Torygraph to put up metered paywall

2

Comments

  • tghe-retfordtghe-retford Posts: 26,449
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    swingaleg wrote: »
    You could say that 24 hour news channels have already made newspapers redundant as purveyors of 'news'
    Don't underestimate the papers, late night coverage on the news channels still have the papers command a fair bit of their attention.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 792
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Bad news, funnily enough i was wondering if they may do this a few days ago when I noticed just how often I had been visiting the site. Already subscribe to the kindle version of the Guardian but despite despising the Barclays and the papers politics it's an excellent news source.

    But, unlimited access to the site will cost just £20 a year. If other sites start to go the same way, and they will, this is fantastic value for some genuine journalism and the not the cut and paste syndicated garbage that a lot of people are becoming accustomed to.

    As for this:
    One of the major US newspapers used to do this (Washington Post or New York Times??) but seems to have stopped. Not sure how they can do it. if you delete the cookies or use a different machine how do they know? Your IP address will change everytime you are reconnected on a home broadband connection.

    The telegraph already started doing this very recently for overseas viewers, based on IP (maybe a dry run?). And you could defeat it by just putting your browser in incognito mode! Fingers crossed.......
  • wns_195wns_195 Posts: 13,556
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Currently if the Times has a maor story, the Mail publishes an article based on the Times article. Presumably The Mail will do the same if the Telegraph has a major story.

    I think the Telegraph website is a good reliable source. It is updated throughout the day more than Mail Online. The Telegraph has done some brilliant investigations.

    Twenty pounds a year to access an unlimited number of articles from a website where hundreds of articles are published daily isn't much. It is a lot cheaper than subscribing to TV services such as Sky or VM, cheaper than people spend on their mobile phones, and cheaper than many other things. The hostility to the idea of paying a couple of quid a month to access a newspaper's website shows the extent to which the everything for nothing disease has infected the nation.
  • TelevisionUserTelevisionUser Posts: 41,404
    Forum Member
    blue85 wrote: »
    Bad news, funnily enough i was wondering if they may do this a few days ago when I noticed just how often I had been visiting the site. Already subscribe to the kindle version of the Guardian but despite despising the Barclays and the papers politics it's an excellent news source.

    But, unlimited access to the site will cost just £20 a year. If other sites start to go the same way, and they will, this is fantastic value for some genuine journalism and the not the cut and paste syndicated garbage that a lot of people are becoming accustomed to.

    As for this:


    The telegraph already started doing this very recently for overseas viewers, based on IP (maybe a dry run?). And you could defeat it by just putting your browser in incognito mode! Fingers crossed.......

    That's just under a fifth of the Times' subscription price but it will still probably deter a majority of the current site visitors. It strikes me as bizarre as their current online operation does bring in money and this move threatens site visitor numbers, the number of advertisers and the online ad revenue. They really are taking a gamble with this decision.
  • wallsterwallster Posts: 17,609
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Jol44 wrote: »
    The Daily Telegraph is going to charge for access to its website, becoming the first British general interest newspaper to employ the metered paywall model.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2013/mar/26/telegraph-paywall

    I wonder if this will have any political impact in any way.

    I do feel a bit sad about it though as it is good to have ease of access to news and opinions from a wide variety of sources. In my opinion the Telegraph generally provides a pretty comprehensive, right leaning, Tory supporting source.

    The Telegraph used to be a highly respected newspaper but in the past decade it has gone downhill. I wouldn't pay to read it.
  • krob2krob2 Posts: 1,199
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Whilst the amount is really not so significant, I really don't like the idea of giving payment card details into recurring agreements for websites. I notice the Telegraph would put you on "auto renew" which I hate.

    prefer to keep it simple and use "free" sites - pay enough for the BBC already!
  • Drunken ScouserDrunken Scouser Posts: 2,645
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    You get the odd interesting piece on there from people like Charles Moore and Benedict Brogan, but I can't say I'd particularly miss it.
  • VoynichVoynich Posts: 14,481
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It was convenient to check out stories as people seem to regard it as a proper source. However I'll not be paying for it. I don't think it has anything 'unique' to offer me that other sites give me for me free.

    They'll need to work to offer people something different that will make people feel they want to subscribe. People see iPad/tablet editions as more something worth paying for, but I think they'll struggle with a browser version.
  • TelevisionUserTelevisionUser Posts: 41,404
    Forum Member
    You get the odd interesting piece on there from people like Charles Moore and Benedict Brogan, but I can't say I'd particularly miss it.

    I have a lot of time for their columnist Peter Oborne and their business reporter Katherine Rushton.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 14,922
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    There goes my main reading then. I can't see the benefit to be honest, is it just greed? Surely attracting new readers and profiting from that on-line is enough?
  • barrcode88barrcode88 Posts: 6,849
    Forum Member
    Cameron won't be happy, and The Sun is going the same way soon - good for those aspiring journalists out there, another nail in the coffin for right wing 'journalism'.
  • dosanjh1dosanjh1 Posts: 8,727
    Forum Member
    It sounds like a good model, the 20 article limit is a great carrot and much more sutble then the The Times be all and end all approach.

