Re: PayWalls for on-line newspapers and magazine

I'm looking forward to the Sun on Twitter.


Re: PayWalls for on-line newspapers and magazine

david harvey's monkey wrote:

REgistration: I'm with Cuts, taken me until now to even get paypal and youtube log ins.

Future: Am with Gore though I think it's already happened. Younger people who have grown up with the internet get the news and information they are particularly interested in through social networking, fans sites and straight from the sources they are interested in.

I have worked in the offices of two newspapers. Everyday the editors get all the other newspapers and see what everyone's writing about then copy each others stories. The vast majority of the content in newspapers is re-written from press releases. The content of the magazines and sports supplements are virtually identical because they too are getting their content from PR's and sponsors and advertisers. Most news is gathered from Press Releases, eye witness accounts or news wires like the PA. Most news in newspapers has already been announced on television the day before.

There are numerous independent news gathering and features sites. First Post, Huffington Post, Daily Beast all provide upto date news digests. Smoking Gun offers investigative journalism. Gossip websites now break the big stories like Jacko's death. Wikileaks provide whistleblowing service.

Until they find a way to charge you for turning the internet ON in your phone or computer they will not be able to stop new sites delivering information, opinion and imagery. It's now like trying to charge people to listen to someone singing in the street.

Lst night I found something online that had had 300 views on You Tube, the 100 Greatest Movie Insults. I posted it on Sabotage, Facebook, here. I sent it to Jonathan Ross, he retweeted it, it went to half a million people who promptly retweeted it endlessly driving ten thousand viewers to my site. meanwhile a woman in the states with 20,000 very active followers took the You Tube link from my original tweet and linked her tweet right to the original You Tube link. I watched all of this happen click by click it was fascinating.

I was just one person who took a web address and put it out there, others will have been doing the same as it is such a great montage. I just looked 24 hours on... 300,000 views on you tube. same clip, same registered name on it.

That speed of movement means people no longer need to go to huge news gathering organisations to get information. That was just a load of movie clips. But when Jacko died the internet spread the word before an online newspaper or daily paper could even file a report.

It's the speed of information that has fucked this for the papers, not just who does and doesn't pay. Every paper I've worked with are crushingly aware that very very few people under 30 are buying their newspapers. As such they are trying to make as much money out of their ever-diminishing older group of readers.

If something happens I don't go to a newspaper, I go to a social network site or a message board. It only takes one person to have witnessed something to pass it on. You can say newspapers offer authenticity but every week the papers have apologised for lies they have printed and even invented.

News gathering, reporting, storytelling, photography are all important but newspapers - whether online, on shelf, paid for either way are no longer NEEDED. That's a key point. The world's changing and The old regime don't understand it.

Last week we had a great double page spread  interview on the Modern Toss exhibition in the Times, the same week a woman on the sunday times sent me a link to a short article they'd printed by me the week before. I used to like the Times website but you know what? I'm like Cuts, I'll be arsed if I'm filling in any more boxes than I have to.

Within an hour I'd seen a scan of the article. We didn't have a link we could send out to the 10,000 people who have looked at the Modern Toss content on our site or the similar number the boys have on their own site, so The Times missed out on over 20,000 unique views.

The big boys are sick of giving their info away for free online, the fact is they mainly print exactly the same info as everyone else. Fromthe PA to the other broadsheets to the BBC and on and on. Personalities, politicians, soldiers all have message boards, twitter, blogs and so on. You no longer need to go to a paper to see what they say on an issue.

The world has changed.

This is how I feel.  If I do register and it doesn't save the ID and password, the likelihood is I will forget about the site altogether.  It's a collosall pain in the arse to remember dozens of passwords and ID's and as for paying for content then I have to be persuaded over a long period of time that I trust the content.  I actually would contribute to ST to support something I want to preserve.  If asked I would but I understand the model (to a point) and the wider view is that charging kills traffic as does registration.  I think if you can prove you have the traffic and the demographics thent he advertising will come.    If you are a shit newspaper with a handful of decent columnists than you need to up your game not just say "right we want you to pay".  The Times website can save a whole heap of money by just closing down today.  The Sunday Times takes all week to read, if you even attyempted to read 10% of it on-line you would need eye surgery.

Sunday is the only day i buy a paper as it's the only day I get any time to read one.

I'd offer you a beer, but I've only got six cans.


Re: PayWalls for on-line newspapers and magazine

It's up and running. Introductory offer for the first month, so they'll raise it in steps.


Re: PayWalls for on-line newspapers and magazine

gorefidel wrote:

I'm looking forward to the Sun on Twitter.

fill yer boots

To be someone must be a wonderful thing
A famous footballer or a rock singer


Re: PayWalls for on-line newspapers and magazine

Blue Lou Boyle wrote:
gorefidel wrote:

I'm looking forward to the Sun on Twitter.

fill yer boots

See, every story in the paper covered in full in less than 140 characters. Brilliant. That's what I call connecting with your readership. As long as they keep each word to no more than two syllables


Re: PayWalls for on-line newspapers and magazine … his180712/

++ Updated 1pm July 19th — see para below in ++
How’s The Times/Sunday Times paywall thing doing?
Well, Beehive City said we didn’t believe that the endless graphs about the levels of web traffic to The Times homepage told you anything. That hasn’t stopped more meaningless articles appearing in the days since.
So it’s time to end the uncertainty. Here’s the sign-up data the Hive has picked up (and if you want more analysis on the figures, read here … ata191807/ 

Number of people registering for The Times and Sunday Times websites during the free trial period: 150,000
++ Update 19/07 noon:  I’m now hearing from official sources that this number is in fact somewhat higher. But I’m hearing no challege to the more important numbers below ++
Number of people actually agreeing to pay money: 15,000
This figure, apparently, is considered disappointing. And if it’s right it’s certainly a slow start (right now Beehive City considers itself bigger than Times Online, and we ain’t lying either). But you’d still expect that to build steadily from here even if the Mandelson memoirs haven’t delivered the box office.
But there is more obviously positive news too.
Number of people paying for The Times’s separate iPad application: 12,500
That’s considered to be a very good number — given that not that many people own an iPad. Which makes you think that the future of newspapers starts to look a bit like the music industry. A declining print business; a modestly growing Apple dominated digital-paid for business — and an internet free-for-all in which nobody pays for anything that erodes the previous two.

Last edited by gorefidel (Mon 19 Jul 2010 3:21 pm)


Re: PayWalls for on-line newspapers and magazine

More free stuff. It's the only time I'm tempted to buy papers. I always bought the Indie when they did free dvd's and stuck with it little while longer till I got fed up of half read papers taking over the house.

I bought the Mirror the other week just for the free Prince album (which is very good btw) and although there was a load of celebrity guff in there I enjoyed reading Brian Reade and Tony Parsons.

I even bought the Mail a few years ago - again for the free Prince album

Prince albums will save newspapers. It's a Sign O' the times. … he8471708/

Last edited by Two R's (Mon 19 Jul 2010 4:41 pm)

A man may fight for many things. His country, his friends, his principles, the glistening tear on the cheek of a golden child. But personally, I'd mud-wrestle my own mother for a ton of cash, an amusing clock and a sack of French p*rn.


Re: PayWalls for on-line newspapers and magazine

Smutty Lips wrote:
Blue Lou Boyle wrote:

sooner the tabloids go behind a paywall the better if you ask me

Great stuff, pithy and to the point, and yes that would be a great day.

I look at the sun website most days, most days just the home page, some days i'll click on a football story and very very occaisionally i'll click on another item.

So its all your fault then.  The MailOnline takes over the world.. *please note small words and paragraphs*

How Mail Online took over the world … 708023.stm

The Daily Mail's website has became the world's most popular online newspaper. Industry insiders look at how it's been achieved.

