I recently read the news that both The Sun and The Daily Telegraph (and now apparently, The Daily Mail) are to start charging users to view the content on their websites in the second half of 2013. This has provoked a slew of negative feedback from some of the readership. Considering the way we have all become accustomed to simply Googling news articles quickly whenever we want to read something, a question started forming in my mind. 
Should people be willing to pay?
Information on tap: Online Vs. Offline
The question is a relevant one especially for writers like me – after all I am paid to provide web content on a regular basis but rarely any of the clients I provide blogging and news articles for charge their user base a subscription fee.
The Daily Telegraph has just introduced a ‘paywall’ for its website meaning that all users can gain access to 20 free articles a month but if you want to read more you will have to pay a monthly subscription.
Is this tenable?
Well according to Mark Darcey – the latest News International CEO – providing online content for free is definitely not tenable. So moving to a paid offer would seem the most logical step …right?
Online Access For Free?
We all have different tastes in reading. Personally (and this is a personal view), I can’t stand almost 100% of the content The Sun and The Daily Telegraph churn out on a daily basis. I also think the world would be a better place without The Daily Mail in it…but that’s a whole other discussion.
However my personal views do not mean I necessarily think that those who do enjoy these newspapers should get access to the online editions and website articles for free.
Why do I think this?
Simple. How are the writers going to be paid if everything they write can be downloaded and read for free?
“What about advertising revenue?” I hear you scream.
Whilst it’s true that News International could probably buy several medium sized countries (some would say they already have) and still have spare change to fund a war from the advertising revenue they receive, individual newspaper advertising revenues don’t carry the weight they once did. Yes, The Daily Telegraph alone currently charges £46,000 for a full page mono ad (source: The Daily Telegraph) – but how many advertisers actually take advantage of that?
Not many anymore because it’s cheaper to advertise online.
Simply put, I would be willing to pay for online content that I wanted to read, just as much as I am willing to buy a newspaper or my favourite movie magazine when I peruse the shelves at Smiths or another newsagent. In my view it’s the same principle as buying a book or downloading one on your Kindle. And it’s not exactly going to break the bank.
Why should we pay for bad content?
You shouldn’t. I won’t. But no one is forcing you to either. Just because a few newspapers have decided to start charging for some of their website content doesn’t mean I’m going to get in a rage because I can’t read it without paying a subscription. I just won’t buy it because I don’t like reading a lot of it anyway.
But some people do like it and therefore I hope they won’t be angry about being expected to pay a small charge to access more content. They shouldn’t be. So far they have been spoiled along with the rest of us.
Good content
I strongly believe that in order for good books, good news articles, good movies, and good plays to continue to be produced, we must all be willing to have to make some sacrifices and part with some cash in order to enjoy them. Whether they appear online or off.
Yes there will always be bad writing (thank you again The Daily Mail…personal view people…), but some people like it and besides it helps to make the good writing stand out.
Anyway; look how popular the Kindle is now? No one minds paying for that (at least not according to the 1.33 million people who bought or received one over Christmas 2012 in the UK they don’t).
