No, because the way in which audiences receive their news over the past free years has been for free. If the BBC start charging for news this will give competitors such as 'The Guardian' as advantage as audiences will be willing to do anything to access free news. The BBC have been established for so long and with the advances in technology it's obvious that audiences will not pay for news when they can go elsewhere and get news for free.
Was Rupert Murdoch right to put his news content (The Times, The Sun) behind a paywall?
In my opinion, Rupert Murdoch wasn't right to put a paywall behind his news content as convincing people to "pay for news" does not remove a £28 million loss overnight or even in five years. Although his paywall has has 140,000 subscribers, other news institutions such as 'The Daily Mail Online' will attract many users as it doesn't have a paywall.
Comments:
"To go from zero to 140,000 digital customers is a significant achievement"
> I agree to a short extent that having 140,000 digital customers is a good thing however other competitors have a bigger advantage over taking previous readers from The Sun and The Times, therefore it's not as significant.
"Not a solution to those existential problems"
> I agree fully with this statement as charging previous loyal customers will make them uneasy as they are used to free news.
Why do you think the Evening Standard has bucked the trend and increased circulation and profit in the last two years?
The 'Evening Standard' is described to be an "anomaly" in terms of circulation. This is due to the fact that at the start of the year the Evening Standard increased the amount of copies a day produced from 700,000 copies a day to closer to 900,000, This explains 27 percent increase in circulation. 
Is there any hope for the newspaper industry or will it eventually die out?
No comments:
Post a Comment