people would pay for that is not easily replicated by anyone else (BBC excluded).

13. The decision by News International to charge for access to their websites is a really interesting move. Mel****er applauds the innovation of new business models for online content. Everybody benefits from a thriving and successful global publishing sector; any move that can mitigate the financial challenges in the media sector is a positive.

Many publications – such as the Wall Street Journal for example – have already gone down this route and others are considering the same.

The ongoing challenge for publishers, in the aftermath of installing pay walls, will be to ensure their customers are aware of the valuable and compelling content being created by their journalists. This could very easily be content that readers would be more than happy to pay for, but which they might not even know exists. Getting the balance right between the availability of free content and access to paid-for content will be crucial.

As a truly global media monitoring company, Mel****er believes we can play a valuable role in this regard. We are already creating global awareness of restricted content behind login pages and pay walls for numerous media outlets such as the Financial Times. We promote and market their restricted content to a global audience of potential paying readers and thereby drive traffic and revenue for our partnering publishers.

Jorn Lyseggen, CEO of Mel****er (http://mel****er.com/en/who-we-are)

12. @ nicolasmerritt

I agree. There has to be real value behind the paywall rather than just a rehash of the latest issue. Obviously there would be access to archive material and I am sure some Times readers will take up the offer per se, but I doubt the immediate take-up will be so great.

It's a given the Times will trail the website most heavily, such as "To read more go to..." and there will be website-only content, such as exclusives. But at the moment it relies on advertising to generate income and advertisers want eyeballs and clicks. Reduce traffic to a website and that drops. Fine, there will be susbscription income but it's anybody's guess how the finances will go.

Murdoch's power of access is massive agreed, some would say too massive. If there is something to which he owns all rights, across all platforms, then he could certainly migrate extra content from one to the other. But there is also the issue of demographics. The Times website has to appeal to whom? Times readers, obviously. How many of them are Sky subscribers? And if it's extra football coverage, for example, there are plenty of other websites stillnot charging.

Could Murdoch be thinking of pulling a Lebvedev, as in give away the newspaper, increase circulation, pull in more advertisers and potentially more subscribers for the website? The one thing for sure is that he does not, never did, and never will tolerate a business that bleeds red ink too long and too heavily.

I lament the decline in quality newspaper reporting, especially of news and a race to the bottom of the market is never a good idea.

As someone who has suffered personally from the decline in advertising and subsciptions it's a general situation with great cause for concern. Not just for my position (although I've diversified successfully) and those of others still trying to earn a living in the sector, but it really is a case of people not knowing what they've got till it's gone. The last newspaper left standing most likely won't even bother to print obituaries unless they're of celebs!

11. @ ripsorter

His plan could possibly work if he puts stuff of real value behind the paywalls. For example, you'd only get to read football match reports in his papers, thanks to his Sky deal. No idea if that is possible or even legal though. But I wouldn't want to write him off - he has massive power of access.

10. i take back my sarcasm about the quality of the Times. no offence meant, each to their own

9. not tabloid? hmmm. anyway I certainly wouldn't pay for the Times, but if what I believe to be a quality paper or valued site decided on a paywall pitched at a reasonable micropayment value for usage then I may well pay as i do value serious quality journalism.

If they want subscriptions then try coming up with a value statement over and above "pay or you can't have it". try some extra services, content, something.

They are flogging an outmoded business model to death that they have made ALOT of money and gained political strength from over the years, and not invested in enough to be ready for this new era for journalism.

8. The Times should have bundles this with other resources internally i.e. the Sun, the Post etc. People won't pay for single copies. They could have attached Sky News/ Sport. Bundling works, people perceive value from it. when you can compare the $/£ in your hand with something online, the one in your hand will win. It's a shame because I like The Times, but I want The Times + XYZ + XYZ for a £1 a day - with my phone, I get the internet, talk, messages and some content for x

7. scottgilbert@6, thank you. My point, although not stated, exactly. Either everyone puts up a paywall or Murdoch has to offer unique content for the scheme to work, otherwise we'll all just keep site hopping. Murdoch has singled out Google especially, as well as news aggragators, for helping itself and earning money from it via ad sales and referrals. He has a very valid point. But I doubt his plan will work.

6. ripsnorter @ 5, i agree with you, but i wouldnt pay to read techradar, as i would jump ship to endgagdet and if that went i would jump again to T3 then Gizmodo, slate magaizine, techcrunch, the inquirer and boy genius report.

5. I'm not a Times reader and very, very occasionally buy the Sunday Times, but as a content producer myself I can well understand Murdoch's desire to monetise something that the vast majority believe should be free - because that's the Internet, right? Well, no: good journalism and news do cost money to produce, readerships are dropping and advertising revenues are a long way off what they were.

It's a free choice whether to pay the asking price or switch to other sources. If it works you can expect others to follow suit. If it doesn't, and unless the price drops or the Times websites offer unique content and features I don't think it will, then the entire financial model of newspaper journalism is called into greater question.

Without wishing to give anyone the wrong idea, how much would you be willing to pay for Techradar?

4. Apart from the fact that The Times could hardly be considered a tabloid, I use its website daily, along with many others. As a result of a fragmented media industry where sales of hard copy have wilted dramatically the online revolution has forced publishers to find new ways of generating income and charging for online content has been mooted for some time. While I have some sympathy with their plight, not least that quality journalism is now merely a cheap commodity, I believe charging consumers for the current quality of online content is folly. If there is one thing we have learned in the internet’s short life it’s that Joe Public doesn’t like to pay for what is deemed as ‘everyday’ online content.

Like me, many people have grown accustomed to free access to the online news for many years. As a ‘casual’ user of news websites the content is not crucial to me and therefore not of great value. Such is the nature of the internet now that a million current news stories are available from a million different online sources, the vast majority of which are free. If I have to pay at one website I will simply go elsewhere.

The bottom line is that the media industry is going to have to come up with a whole new way of sourcing income. I’m afraid charging users for online access just ain’t going to work.

3. I use Times online all the time on my phone. Noooo!

2. So now the print media want you to pay for lies, propaganda and bs? Wow print media simply can't die soon enough.

Unfortunately while most peple will be smart enough to stay away from this BS I wonder if the few morons who do pay for this BS might give the idiots in the print media justification for their stupid move.

Either way if this takes eyes away from the pollution that is spread in popular newspapers then it can only be a good thing for British IQ's and critical thinking.

1. what, pay for Times tabloid content?? really?? you think you're worth that? Murdoch #fail