The Sun and Comercial Suicide

[Heinz57]

Firstly, lets not turn this into an argument of wether or not The Sun is a load of trash and is better suited to be a Paper Mache hill on a layout. Lets save that for another topic.

Right, so. Here we go. This is an interesting one.

People who were/are regular visitors to The Sun website like I was until a few days ago will have noticed that they have introduced this new Sun+ thing, it gives extra news and interaction and can be used on tablets, smart phones and just about every other gizmo the kids today have.

Now don't get me wrong its an interesting idea. However, the website is now part of this Sun+ thing and we are now expected to pay a subscription to visit the website.

Hold on a second, why would I want to pay to visit this website when I can visit one of the thousands of other news websites and get the same for free? Now that would just be daft. And besides, I don't realy care if Katie Price is getting married for the 15th time, and I certainly won't pay £9 a month to read about it.

Now this to me seems like comercial suicide. I can't imagine many people signing up to it. In fact, I would be interested to know how many people they had sign up to it! The ironic thing is that only a few days ago (on the last day of the normal website) they said that they realy care about viewers.

That said, I will gladly welcome the old website back with open arms (if The Sun ever did realise what a stupid mistake they made).... I will miss the horoscopes

 

[richw]

Front page of today's Sun advertised free subscription to Sun+ for all readers. I didn't know what Sun+ is. I didn't read any more than headline as I was browsing all the different newspaper headlines in Tesco waiting for the rain to ease before legging it for the car. The rain never eased and is still pouring 11 hours later.

 

[Eagle]

Paywalls like this aren't new.

The Sun's sister paper The Times implemented one years ago, and that paper hasn't folded because of falling readership.

 

[telstarbox]

Presumably the Sun reckon that their content is distinctive enough that enough people will pay for it rather than using free alternatives. Also you can't read the columnists or interviews elsewhere.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Paywalls like this aren't new.

The Sun's sister paper The Times implemented one years ago, and that paper hasn't folded because of falling readership.

I'm a Times subscriber and find it excellent value for money. For my first 18 months they charged £2 per week for the iPad edition, iPhone app, website access and Times+ offers. I remember their target being about 10% of hits after the paywall came down compared to before.

The Sun, I'm not sure I'd pay for, but people will.

Part of the reason I'm sure is that Sun+, like Times+, now includes Premier League clips for all games, which ESPN used to have the rights for. Adds value for the reader, but does cost News International money and hence upping the subs for the Times (now £4 a week) and introducing Sun+.

I don't mind paying for quality news.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That said, I will gladly welcome the old website back with open arms (if The Sun ever did realise what a stupid mistake they made).... I will miss the horoscopes

How have they made a mistake? What revenue have they lost from your hits? What will they gain from paid subscriptions?

News being an increasingly electronic media, means that news providers need to generate more revenue from electronic delivery of news.

They probably don't care that you won't visit daily any more, because for every ten of you, there's someone who'll say "ok, fair enough, I think this is worth paying for"

 

[swj99]

Front page of today's Sun advertised free subscription to Sun+ for all readers.

I had a look on their website and I just wouldn't bother messing about signing up to it, even if it was free.
Any time people make it more complicated for users to visit their websites, they lose traffic. It's no loss to me anyway, as I don't even remember the last time I actually read a news article on there.

 

[Pumbaa]

Paywalls like this aren't new.

The Sun's sister paper The Times implemented one years ago, and that paper hasn't folded because of falling readership.

True. Pay walls aren't a root of all evil as some would have you think. Worth pointing out though that The Guardian makes more from its dating website than the The Times makes from its pay wall...

 

[yorksrob]

If you want decent opinion, reporting and general content, the people writing it have to be paid (setting aside arguments as to whether the Sun provides those things in the first place !). People seem to think that some magic force called "the internet" generates this stuff for free !

