Times Online

[Nottseagull]

I think the newspapers only have themselves to blame for falling sales. I was surprised when they first started putting content online; it's obvious they would lose the sales of those who only have a few minutes each day to read a paper.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I think that's right. It's no coincidence that this has been introduced to come into force just after the election.

But I don't think the effect of e-delivery should be under-estimated. Media outlets (like the one I work for) are expending a lot of effort in working out how to deliver to mobile devices and how to charge for it.

Like the idiots who run football, they are probably thinking ... "Good ol' Rupert. He's found a way to make us all rich".

Will people never learn?

 

[beorhthelm]

£1 a day isnt going to get much interest and surely cut into their advertising from page hits substantially. cant say i read it often, if i were to use a paid site it would have to be no more than the order of £1 a week.

 

[Brian Fantana]

As a journalist myself, I think that this was inevitable step that other media outlets will follow. Murdoch has a knack of getting decisions right so I wouldn't be surprised to see this whole thing work out.

 

[DJ Leon]

£1 or £2 a week? 5000 subscribers (conservative figure, no?) half and half = £7500. Multiplied by 365 = £2.7 million. Plus other revenue from targeted advertising, newsstand etc. Yep, I can see this working.

In the short -term though. What happens when you don't have the reach any more?