Will The Times’ Gamble Pay Off?

And the seasons, they go round and round...

In what may go down as akin to Bill Gates saying we’ll never need more than 640K of memory, I am going to make a Bold Prediction.

The Times’ plans to start charging for access to their website will fail. Mostly.

At least, they will fail as long as the rest of the main media outlets, but largely the BBC, continue along their current path.

On the surface, the prices have been set to a reasonably low level that will make it attractive to certain groups. That is a good start. After all, a new product in its infancy needs to be nurtured.

Those who already buy the paper and are au fait with the net may choose to make the switch. However, existing fans who already buy the print edition are unlikely to be moved. And why would they? There’s something to be said for having the physical copy in your hand.

So who is it targeted at? Perhaps there are people out there who source all their news from The Times’ site. Maybe they only trust The Times’ journalism, or something. Maybe they will be willing to hand over some cash to keep reading the delights of such an old, reputable newspaper. A couple of pound a week ain’t bad, after all, and maybe you can even be snobby about it and proclaim how you and only you get access to The Times Online any more.

Somehow, it seems unlikely.

Maybe most people out there are news junkies, and have dozens of news websites bookmarked. People like me consume news voraciously, and we don’t really mind about the source. Indeed, a little variety goes a long way to broadening the mind. Perhaps people like me will be disappointed to have lost an extra place to read, but I suspect it’ll be For My Own Good. And there are plenty of other sites out there. Somehow, I suspect we’ll do without.

Otherwise, the rest of their potential market is the casual user. And a casual user is unlikely to want to stump up the readies to do something they’ve always done, assumed it should always be free, and so will switch to whatever free alternatives are available.

Like BBC News.

But in all honesty, are there really people out there who only look at The Times Online? Chances are they’ll be reading BBC News or some other news website anyway.

To me, there just isn’t a market. Unless The Times intend to develop an extraordinarily compelling product – superb journalism, insightful analysis, news you won’t get elsewhere – behind the paywall then how can it possibly succeed? And, let’s face it, to develop a product like that, you’re probably gonna need more than £2 per subscriber per week. Good journalism doesn’t come cheap.

I actually think this whole episode is about trying to scare the regulators. Murdoch wants to give it a go, because he knows that this is a win-win situation. Succeed, and he will be the trend-setter; others will start charging too, and prices will rise, allowing profits to form. Once again he will be seen as one of the world’s most influential people. Fail, and he will be able to blame, guess who, the BBC for their dominance, and their free offerings destroying the private sector and its “innovation”.

Better still, who is most likely to be in government at the time?

Why, the Conservatives, of course! And they hardly need any more reasons to attack Auntie Beeb.

Maybe we shouldn’t have grown up expecting news to be provided for free. Perhaps the internet has distorted all of our values. We see that in our massive consumption of “free” music, videos, games and other websites (free Premier League football online, anyone?). Perhaps we do need to re-evaluate all this.

For now, though, I can’t see it happening.

Newsfelch: 20/11/09 – The Divergence of Consociationalism

Mr van Rompuy and Ms Ashton may soon be needing books like this little gem...

It appears to be one of those days: the media have all got different bits between their teeth this morning. So let’s take a quick peek:

• The Telegraph, in their never ending attempt to keep stories about someone’s expenses the number one topic for discussion, decide today it’s the BBC’s turn, as Mark Thompson, the director general, has vetoed a review of top salaries. Fascinating news, I’m sure you’ll agree.
• Amazingly, that story comes ahead of the one about David Curry, Tory MP, resigning as chair of the committee that allegedly polices Commons expenses. And despite this being a Telegraph exclusive, i.e. their dodgy dossier of info – that they paid huge amounts for – has been mined for yet another story. One would have thought they would have led on this story instead, what with it being yet another alleged case of snout-troughery, and massive hypocrisy to boot.
• Over in the Guardian, they appear a little confused. Despite headlining the article “The great EU stitch up” in the print edition, the associated article online appears to be not much more than a description of the events of last night, which led to the appointment of Herman van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton to the top two EU posts. Yes, it is a stitch up, but that is what most of the EU is. Some people, like me, would democratise the whole thing. Elected President, elected Commission, a government formed in parliamentary fashion by the largest parties in the Parliament… but I understand no one else wants that…
• The Times leads by stealing the Telegraph’s “exclusive” about David Curry. And then a lot of other tittle tattle about Gordon Brown’s reforms, David Cameron’s Mumsnet interview, and Harriet Harman’s run in with the law. I’ve gotta say, the more I visit the Times’ political sections, the more I find them incredibly dull. And Murdoch wants people to pay for this stuff? Good luck to him…
• BBC News has a story no one else seems to have about the police being up in arms about Cameron’s plan (oh look, a policy!) to put police forces under local control, whatever that means. It’s not a very exciting story, but I suspect it’s one we’re all going to have to find more interesting if the Tories really are serious about having direct elections for police chiefs. It’s a policy I don’t understand, in the same way I don’t know why Americans elect judges and district attorneys. These jobs are supposed to be merely implementing/executing legislation. Why would we want to politicise them?
• Professor David Nutt just won’t go away. What’s the betting he ends up entering the political fray properly by being elevated to the House of Lords after the next election? Go on Nick Clegg, I dare you to nominate him…
• And meanwhile, when will politicians learn to stop dictating to schools?