 

[jb]

If you want decent opinion, reporting and general content, the people writing it have to be paid (setting aside arguments as to whether the Sun provides those things in the first place !). People seem to think that some magic force called "the internet" generates this stuff for free !

All of the qualities apart from the Times provide what seems to be full coverage - and many online features such as commenting etc. - 'for free'.

 

[RochdalePioneers]

It's excellent news! Never again will I have to look at The Scum online on the rare occasions when they carry a news story worth looking at.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[yorksrob]

All of the qualities apart from the Times provide what seems to be full coverage - and many online features such as commenting etc. - 'for free'.

Unfortunately those of us paying for paper newspapers end up paying ever higher prices for those who get it "free".

 

[EM2]

Can't remember the last time I paid for a newspaper, but it was almost certainly 20p for The i.
I sometimes pick up a Metro or a Standard, but rarely read it (it's useful for the cat litter tray...). I get the news I need via the BBC (mostly) or the Guardian website (occasionally).

 

[Johnuk123]

It's excellent news! Never again will I have to look at The Scum online on the rare occasions when they carry a news story worth looking at.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Oh dear.

 

[Barn]

If you want decent opinion, reporting and general content, the people writing it have to be paid (setting aside arguments as to whether the Sun provides those things in the first place !). People seem to think that some magic force called "the internet" generates this stuff for free !

All of the qualities apart from the Times provide what seems to be full coverage - and many online features such as commenting etc. - 'for free'.

The Telegraph and the FT both have monthly article view limits without paying.

 

[jon0844]

Hold on a second, why would I want to pay to visit this website when I can visit one of the thousands of other news websites and get the same for free? Now that would just be daft. And besides, I don't realy care if Katie Price is getting married for the 15th time, and I certainly won't pay £9 a month to read about it.

Over time those thousands of other sites giving news and features away for free probably won't be there, or they'll be relying on interns writing stuff for free.

Having publications funded exclusively through advertising is a slippery slope, and has a number of other issues (such as publications not risking writing anything negative about the companies that pay the bills). And when you see advertisers suddenly decide that print, then online, advertising is no longer the thing to do - it's all Facebook pages and then Twitter promotions - you're stuffed. Severe cutbacks or closure.

It's a pretty sound concept to simply pay for what you want to read (whether that's The Sun is another argument) just as you once used to pay to buy a newspaper or magazine. Now we expect it all to be free, without thinking that journalists can't work for free.. and those that will write for free will often do it just for a bit, as a hobby, or simply re-write what someone else has written.

Now I do think paywalls are going to be highly risky until people wake up and realise that paying isn't so bad - but some publications seem to be doing fairly well which gives hope.

However, it isn't going to work until you stop to reconsider whether it is sustainable as it is now. I can say that, from what I've seen and who I know in journalism, relying on advertisers (that WILL try and influence what editorial is in the magazine/paper) is not the way forward.

Now if you can strike a balance, then you're probably okay. The newsstand sales should cover all your costs, and the advertising should be the profit. In this way, you're never at the mercy of companies that want to get you to write great things about them or pull their advertising if you say something bad. You want to be in the position to say 'Fine, pull your advertising' and get someone else in instead - and that's not where things are today, sadly.

 

[tbtc]

If you want decent opinion, reporting and general content, the people writing it have to be paid (setting aside arguments as to whether the Sun provides those things in the first place !). People seem to think that some magic force called "the internet" generates this stuff for free !

We may disagree on Peak District railways, but I have to agree with every word here - I've no problem with paying for a decent product (cheap jibes about the Sun notwithstanding - I'm not a fan of the newspaper either!).

Don't really like The Sun, don't really like that nice Mr Murdoch chappy, but really don't think they've done anything wrong here - only question is "which newspaper will be next?"

 

[Heinz57]

I don't mind paying for quality news.

