Posted by Dan Willis (Sports Editor)
News International’s announcement to charge for its online content of The Times and The Sunday Times has caused quite a stir. From June, accessing the Times Online site will cost you £1 a day (the same price as purchasing the newspaper) or £2 for a week’s subscription.
My first reaction to the news was that News International was simply trying to cash in, that charging for online newspaper content is wrong and that the move is destined to fail. But look a little closer and you see that the decision isn’t quite as controversial as it seems.
Admittedly, becoming the first British newspaper to introduce a ‘pay wall’ is a bold move. You’d expect most people to switch from visiting the Times Online to its competitors, The Guardian , The Independent , The Telegraph and the BBC – a service paid for by TV licence revenues.
This is because paying for something that was once free is difficult to stomach. Plus, online subscription prices are high when you consider that most visitors to newspaper websites will only read a few articles, compared to those who buy an actual newspaper. The cover price of the print edition includes print, paper and distribution costs, with both wholesalers and retailers taking a share - costs that the digital version of the newspaper does not incur. I can't help wondering if a system like iTunes, where you simply pay for what you access, be a fairer pricing model.
Of course, charging for online newspaper content is nothing new. Specialist titles like The Financial Times has 1.9 million registered users and is making a success of the paid content market. However, other news titles, such as El Pais from Spain and NY Newsday, failed when they tried to squeeze cash out of their online punters. But that was then and this is now. Perhaps the time has come when people are prepared to pay to read newspapers online?
Let’s face it, reading an online newspaper does feel a little like you’re getting something for free when perhaps you should be paying for it. Admittedly, much of the website content will be repurposed from the newspaper and presumably already covered in its production costs. But there is plenty of extra content to produce online and you need journalists to provide this, you also need to pay the technical people who maintain the website. Online advertising revenue will only cover some of this.
Chief executive of News International Rebekah Brooks has called the move a “defining moment for journalism”. If this is the only way for newspapers and their websites to survive then perhaps paying for this service is a good thing. If this change helps revitalise the editorial industry and create more jobs, I’d certainly be in favour.
The Times Online is hugely popular, attracting 20 million unique visitors each month, but the decision to charge to read online content will require visitors to go through some kind of cultural shift. And ultimately, I can’t see News International being successful unless the majority of its competitors decide to do the same.