No more free JC articles from next year - The Times will charge for online usage

[ahpadt]

James Harding, the editor of the Times, today gave the clearest indication yet of how News International is going to start charging for its journalism online.

Pledging to "rewrite the economics of newspapers", Harding said the Times would charge for 24-hour access to that day's edition of the paper alongside a subscription model, but dismissed the idea of micro-payments for individual articles.

Harding said the newspaper business had to avoid the mistakes of the music industry ? and call time on free distribution.

"We created a culture of free, and we absolutely were party to that," he told an audience of senior editors and executives at the Society of Editors conference in Stansted, Essex.

"In the last few years, we have talked with great pride ? we believed advertising would sustain us ? about unique users.

"These people were window shopping down Oxford Street ? they were not coming into our shops."

He contrasted the Times's 20 million-plus unique users with the 500,000 readers who had developed a "genuine digital newspaper habit".

He confirmed that the Times ? in common with other newspapers in Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation empire ? would introduce online charging.

"From spring of next year we will start charging for the digital edition of the Times. We're working on the exact pricing model, but we'd charge for a day's paper, for a 24-hour sign-up to the Times. We'll also establish a subscription price as well."

The paper's recent decision to end the free distribution of bulk copies was in line with this strategy, he said.

"We think it's good for us and good for business to stop encouraging the trickery and fakery of the ABCs. We want real sales to real customers ? that's what our advertisers want too."

He said the Times would also enhance its relationship with its most loyal readers through home delivery and a reward programme through the recently launched Times+ membership venture.

"Historically, newspapers have treated their best customers worst and their worst customers best," he said.

"We give the paper away to people who could not care less and we pay little or no attention to people who love it and read it every day."

He said newspapers should be wary of micro-payments for individual articles.

"You have to be very careful with article-only economics," he said. "You will find yourself writing a lot more about Britney Spears and a lot less about Tamils in northern Sri Lanka."

Indicating the costs of quality journalism, he said it had cost the Times ?1.5m to run a Baghdad bureau for the duration of the Iraq war and ?10,000 to send a correspondent to report on violence in northern Sri Lanka.

"We keep investing in journalism, we believe that's what our readers want. We're not dumbing down, we're dumbing up."

He said people were prepared to pay for news and cited the 270m books bought in Britain a year as evidence of an "enormous appetite for the written word and for news".

Harding said newspapers had been undervalued for years, pointing out that when the Times was founded in the 18th century it had cost more than double a coffee or a tumblerful of gin.

"We are going to rewrite the economics of the newspaper, newsgathering and delivery business," he said. "We have to do that, we are in the fight of our lives."

Harding said the newspaper industry was fighting for the "business of reporting".

"We have to make sure we have professional reporting to check the powerful and investigate the powerful on an economic, sustainable footing."

Harding struck a more conciliatory note on Google than Murdoch, who last week threatened to take content from News Corp's papers off the search engine's index.

He suggested that the Times could find a compromise solution that would exploit Google's reach while keeping its paywall intact.

"[The question is] is there a way we can move to a model where we charge people to buy the Times but enable them to source that through Google," he said.

Martin Newland, the former editor of the Daily Telegraph and now editorial director of the Abu Dhabi paper the National, said the Times itself had played a role in the undervaluing of newspapers by slashing its cover price to 10p in the 1990s.

"That first lodged in the mind of the consumer the fact that newspapers and content can be cheap," he said.

"I was smiling to see Mr Murdoch sought to re-establish value by shutting the gate well after the horse had bolted."

He said the Telegraph had "responded suicidally with a cut-price subscription scheme".

He said from reading British newspapers online he saw an "enormous, implacable dumbing down".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/17/times-editor-james-harding-online-charging

 

[deathrazor]

So we all pitch in to buy a final gear login and share it?

 

[kurthest]

All I know is I'm never gonna spend a penny reading news online.

 

[flydiscovery]

Well, that's sad. I enjoy most of his columns. I'm torn about the whole one FG account. I mean, yes if one of us bought a paper copy we could share it around, but on the other hand I firmly believe in paying for things that cost money and not having them if you can't afford it. That said, if I'm going to pay for something I'd rather pay for the year-end book where I felt more of the money was going to Jeremy rather than to the paper.

 

[Mike Nassour]

Newspapers charging for online access has been a complete failure in the past. There's no reason to expect that to change.

 

[LindenChase]

All I know is I'm never gonna spend a penny reading news online.

I know you are not alone in this, but it always surprises me if people have this reaction. You wouldn't expect a proper newspaper like the Telegraph, Times or Guardian to be free in print. Why would it be any different online? We all got used to news being freely available, but that's not going to last, especially with revenues from online advertising going down as it has been the last few years.