Good point. Thing is though one could visit say the BBC website and get quality news for free. The better thing about the Sun (in my opinion) is the more controversial, relaxed and occcasionaly 'tounge-in-cheek' method Sun decides to delivey the news. Which I do like, but does is warrant a paid subscription?

They probably don't care that you won't visit daily any more, because for every ten of you, there's someone who'll say "ok, fair enough, I think this is worth paying for"

Doesn't this argument suggest that for every one person they have sign up they lose 9 readers?


Surley the best way to go around it was to have the main news website for free, then have a separate section of the website with the Sun+ perks for those who choose to pay for it?

 

[yorksrob]

We may disagree on Peak District railways, but I have to agree with every word here

Had to happen some time

 

[Eagle]

Doesn't this argument suggest that for every one person they have sign up they lose 9 readers?

Yes, but they make more money. One reader paying £9 is better than ten readers paying £0.

Okay it's a bit more complicated than that, as fewer readers probably means less ad revenue, but overall they will be making more money from their website now than before.

 

[Bungle73]

Front page of today's Sun advertised free subscription to Sun+ for all readers. I didn't know what Sun+ is. I didn't read any more than headline as I was browsing all the different newspaper headlines in Tesco waiting for the rain to ease before legging it for the car. The rain never eased and is still pouring 11 hours later.

Well Times+ gives one access to free film previews, private views of exhibitions, events, Q&A sessions with celebrities (I went to one with Danny Boyle), discounts on eating out and stuff like that. I would have thought Sun+ would be a bit like that, but much more lowbrow.

TBH, when I first heard The Times was going behind a paywall I couldn't understand it, but I got my subscription through a trial offer and loved it. I loved going to all the exclusive events, taking up the special offers, and their iPad apps are great.

They recently doubled my subscription costs though, and I really can't justify that cost atm so I cancelled it, especially as I have holidays to pay for.

 

[Eagle]

They recently doubled my subscription costs though, and I really can't justify that cost atm so I cancelled it, especially as I have holidays to pay for.

Well if you subscribe to Sun+ you can probably get in on one of their dodgy "holiday for £4.99" offers, meaning that you can afford to go on holiday and still keep up your online subscriptions

 

[Bungle73]

Well if you subscribe to Sun+ you can probably get in on one of their dodgy "holiday for £4.99" offers, meaning that you can afford to go on holiday and still keep up your online subscriptions

I already had a large discount on the hotel for my holiday in Newcastle last year through my Times subscription.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I don't think the sort of holidays the Sun would give out would appeal to me.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Well Times+ gives one access to free film previews, private views of exhibitions, events, Q&A sessions with celebrities (I went to one with Danny Boyle), discounts on eating out and stuff like that. I would have thought Sun+ would be a bit like that, but much more lowbrow.

TBH, when I first heard The Times was going behind a paywall I couldn't understand it, but I got my subscription through a trial offer and loved it. I loved going to all the exclusive events, taking up the special offers, and their iPad apps are great.

They recently doubled my subscription costs though, and I really can't justify that cost atm so I cancelled it, especially as I have holidays to pay for.

The iPad app is appalling for stability when checking for new edition, better since the last update, but when it's loaded it's very good. I don't mind £4 a week as I use it daily and the iPhone app is excellent, even automatically downloading live news for offline viewing, but wouldn't want to pay more than that

 

[swj99]

Can't remember the last time I paid for a newspaper...........

I never do. I buy items which are much more suited to what I need them for.

For example, when I need paper to mask a car before spraying it, rather than use newspaper (not ideal because the ink can bleed into the paint), I use a roll of brown paper, purpose made and bought for the job. It was about £11 from the paint suppliers. It's such a long roll that it will last for ages. There's more paper in it than you'd get in 50 newspapers, so in relative terms, it's cheaper than wasting money on newspaper as well. They sell masking tape in there too, unlike the newsagents, which doesn't.

If I need toilet paper, I go to the supermarket and buy Andrex, or Co-op own brand if it's on offer.

