The Times of London Explains why They’re adding a Paywall

From the editorial:

If we are asking politicians to be honest, it is important we practise what we preach. Nowhere is this more crucial than with journalism on the internet. At present we are in the absurd position of charging people £2 for our newspaper while simultaneously offering the same content free online. The flawed logic was that internet advertising would pay for it. The recession has put a stop to that, so giving away expensive journalism is financially unsustainable and ultimately bad for us and our readers.

At The Sunday Times we put an enormous amount of money and effort into producing the best journalism we possibly can. If we keep giving it away we will no longer be able to do that. Inevitably the spending will decline, and with it the quality of the journalism. We will no longer be able to let reporters pursue stories for weeks on end (our investigation of MPs’ lobbying has taken the Insight team eight weeks) or send correspondents to spend months in Afghanistan or Iraq. Such practices are expensive, and there is always a risk they will be unproductive.

continued here

I wonder if they realize that (at most) 2% of users will pay for the content? I won't; The Times doesn't have enough unique content to make it worthwhile.

About Nate Hoffelder (11213 Articles)
Nate Hoffelder is the founder and editor of The Digital Reader:"I've been into reading ebooks since forever, but I only got my first ereader in July 2007. Everything quickly spiraled out of control from there. Before I started this blog in January 2010 I covered ebooks, ebook readers, and digital publishing for about 2 years as a part of MobileRead Forums. It's a great community, and being a member is a joy. But I thought I could make something out of how I covered the news for MobileRead, so I started this blog."

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


%d bloggers like this: