
How's Rupert Murdoch's paywall working out at the Times of London? - pg
http://shenews.projo.com/2010/07/hows-rupert-murdochs-paywall-w.html
======
hitonagashi
Hmmm. I'm probably in the minority here, but I'm a subscribed member. I've
been reading the Times for a while, and I really enjoy their writing, so I
decided to sign up.

The one thing I noticed is that a) most articles don't have comments any more.
3-4 comments is the norm. On one hand, it's a bit sad...but..

b) the comments that are there tend to be far more worth reading. The old
Times site had a big problem with trolls and flamers, and somewhat
unsurprisingly, this problem is greatly diminished. It would be nice to see
more comments though.

For me, it's almost like a very quiet HN at times. I haven't regretted signing
up yet, though I've never used any of the Times+ stuff that's 'supposed' to be
the benefit. Cutting out the trolls in the comments is worth the money to me.

~~~
pavs
You read newspaper for comments?

~~~
hitonagashi
Nope :).

I signed up because I like the writing, and columnists and I'm willing to pay
for good content. Comments are just something that I noticed was an emergent
property.

~~~
Ardit20
You think their writing is so much superior to say the guardian, or seeing as
you might have conservative leanings, the telegraph?

~~~
hitonagashi
Simply put..yes! :).

I did try the Guardian and Telegraph, but I just preferred the articles I
found in the Times.

------
philk
This isn't a particularly surprising outcome.

I think the problem they're facing is twofold:

1) There's lots of news content available for free.

2) Very few people actually _need_ the news. I can think of maybe two
situations in my entire life when I gained information that was personally
relevant from following the news (and this is despite being somewhat of a news
junkie). What people need is entertainment, and the internet provides almost
unlimited amounts of that for free.

It's an interesting experiment (and I salute Rupert for trying it) but I
really don't see what the value proposition is for subscribers to a mainstream
newspaper.

------
iamelgringo
Complete, non-sequiter, but PG reads the Providence Journal?

Just shocked me since I lived in La Prov for 3 years. I haven't thought about
the Providence Journal for years.

------
lhnz
Is this some kind of subtle ploy to prove to the government that the BBC has
an unfair advantage?

------
Ardit20
I think we need to see data. Those seem to be merely opinions.

I think so too is a bit early to tell. Give it a year. The Times is either
sinking or swimming.

I can see this working. For example they could publish some very exclusive
stories, engage in some PR and then people would subscribe. They could
increase their level of journalism above all other newspapers, be truly
independent and then people might see value and subscribe.

If however they continue as they have been, meh, they just another copycat,
reproducing the same news as all other newspapers, hence it is a no brainer
that no one would pay for it.