It has been a turbulent time for the UK's newspaper industry.

After years of declining circulation figures and falling advertising revenues came the bombshell of phone hacking and the subsequent inquiry into press ethics.

But amid the recriminations and the soul searching there has been a gathering success story for the industry which has received less mainstream coverage.

Earlier this year, the Daily Mail's website became the world's most popular online newspaper , according to the web analytics firm comScore.

The latest data suggests Mail Online has beaten the New York Times for the third month running.
In February, it had 47.4 million unique visitors to its site, nearly three million more than the American broadsheet (albeit being beaten to first place for the month by USA Today which had a seasonal spike in traffic from users getting live Superbowl updates).

Bikini girls

The Daily Mail's website launched in its current form three years ago bringing readers a diet of hard news and politics, human interest and celebrity, bizarre animal snaps and girls in bikinis on beaches.
So how has it stormed to worldwide domination in that time?

"The Mail took a decision early on that it was going to be drawn in the direction the audience wanted to go," says Emily Bell, director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University in New York.

Pocket-lint's Stuart Miles points to the Mail's 'clickability'
The website's success is in part down to a decision to break with the editorial priorities of its print counterpart, she claims.

"The Mail really changed online from being a relatively socially conservative paper of the middle market in the UK... to essentially a showbiz-driven US site," she says.

Those at the paper argue they are simply doing what makes commercial sense, in what is described as a "synthesis of good old Fleet Street values".

They point to the scale and range of content - from hard news to celebrity - which creates an "addictive" offering reflective of what tabloid papers have been doing for years.

An average Mail Online front page can contain around 260 stories. It uses large pictures (often 636 pixels or more in width), and story headlines are long - often 20 words.

It's about making stories more "clickable" so that readers hang around and continue to surf through content, according to Stuart Miles who runs the technology website Pocket-lint .

But such a content heavy approach also has more technical advantages, he explains. "The way that Google works is that it has a spider, a robot, that comes to your site and tries to find out useful information and then indexes that," he says.

The Times and Sunday Times sites are now behind a paywall "There's lots of stories here... So if you're a robot and you've come to this page you think 'wow, I've got loads to read' and that helps index faster."

But so-called Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) is nothing new, and all news websites play the same game.

The real reason for Mail Online's success, say those behind it, is that it has taken lessons from the ultra-competitive world of
the UK newspaper business and applied them to the online world.
They talk of a growing appetite for British journalism abroad thanks to the heritage of Fleet Street where "you didn't last very long by being boring".

The web traffic figures suggest its bold and busy coverage has given Mail Online global popular appeal; combining the news credibility of its print counterpart with plenty of quirky content and celebrity - the stuff that works so well in the fast-turnaround, content-sharing world of online.

As such, it's been able to own a big space in the market between more highbrow competitors in the form of broadsheet newspaper sites and the more gossipy rivals like TMZ or Perez Hilton.
In fact, the site says 60% of all visitors come directly to the homepage, as opposed to arriving via search engines or shared stories.

'Ruthlessly' big

The Mail's growth comes at a critical moment of decision for newspapers about how to make money online.
Some competitors have already begun to put up "paywalls" - with Rupert Murdoch-owned The Times now leading the way in creating paid-for content.

But Mail Online's strategy is "ruthlessly" to become the biggest while remaining free to use, according to Emily Bell.
"They decided - and this was a very smart move on their part - that you don't know how much growth there is yet in the internet market so keep going after it, and then the dollars or pounds will follow," she says.
The move has yet to pay off - the site won't be profitable until at least next year, according to its parent company.
But its online advertising revenues are up sharply and the site has been recruiting more reporters.
Mail Online has a daily staff of around 70 journalists, including 20 in New York working on news stories and 10 in LA working to the showbiz agenda.

The Mail might be sweeping aside its traditional UK newspaper competitors, but by being big and remaining free to use it has its focus on what those at the paper see as the "lethal" competition - the big American web news providers like AOL, MSN, and Google