 

[flydiscovery]

LC, this is a perfect example of "something that is free has no value." When you are given something for free, especially for 10+ years, it just isn't worth anything to you. I know I wouldn't pay for content from any major US paper. Why? I can get the same news free from Yahoo and MSN. The loss of a small handful of dedicated columnists just wouldn't mean that much to me. The papers just could never have anticipated the dot.com bust and it's killing them. They should never have gotten started with the free business. In retail the only thing worse than raising your prices is charging for something you used to give away. You do better off charging a small amount and increasing over time or at the very least having the free sample be on a highly restricted trial basis ya know.

 

[Jakain]

Hopefully it won't be a problem for this community since we're all basically pirates anyway (especially us non BBC folk).

 

[Redliner]

Hopefully it won't be a problem for this community since we're all basically pirates anyway (especially us non BBC folk).

Wow...you like shit storms, don?t you?

 

[Jakain]

Wow...you like shit storms, don?t you?

More like truth storm. I think its a bit naive to think that this forum won't offer free copy+pastes if JC's stuff requires money. You can get anything TG related for free here whether its mags or dvd's.

Same shit with ESPN's insider content, surf sports forums and you'll find people copying and pasting it to the webs.

 

[LindenChase]

I can get the same news free from Yahoo and MSN. The loss of a small handful of dedicated columnists just wouldn't mean that much to me.

There is more difference than "a handful of dedicated columnists" between the quality journalism provided by some proper newspapers and the content offered by sites like Yahoo and MSN. But you're right, they never ever should have given it away for free and it's going to be a long struggle to reclaim that.

 

[Redliner]

More like truth storm. I think its a bit naive to think that this forum won't offer free copy+pastes if JC's stuff requires money. You can get anything TG related for free here whether its mags or dvd's.

Same shit with ESPN's insider content, surf sports forums and you'll find people copying and pasting it to the webs.

Seriously, "truth storm"?
I never said copies wouldn?t pop up, but loggin to a forum that is centered in cars, specially Top Gear, and make such a statement can only lead to a shit storm.
Also, someone explain how?s that "derailing" a thread.

 

[flydiscovery]

There is more difference than "a handful of dedicated columnists" between the quality journalism provided by some proper newspapers and the content offered by sites like Yahoo and MSN. But you're right, they never ever should have given it away for free and it's going to be a long struggle to reclaim that.

Content on yahoo comes directly from the AP for the most part. Content in my local paper also comes directly from the AP. I can quite literally read the same article in both places.

I feel for the papers, but I'm still not going to start buying it either in print or online.

Edit: AP = Associated Press. Highly reputable.

 

[Jakain]

Seriously, "truth storm"?

Seriously!

I never said copies wouldn?t pop up, but loggin to a forum that is centered in cars, specially Top Gear, and make such a statement can only lead to a shit storm.

Quite the contrary, that statement summarizes some of the best things about this site and thats the free content offered.

Also, someone explain how?s that "derailing" a thread.

Turning this into a bickering fest about you and me rather than JC's articles going to be costing $$. I already PM'd you and you chose to go about it like this, take it to the PMs if you're still confused.

 

[pebblepixie]

I never buy newspapers and I never will. The only thing on the Timeonline site I read is Jeremy's column because it's there, otherwise I'm happy to wait and buy them in book format (which I do anyway).

No way I'd consider subscribing to a news website - I doubt it'll work anyway unless every other paper follows suit

 

[That American Girl]

Hopefully it won't be a problem for this community since we're all basically pirates anyway (especially us non BBC folk).

I am not a pirate.

I do download stuff for myself, but I do not sell it to others.

I may offer a copy to friends, but that's no different than lending someone a DVD to watch. Or someone taping it off of TV they watch.

 

[Cobol74]

I pay the licence fee, I do not mind sharing with others but I get a bit annoyed when these non payers start giving it the big moan though.

 

[That American Girl]

I pay the licence fee, I do not mind sharing with others but I get a bit annoyed when these non payers start giving it the big moan though.

Not to go into a huge gripe...but I'd be more than happy to pay the fee in exchange for all the stuff you get access to.


Just not being given that option by the BBC.

 

[ninjacoco]

I wonder if JC's columns would show up in the news archives/databases that universities subscribe to?

Quite a few of us (myself included) would have access to that.


What Mike Nassour said re: charging for content. People will click through a million random different pages when they're bored, often bringing up ad impressions for each page load (read: $$$). Not so much if they have to pay for it. I can't justify the cost of subscribing to a paper just for Jezza's column, no matter how much I love his stuff. Guess I'll end up waiting for the book?

 

[2Billion]

Not to go into a huge gripe...but I'd be more than happy to pay the fee in exchange for all the stuff you get access to.


Just not being given that option by the BBC.

This. Proper BBC would be incentive to get cable. Butchered BBC? No.