Many newspapers around the world are considering charging fees for readers to view online content. What do you think about it?
Have Your Say ( 30 )
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
Why do some celebrities self-destruct due to substance abuse?
( 14 )
-
What do you think are the main reasons why U.S. car sales are so low in Japan?
( 34 )
-
What can be done to ease escalating tensions between the West and Iran over its nuclear program? And should Japan join sanctions against Iran?
( 14 )
-
What do you think of the revised plan to realign U.S. forces in Japan by sending some Marines to Guam, and rotating others to Australia, the Philippines, Hawaii and possibly Iwakuni in Yamaguchi Prefecture?
( 17 )
-
Why are there so many deaths due to snow-related accidents (people falling off rooftops, for example) in Japan this winter?
( 15 )
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- FT English Teachers for Kids - Osaka
- Kohgakusha Co., Ltd. （株式会社興学社）, Osaka
- Salary: ¥255,000 ~ ¥275,000 / Month Travel Expenses, Encouragement of Japanese learning*
-
- Translator
- ZAIHON, Inc. (日本財務翻訳株式会社), Tokyo
- Salary: ¥6.0M / Year Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
30 Comments
Login to comment
0
ogtob
If you jokers think I am going to pay for access to the website you are definitely smoking more crack than Nori-P.
0
Beelzebub
This happened with the NY Times. Some blogger just stole the articles and posted them on his site, and NYT's lawyers were apparently unable to stop him. People will find a way to grab and disseminate digital media.
On the other hand, services like Nikkei Telecom charge 1,500 yen a month for a huge bundle of publications, including magazines and regional newspapers. It would make more sense to pay if you could get variety. Printing the stuff out is a bit of a hassle, even though their PDFs are clean.
0
KallyPygous
I'll probably start relying on other news websites. BBC, CNN, The Tokyo Reporter or whatever.
0
pawatan
The cat's way out of the bag now. Nobody's going to want to move from a free to a pay service, not when there's so many other free sites out there.
0
isthistheend
Yes, we won't pay.
0
Weasel
You mean the annoying ad-links on all of these informative pages aren't footing the bill these days?
0
sharpie
and when they do they'll see the site hits drop to the floor
0
blvtzpk
I don't think JT is going to start charging. However, legitimate newspapers and news agencies might.
0
smartacus
If all newspapers, broadcasters and news agencies like Reuters, AP, Bloomberg, etc get together and agree to do it, then I think consumers will have no choice but to subscribe. The only free sites will be blogs, which are nothing more than shriekfests anyway.
Personally, I find myself still attracted to good old-fashioned newspapers (where else can I do crosswords?) and I hope no more of them close, though I see that the Far Eastern Economic Review will cease publication in December.
0
dammit
Which papers would that be I wonder?
Whatever, they're unlikely to get a penny from me, and unless they literally all start charging I'll just go elsewhere. If they do all start charging I'll just select one with lots to offer me, probably the BBC. Unless they were way more expensive than all the others.
Forget it!
0
umioso
If the readers REALLY want to read a certain online paper that charges fees, then they WILL pay. However, the internet is rife with alternative information and data sources so what I will leave you with is; "Good luck with that!"
0
some14some
...if so, I'll think of saving electricity charges.
0
blvtzpk
@smartacus - there are a number of news sites that offer interactive crosswords...but it's not the same as the pen and paper experience.
0
SEPTIMUS
It is only a matter of time before some sites start charging; however, I'm sure they've realized that overtime, there will be other ways people will gain access to the information for free, without coming to their websites. That will probably put a hurt on their viewer count. ^_^ and the value of their advertisements.
0
nutsagain
Ladies and gentlemen, in the industry this is called 'kite flying' testing the waters if you like. The papers editors and directors themselves are reading this kind of information very carefully indeed. Sure, they need revenue and miffed that they can't make the same amounts as with print, but this is the way it's going to be from now on like it or not Rupert and co. The future is here with sites like Huffington Post and that's the direction they will have to adopt to survive.
0
nutsagain
I should have added that I'm sure they will first attempt package deals like TV's Scupa et. al. as smartacus suggests. A few sites bundled for 5,000 a month or whatever. Dang ...
0
rajakumar
Most newspapers today are obsolete,if compared with the news available online.
The newspapers should drop their obsolete old ways,and give news taken from all online newspapers.
There should be more benefit, for the new globalised online savvy readers, to make them buy newspapers.
0
Infernus
Most sites already have advertisements. Charging to view the news just sounds like another way to feed greed. But hey, maybe if newspapers start charging for online content people will try harder to find information, and maybe find more points of view and reach an unbiased opinion?
0
Badge213
Those newspapers might as well kiss their business goodbye.
0
ssslithe
Rajakumar, Infernus - do you really believe that?
