As per a recent analysis, we are not too impressed with Rupert Murdoch’s plans to charge for usage of the online news sites. Of 2,000 people asked if they’d pay for online information, 9 out of 10 said ‘No!’. Does that imply that Murdoch’s choice to bill users to get his information sites is absurd?
I would not pay for information, possibly, unless…
If I had been asked ‘would you pay for online news?’, I would likely say ‘no’, also. After all, in an era once we can normally read about important events on Twitter before some of the news stations report them, why do we want pay for access to their own articles?
But I’d, and frequently do, pay for quality Philadelphia local news. I wouldn’t ever pay a cent for among the diminishing amount of free papers handed out in my way to operate at a morning, but I’d pay for a Sunday broadsheet with its extras and trimmings (although the odds of me actually reading over a couple pages are incredibly small).
I also have been proven to signal up to some paid members’ place on the web site of a particular soccer team (which will stay nameless) to access additional content not available on the primary site: movie interviews and press conferences, highlights of youth and reserve team games, live radio commentary on game days.
Can I pay to see the sun online? No. There are usually Just about two paragraphs in every image-dominated article anyhow. It just costs a couple of pennies to buy the real thing so that there would not be much value in utilizing its website. The Times? Perhaps, but only if the rest of the excellent news outlets starting charging, otherwise I would just go for the free one.