I can't imagine a scenario where I'd need a newspaper. I was in a cafe once and had a look through one whilst waiting for my fry up to arrive. But the funny thing was, I couldn't find any news in it anyway. There were some adverts for chat lines, and some horoscopes, but news, no, I don't recall seeing any of that.

 

[jon0844]

I don't generally buy papers now, but I think it's a little bit of an exaggeration to say that none of them have any news in them!

 

[starrymarkb]

Over time those thousands of other sites giving news and features away for free probably won't be there, or they'll be relying on interns writing stuff for free.

Having publications funded exclusively through advertising is a slippery slope, and has a number of other issues (such as publications not risking writing anything negative about the companies that pay the bills). And when you see advertisers suddenly decide that print, then online, advertising is no longer the thing to do - it's all Facebook pages and then Twitter promotions - you're stuffed. Severe cutbacks or closure.

It's a pretty sound concept to simply pay for what you want to read (whether that's The Sun is another argument) just as you once used to pay to buy a newspaper or magazine. Now we expect it all to be free, without thinking that journalists can't work for free.. and those that will write for free will often do it just for a bit, as a hobby, or simply re-write what someone else has written.

Now I do think paywalls are going to be highly risky until people wake up and realise that paying isn't so bad - but some publications seem to be doing fairly well which gives hope.

However, it isn't going to work until you stop to reconsider whether it is sustainable as it is now. I can say that, from what I've seen and who I know in journalism, relying on advertisers (that WILL try and influence what editorial is in the magazine/paper) is not the way forward.

Now if you can strike a balance, then you're probably okay. The newsstand sales should cover all your costs, and the advertising should be the profit. In this way, you're never at the mercy of companies that want to get you to write great things about them or pull their advertising if you say something bad. You want to be in the position to say 'Fine, pull your advertising' and get someone else in instead - and that's not where things are today, sadly.

Indeed, the Independent on Sunday has just sacked it's entire arts department (including the fantastic Simon Price) in favour of a 'digest' of the other paper's reviews

 

[jon0844]

And of course those other reviews will probably disappear, until we get to a day when someone thinks of just publishing user generated reviews from the likes of TripAdvisor, and we get totally exaggerated or vindictive reviews or made up ones from the businesses themselves...

And I say that as a joke, but more and more sites are seeking cheaper or even free ways to generate content, which means there are now companies that will write and rewrite things for you - for very little money.

 

[jb]

And of course those other reviews will probably disappear, until we get to a day when someone thinks of just publishing user generated reviews from the likes of TripAdvisor, and we get totally exaggerated or vindictive reviews or made up ones from the businesses themselves...

And I say that as a joke, but more and more sites are seeking cheaper or even free ways to generate content, which means there are now companies that will write and rewrite things for you - for very little money.

Just take a look at the academic publishing game.

You can get content for free and get people to pay for it by giving it a veneer of respectability through adding little more value than your brand / reputation. You can probably even pull this off in the digital age where your ability to charge for the delivery mechanism for content (the old printed newspaper) has gone.

 

[jon0844]

The bubble will burst at some point.

I'd say that the commercial suicide isn't down to the publishers trying to find a way to get people to pay for content, but rather those that are of the belief that they can somehow continue to give it away for free and find alternative methods of funding, all of which are unpredictable and can end at any time.

The BBC is lucky in that it can pay its online writers from the TV licence money, which is pretty consistent and can be budgeted for easily. Anyone relying on ad revenue, especially revenues based on circulation or page clicks/views does not have that same security.

 

[jb]

The BBC is lucky in that it can pay its online writers from the TV licence money, which is pretty consistent and can be budgeted for easily. Anyone relying on ad revenue, especially revenues based on circulation or page clicks/views does not have that same security.

I absolutely agree with this, and opposition to the licence fee model for funding the BBC is lunacy in my view. (Leaving aside that I no longer reside in the UK so don't pay it )