The Times’ paywall has sparked fierce debate into the very fundamentals of what it means to be a newspaper. It all feels so aggressive. Newspapers are supposed to be for the people, sharing information that matters and is in the public interest, accessible to all!
Forgive me for playing devil’s advocate here, but what’s the big problem with paying for a product? Are we so used to free online content at the cost of being bombarded with advertisements? And anyway, we’ve all been paying for BBC content for years!
However, the reports are in and we hear that just 15,000 people signed up to pay for access. A meagre circulation considering the opening offer of £1 for 30 days – cheaper than a month of print papers, but it seems people simply do not like to pay for online content.
However, a little birdie tells me that print subscribers get free access to the online site – hmmm, perhaps it’s a clever ploy to boost print subscriptions is at play?
The Times is known for quality reporting with good sourcing, but the proof, they say, will be in the pudding when readers make the trade off between clean reporting and a plethora of free online sources.
But sharing is having a moment and let’s face it, asking for payment is not in the spirit of sharing. With so many alternative, perfectly effective sources available, the success of the Times paywall may be entirely dependant on whether other publications impose a paywall too – it could become an all or nothing scenario.
Image by Just.Luc at www.flickr.com
Leave a Reply