    Google News summarises a lot of headlines from the national press, providing a gateway to the media. I found it quite humerous to see their response to the Telegraph announcement which was to announce to the paywall via the Sydney Telegraph (https://news.google.co.uk/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn half way down the page if you get there quick and the article is here http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/brit-telegraph-readers-face-online-charge/story-e6freuz9-1226607278943)
  • barrcode88barrcode88 Posts: 6,849
    Forum Member
    The Sun has confirmed they're going the same way, the be all and end all approach, same as The Times.
  • Drunken ScouserDrunken Scouser Posts: 2,645
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I have a lot of time for their columnist Peter Oborne and their business reporter Katherine Rushton.

    Oborne's interesting sometimes, though a bit all over the place. He'll say one thing one week, then the opposite the next.
  • the_lostprophetthe_lostprophet Posts: 4,173
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    barky99 wrote: »
    good .. wouldn't want to read it anyway

    That's a really immature and selfish post. Just 'cause you don't want to read it, many people do including me (I really like their blogs in particular) but I'm certainly not going to pay to read it. I'm quite annoyed about this. :mad:
  • the_lostprophetthe_lostprophet Posts: 4,173
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    husted wrote: »
    People will be allowed to read 20 articles a month. More than enough.

    No it's not; I read that in about 2 days there - if it includes blogs as well as news stories.
  • alternatealternate Posts: 8,110
    Forum Member
    That's a really immature and selfish post. Just 'cause you don't want to read it, many people do including me (I really like their blogs in particular) but I'm certainly not going to pay to read it. I'm quite annoyed about this. :mad:

    you enjoy reading it but not enough to pay for it - I think that is why they are being forced to change their business model.
  • kirstiemcnabbkirstiemcnabb Posts: 457
    Forum Member
    See this has started today
    Bye bye telegraph it was nice looking at your pages
    Liked the finance pages, nice layout and easy to understand
    Will not pay for it, its all easily free elsewhere
    Can they not just sell more advert space on their website?
  • TelevisionUserTelevisionUser Posts: 41,404
    Forum Member
    That's a really immature and selfish post. Just 'cause you don't want to read it, many people do including me (I really like their blogs in particular) but I'm certainly not going to pay to read it. I'm quite annoyed about this. :mad:

    I guess the alternatives are the Independent and Daily Mail websites and neither of them have any plans to go behind an online paywall.
  • kirstiemcnabbkirstiemcnabb Posts: 457
    Forum Member
    I guess the alternatives are the Independent and Daily Mail websites and neither of them have any plans to go behind an online paywall.

    The Guardian is another alternative,
    Just been bookmarking all the guardian sections and removing my Telegraph bookmarks
    Did the Guardian not try this pay option many years ago? Looks to be totally free apart from paper and app paper subs
    Site all looks well laid out

    Not sure you can really put the Daily Mail in the same league of news as the telegraph
  • TelevisionUserTelevisionUser Posts: 41,404
    Forum Member
    The Guardian is another alternative,
    Just been bookmarking all the guardian sections and removing my Telegraph bookmarks
    Did the Guardian not try this pay option many years ago? Looks to be totally free apart from paper and app paper subs
    Site all looks well laid out

    Not sure you can really put the Daily Mail in the same league of news as the telegraph

    It is a centre-right newspaper and the Independent is a broadly centrist paper with a wide variety of columnists (e.g. all the way from Dominic Lawson to Owen Jones) and I just though that these two online papers would perhaps be the most likely new homes for Telegraph defectors.
  • kirstiemcnabbkirstiemcnabb Posts: 457
    Forum Member
    It is a centre-right newspaper and the Independent is a broadly centrist paper with a wide variety of columnists (e.g. all the way from Dominic Lawson to Owen Jones) and I just though that these two online papers would perhaps be the most likely new homes for Telegraph defectors.

    Possibly where they stand politically

    The mail to me is all about scandal, celebs and reality shows
    Have never read the independent, website looks a bit lacking
  • The Exiled DubThe Exiled Dub Posts: 8,358
    Forum Member
    I just browse all the newspaper sites, jumping from one to another. 20 quid per year is nothing, of course, but I am not going to have yet another direct debit going out of my account. Not being a right winger myself, I did enjoy reading their oh so right wing take on certain stories. It helped give me a more rounded view but alas, it's over, so it's bye bye Telegraph from me.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Forum Member
    I just browse all the newspaper sites, jumping from one to another. 20 quid per year is nothing, of course, but I am not going to have yet another direct debit going out of my account. Not being a right winger myself, I did enjoy reading their oh so right wing take on certain stories. It helped give me a more rounded view but alas, it's over, so it's bye bye Telegraph from me.

    I browse most of the sites each day too, enjoy the mixed perspective.
    I do not buy physical newspapers apart from my local paper, which I now subscribe to at a very reduced rate on ipad newsreasder.

    But to pay for web content, no way, there is plenty of good news free elsewhere. Sorry but its bye bye telegraph from me too. Hope it fails, bad idea.
  • *Sparkle**Sparkle* Posts: 10,955
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    No it's not; I read that in about 2 days there - if it includes blogs as well as news stories.
    If you are reading 20 articles in two days, then it is probably only fair that you pay. Or if you are that fussed, play around with cookies and browsers to get around it.

    I'm not a natural Telegraph reader, but I am a big fan of there being choices in broadsheets and alternative points of view, so I'm pleased that there will be a number of free hits each month so people can follow links to specific articles.

    With the Times, I quite often find myself nipping into my local library on the way home from work if something crops us during the day that looks interesting, so this is much easier!
Sign In or Register to comment.