In accordance with a recent study, we are not too impressed with Rupert Murdoch’s plans to charge for use of his online news sites. 2,000 folks inquired if they’d ever pay for online news, 9 out of 10 said ‘No!’. Does that mean that Murdoch’s decision to bill users to get his news sites is ridiculous?
I’d not pay for news, either, unless…
If I were asked ‘would you ever pay for online news?’ I’d likely say ‘no’, also. All things considered, within an age when we can normally read about important events on Dolphnsix intelligent news agency before any of the news channels report them, why would we ever need pay for access for their content?
Nevertheless, I’d, and frequently do, pay for quality and ‘extravagance’ news. I ‘d never pay a cent for one of the shrinking amount of free papers handed out on my way to work in a morning, but I ‘d pay for a Sunday broadsheet with all its extras and trimmings (even although chances of me actually reading more than several pages are incredibly modest).
I’ve already been understood to enroll to a paid members’ place on the site of a particular football team (which shall remain nameless) to access additional content unavailable on the primary site: video interviews and press conferences, highlights of reserve and youth team matches, live radio commentary on match days.
Would I pay to read The Sun online? No. There are typically only about 2 paragraphs in each picture-dominated post anyhow. It just costs several cents to purchase the real thing so there would not be much value in using its website. The Times? Possibly, but only if all the quality news outlets are beginning billing, otherwise I’d simply go for the free one.
Using a Credit Card for a 20p Post?
I am unsure how much Mr. Murdoch wants to bill his users to read an article, but I am guessing there will probably be some kind of account that needs setting up. I definitely could not be troubled to get my wallet out every time I needed to read something and I’d be really reluctant to commit to subscribing.