Newspapers: The effect of online technology

1) Do you agree with James Murdoch that the BBC should not be allowed to provide free news online? Why?

I think that James Murdoch addresses valid point, "It is essential for the future of independent digital journalism that a fair price can be charged for news to people who value it", as it is vital that journalists are credited for the work that they do. The BBC's independent act of attempting to be the dominant news source, essentially does leave other news institutions with a loss, jeopardising their overall revenues in consumption from audiences. BBC's act is especially threatening for the journalists that belong to other institutions as their stories may not be as appreciated or recognised. Alternatively, as a public service broadcaster, it is ideal for audiences to have a trusted brand, easily accessible source of news, such as 'The BBC', thereby, their act is arguably credible in enhancing their institution. 

2) Summarise 'Three Years on: Has the Times digital subscription project worked? 

• The Sunday Times and The Times have now amassed a total of 140,000 digital paying subscribers "mainly on tablet". 
• The figures show the consumption from audiences: 

3) Was Rupert Murdoch right to put his news content (The Times, The Sun) behind a paywall?

In my opinion, as Murdoch previously stated "The world is changing and newspapers have to adapt", thereby, through newspaper's becoming digitally accessible, it's only right that fees are set too. Murdoch's decision to put his news content behind a paywall, further confirms the validity of the news for audiences. This also maintains a sense of familiarity for consumers, as it is effectively the same as purchasing a print copy of the newspaper - now however, digitally, faster and more convenient. Alternatively, some may argue that as "times are changing", its only fair that news institutions start providing important news stories for free and possible put a paywall for specific sub genres within the news, e.g. 'Celebrity Gossip', appealing to set target audience groups. 

4) Choose two comments from below the Times paywall article - one that argues in favour of the paywall and one that argues against. Copy a quote from each and explain which YOU agree with and why.

Quote in favour: Frank • 2 years ago

"I'd put my money on The Times when it comes to UK-based newspapers.

Mail Online's audience is vast, especially for a UK-based title. Yet with all that scale, with the most advanced data strategy, and undoubtedly with cost help from the wider organisation, it still only makes a tiny profit. More sadly, is that the product is getting further and further away from news; their strategy is to create a deluge of rapidly-written disposable content then overlay it with audience data. It also works with lots of partners to develop their data - many of which will retract that partnership over the next 2-3 years as they seek to retain value for themselves.

The Times, more than any other paper, is more ready for a printless future, should it arise, as they just need to migrate users, in relatively low numbers. to the digital subscription. And it is having an almighty practice run to get it right. It doesn't need to create the vast volumes of (crap) content that the Mail does and it has a very strong brand argument to ad buyers.

What the management of MailOnline have done is show that the free model might just work ever so slightly, but probably not in a robust, profitable way. What News UK have shown is that they can move over paying customers, and keep a healthy ratio of decent content to preserve the brand equity.

nb: I do not work or have ever worked for News Corp / UK / International"

Quote that is against: pauljaymes • 2 years ago

"In any business, success depends on delivering one of three things to customers: lowest cost, differential quality, or a niche unavailable elsewhere. Newsprint is no exception, but the lowest cost product in the marketplace is set at zero.

Times isn't niche, that's the like of aviation monthly, so it has to deliver a product of sufficient quality for readers to be willing to pay the premium. Is it doing this? I would say not really, more work is needed, and it's hard to see how the quality can improve with costs being cut."

Out of the two quotes, there are elements that I agree with on both sides, for instance, 'Pauljaymes', makes noteworthy points regarding the importance of things that consumers look for "lower cost". Therefore, this holds thought towards the reality of whether audiences will want to pay for monthly subscriptions - how much will it cost? Specifically, what is "premium" about 'The Times' digital website that makes it more prestige than buying a regular copy and will this appeal to their audience group? However, in regards to comments made by 'Franky', I am in favour of his view that through the 'Mail Online's' free accessibility they aren't making as much money once subtracted the 'click bait' and advertisement revenues. Also, is the news quality extremely valid? Would both of these factors better both the institutions and audiences if they added a paywall too? I think they would.   

5) Summarise this article from the Media Briefing on the continuing decline of the newspaper industry. 

• The circulation for the UK's newspapers is at least half way down and recent figures suggest the number of people who report reading a newspaper in print is falling even faster.
• Readership for British national newspapers, as estimated by the National Readership Survey, has fallen 13 percent on average compared to the previous year.
• Particularly bad results for the Independent, Daily Mirror and Guardian. By comparison, the Audit Bureau of Circulation's circulation figures show a fall by an average of only 6 percent.

6) Why do you think the Evening Standard has bucked the trend and increased circulation and profit in the last two years?

The Evening Standard are primarily aimed at commuters for their 'no-wifi' travels, leaving them to idealistically purchase a newspaper to accompany them. Therefore, I believe that through the institution establishing the idea of increasing their daily copies from 700,000 copies to 900,000, this would assist the increase in circulation, which it consequently did. This is pure evidence that the institution looked at the strategy that would be most effective for their audience group, which is where their success is derived from. 

7) Is there any hope for the newspaper industry or will it eventually die out? Provide a detailed response to this question explaining and justifying your opinion.

There is most certainly hope for the newspaper industry as long as the institutions look specifically at what their audience groups want - which is the best platform for them to access their news on. Ideally, institutions should consider targeting newspapers primarily towards niche audience groups and upping the cost. Additionally, they should consider providing a mainstream news feed accessible with a slightly lower cost through the internet or new and digital applications. This will thereby result in audiences actively choosing which way they intend to consume their news. In particular, as the older generation (primary print platform consumers), in twenty-so years will be dying out and the dominant communication mean will become 'digital', thus most people will incline to subscribing to a paywall or simply buying a digital application. However, it is vital that the institutions apply the same amount of clarity and validity from professional journalists, to both print and digital platforms to ultimately please their audiences.