It's pretty simple. If every proper news organisation in the world closed down tomorrow, the free sources - blogs and news sites that run wire stories, syndicated copy and, at worst, unadulterated press releases - will have no one to copy from. Quality articles written and researched by professional, unbiased journalists - human beings who need to eat - would cease to be available, and it would become impossible to find the truth among conjecture, hearsay and propaganda.
Newspapers and magazines are hurting because their ad revenue is spiraling along with their circulation (the cover price actually only accounts for a small proportion of a publication's income and certainly doesn't offset costs). And since web advertising revenue is not really that much, it seems fair that they might charge for their product online. After all, they are businesses, with a responsibility not only to shareholders but to employees. As a writer myself, I can tell you that freelance pay rates and starting salaries for staff writers get lower every year. Do you really think people who write for free bother to properly research their articles? Nah, just chuck it all on the blog. It's a dangerous approach, and I guarantee that you will miss us professional writers if we all jump ship for more lucrative work.
The question is, do consumers care enough about quality to pay for it? We've all seen how happy people are to download poor-quality MP3s for free rather than pay for music, but options such as iTunes and Spotify eventually provided a legitimate path for consumers to find reasonable quality at a fair price - and millions of people have chosen to pay. Online news subscriptions seem to me like a similar deal. If there was further incentive - download the contents of the website to your iPhone or e-reader every morning, for example - then it could work.
Either way, anyone who thinks all newspapers are greedy and redundant is a cast-iron, gold-plated idiot. Fact.
0
Cicada
ssslithe:
No -- many of these writers would just start working for someone else. Or they would be replaced by other writers willing to work for less.
Why not take on more lucrative work now? Because later on you will be jumping ship for less lucrative work.
From what research did you derive this "fact"? You wrote:
Maybe because you are posting for free, there's no need to "properly research"? Actually, I think many writers who receive no compensation whatsoever have the highest integrity, and conversely, many of those receiving compensation have "sold out" and cannot be relied upon for unbiased information.
0
tclh
Fair enough , profit is necessary for everyone ,for any business ,it is very natural like eating drinking. But please make it so affordable that every single person can easily pay for it because people still have to pay for their computers, electricity and online news is global thing,global market.
0
farhaan
They can't do it. Even if they do it they won't get enough subscribers and loose advertisers and its money which they are getting now. For readers there will always be free source of news/information website with support from online advertisemnet.
0
grafton
The real problem for newspapers is that site ads don’t pay nearly as much as do ads on paper, site ads are about 15% or less of that paid for those in a newspapers so most real newspaper (JT is not a newspaper) sites are just not making money. The idea of pay to view is being floated & monitored by people like Paul Mutter at Newsosaur to determine how viable it will be. So far the feeling is that only if the newspapers group together will it work. One paper holding out stands to make a lot from adverts because all pay to view sites would expect to lose a large number of their hits per-page & so lose their advertisers. There is also the feeling that many people would be very reluctant to hand over personal information to news organisations as they would need to if paying. No sane person trusts newspapers either on paper or on the internet & to put at risk personal information for such small amounts of money (news site can’t charge too much) just isn’t going to happen.
Most of us tolerate & ignore the ads on news sites because they are free sites, put a price on such a site while keeping the ads (which greed will have them do) & there will be nobody to see those ads. Before a price can be put on something there needs to be a value & unless news sites are willing to offer more than news they will not have sufficient value to attract even small fees. JT is a creature in it’s own right in that it does not have a real paper equivalent, & as such does not employ a real editorial staff, depending on it’s news from others, put a price on those others & even JT would find it hard to provide a service. I shouldn’t worry too much about this anyway, because even if all the news site do get together & put a price on what they mistakenly believe is a money maker it will only last for a year or so before it all falls apart & free to view sites return, more would be lost than gained, & a year to 18 months would all the time they need to realise this.
0
presto345
Forget it. If that happens I'll just go back to the old fashioned subscription of a printed newspaper.
0
stirfry
i'm not sure the newspapers can group together on this...i'm not exactly up on the law, but when competitors agree on a business practice i think its a violation of US anti-trust laws
0
ssslithe
Cicada:
Erm, I was asking what would happen if all the publications closed shop tomorrow. Obviously the writers would work for 'someone else', but it would be in a different industry.
I'm telling you that journalism is rarely lucrative. Taking on more lucrative work means exiting the industry. Not exactly healthy.
No evidence necessary, mate. What evidence do you need to prove that mashing your own testicles with a hammer is stupid? I'm afraid there's only right or wrong on that score.
Exactly. So just post any old bollocks, and let the reader decide whether it's true or false.
Blogs are totally biased! Any piece of information written and edited by one person is going to contain bias, and without objective fact-checking, any errors are there to stay. Of course, newspapers are biased as well, but they are also monitored by industry watchdogs. Blogs are useful as an additional source of information, but please don't labour under the misconception that they can replace the solid news sources they leech off.
0
Altria
If Rupert Murdoch and his fat cat friends try and extort money for news, us net users should gang up and smash their internets!
Back to top