And yes, the title of this post is meaningless. But it reminds me of various tedious academic lectures and essays about the EU we used to suffer in university. I thought it would be an appropriate title in honour of our new EU leaders…

Here’s to Victory. I’m listening to Beethoven’s Ode to Joy as I type.

Well, it is our new Supranational Anthem!

Rubbish Journalism Ahoy

How much longer will they last?

In what is starting to become a common theme around here, this morning’s brief look through what’s churning through the news cycle has not impressed me one bit.

The real problem here is the way the newspapers are behaving over the release of the Lockerbie bomber. Personally, I think it was handled very well, and the SNP appear to have arrived at the right outcome and have again shown themselves to be worthy of holding high office, exercising power cautiously and responsibly.

Meanwhile, in the Times, the stakes have been raised:

Lockerbie release could topple SNP government

Everybody loves the chance of a motion of no confidence. The drama, the excitement of politics at its most fragile. With everything on the line.

But they appear to be the only paper leading with the possibility that the SNP government could fall as a result of this decision. No other people appears to have the same quotes from Alex Salmond. Indeed, the Telegraph is more interested in how the affair reflects on Gordon Brown. The Guardian instead are looking at the alleged damage to US-UK relations.

The fact that there’s no one key theme suggests that everyone’s looking for their own angle on the story. All looking for how the story can further their agenda. The Telegraph is the obvious example of that.

But The Times really does take the biscuit. For an SNP administration riding high in the polls, after taking a brave, principled stand on a very difficult decision, one which co-incidentally happens to put them on the world stage and give a chance to rile up our friends across the Atlantic, it would be utter madness for the opposition parties to gang together and topple the Scottish Government.

In short, it’s not going to happen. The Times appear to have their political radar severely off kilter. Perhaps not a surprise; they are heavily London-centric after all.

The SNP would love another election. They have been looking for an opportunity to do so for a long time. Secretly, I think they hoped they would lose their budget battle, and hence get a chance to take their agenda back to the electorate while simultaneously blaming the opposition parties for the mess of a motion of no confidence.

The same would be true here. The SNP don’t want to engineer their own downfall; electorates don’t tend to look kindly on governments that do that. But if they are removed as a result of opposition parties trying to play to the gallery, looking tough on television, they are sure to get bonus sympathy votes.

Of course, such a situation might also achieve the useful benefit of being able to use the momentum to carry forward into next year’s planned independence referendum. The SNP would be sure to increase their number of seats, Scottish Labour would plunge even deeper into crisis, the Scottish Lib Dems would lose even more territory.

Again, in short, it’s not going to happen. Unless the advisors surrounding Iain Gray and Tavish Scott are complete fools, they will sense a mile off that Alex Salmond has once again thrown down the gauntlet, and laid the bear trap ready for them to stroll into it, as they normally do. He is fully in control of the agenda.

The opposition just don’t know how to handle him. Like the Tories didn’t know what to do with Blair, and had to wait till he departed the scene for reasons other than electoral defeat, the so-called opposition will merely have to wait for nature to take its course before they get a chance again.

That The Times fails to understand the nuances of this situation is, perhaps, yet another reason why print journalism is failing; and the blogosphere will continue its ascendancy.

And Murdoch wants us to pay for this crap.