News international is keeping very quiet about the result of Murdoch's experiment of putting The Times behind a paywall. Personally, I'm dubious about its prospects. I very rarely buy a newspaper, because I know that most of the contents will be of no interest to me. I would sooner surf the net looking for items that are relevant, and skip the rest. These days we are all surrounded by an ocean of information. Asking us to pay for it is like charging a fish for water. I still look at the headline page for the Times, and so far have seen no stories that I a) want to read or b) can't find elsewhere for free. If Murdoch is worried about his profits, the obvious course is to remove the Times' online presence completely, which would at least save him that portion of his overheads.
A similar problem is afflicting the BBC, which is whining because people are watching it online and dispensing with the TV (and its associated licence fee). Suggested solutions for the 'problem' include taxing broadband use or increasing the cost of the licence. Once again: if it doesn't pay, dispense with it.
Prince Charles has said that he was born to save the world ( a reference to his environmental delusions). Am I the only one to be reminded increasingly of the conduct of his ancestor,
King George III?
No comments:
Post a Comment