21–30 of 51 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And who in their right mind would pay £1 for a 'one day pass'? This isn't porn, it's just news.
I paid up to $150/day for 1-day passes for some sort of "news". You have no idea how much it costs to get certain types of "news". Try getting streaming broadcasts for 99% of the conferences that are not computing related. It's nigh near impossible and it costs much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And who in their right mind would pay £1 for a 'one day pass'? This isn't porn, it's just news.
I paid up to $150/day for 1-day passes for some sort of "news". You have no idea how much it costs to get certain types of "news". Try getting streaming broadcasts for 99% of the conferences that are not computing related. It's nigh near impossible and it costs much.
I'll bet the type of news you're willing to pay for isn't aimed at the general public. I reckon sites that will do well behind a paywall are either specialist sites or industry specific sites or even sites that offer time sensitive information first. The kind of sites that either offer quality information or hold a monopoly on this information. They also won't price this for the general public they'll price it for the corporations.
Much better than I had thought they might be, was hearing 7000 UUs a week bandied around before. (that said, with enough churn 7000 UUs could make 100,000+ total users since live). that said, I wonder how many are repeat users, how many continue to use the site after their trial subscription is over. not sure what the figures were for there advertising revenue before, but would be interesting to see whether they are…
This is on the back of an TV ad campaign in the UK, so it would be interesting to see how the numbers sustain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious, what was your motivation for subscribing to the Times instead of getting your news from elsewhere? And, connection problems aside, are you satisfied enough with the service to continue paying for it?
To me, reading the news is a very important part of my day. I always feel slightly uncomfortable when reading Guardian/Telegraph, almost certainly because the Times aligns with my political spectrum much closer. The cost is worth the fact that I find the articles much more...enjoyable(I'm not entirely sure that's the best word!). Connection problems aside, I have been satisfied with the service. If I hadn't been a Ti…
I'm calling a spade a spade. 100,000 people is pathetic. Note that this is not subscribers - this is "the total amount of people who have paid in one way or another". 50,000 of those are subscribers, which in PR-speak probably means "people who have subscribed" i.e. not the current amount of subscribers. With an in-built audience of over a million in circulation, plus a reach that goes far beyond that, an ad campaign…
The figure also includes Apple iTunes Store App purchases and Kindle subscriptions. But they're not broken down. For all we know 3 people could have bought direct access to the website and the other 99,997 people could have bought the App to read something on their iPhone while taking the train to work.
It's interesting to see that the Guardian are now earning around £40 million from on-line ad revenues. While the back of a napkin calculation by the BBC blogger puts The Times paywall at £7 million.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, reading the news is a very important part of my day. I always feel slightly uncomfortable when reading Guardian/Telegraph, almost certainly because the Times aligns with my political spectrum much closer. The cost is worth the fact that I find the articles much more...enjoyable(I'm not entirely sure that's the best word!). Connection problems aside, I have been satisfied with the service. If I hadn't been a Ti…
I also find that the World News section of the Times is second to none (in terms of depth), and yes, that includes the BBC.
What IS interesting though is the potential to walk away from the advertising model to achieve less biased news. It's Murdoch, so it won't happen, but it would be a fascinating experiment. Shamelessly borrowing from Chomsky's "Propaganda Model" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model), mass media can never truly hold discussion & debate beyond the framework laid down by the interests of business. Whether journalists recognize it or not, there will always be limits on what they can say. Because to publish truly controversial material would be to terminate your public voice (i.e. no advertising, no revenue, no company).
The Web, with near-zero distribution costs, is the first time in history that it has become economical viable to escape advertising, by only needing to charge people a modest amount: the principle cost is investigative journalism, and there is a very helpful correlation between "well-connected Web user" and people who believe it is important to support an independent media outlet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious, what was your motivation for subscribing to the Times instead of getting your news from elsewhere? And, connection problems aside, are you satisfied enough with the service to continue paying for it?
To me, reading the news is a very important part of my day. I always feel slightly uncomfortable when reading Guardian/Telegraph, almost certainly because the Times aligns with my political spectrum much closer. The cost is worth the fact that I find the articles much more...enjoyable(I'm not entirely sure that's the best word!). Connection problems aside, I have been satisfied with the service. If I hadn't been a Ti…
So you want to continue to read content from a media outlet that has an agenda from a particular political perspective AND you consider this an important part of your day.
I'm sorry but I have to respectfully disagree with your methods of thinking. Doesn't this make you blind to anything else out there?
It's notable that they expect to "lose 90%" of those subscribers when they end the current "£1 for a month" introductory offer, which is being pushed by a huge celebrity-endorsed advertising campaign on the London underground. So the actual figure is nearer 10,000 subscribers. What IS interesting though is the potential to walk away from the advertising model to achieve less biased news. It's Murdoch, so it won't hap…
The problem are the production costs of quality news reporting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, reading the news is a very important part of my day. I always feel slightly uncomfortable when reading Guardian/Telegraph, almost certainly because the Times aligns with my political spectrum much closer. The cost is worth the fact that I find the articles much more...enjoyable(I'm not entirely sure that's the best word!). Connection problems aside, I have been satisfied with the service. If I hadn't been a Ti…
aligns with my political spectrum much closer. So you want to continue to read content from a media outlet that has an agenda from a particular political perspective AND you consider this an important part of your day. I'm sorry but I have to respectfully disagree with your methods of thinking. Doesn't this make you blind to anything else out there?