Tuesday 10 October 2017

NDM: the effect of online technology on newspapers

========================================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

  I do not completely agree with James Murdoch stating that the BBC should not be allowed to provide free news online, I understand the point Murdoch is trying to put across in attempting to preserve the future of journalism, and I do agree that journalists should get paid in some form. 
I agree with James Murdoch to an extent 

However, I do not believe that all news organisations will ask their users to pay for the news as the news industry is vast and each have their own agendas and also audiences.  This would lead to a certain group of people being able to afford this: only those of the AB and possible C1 socio-economic groups would be able to afford to get their news, and, for me, I think we all have a right to know about what is going on in the world around us. 

2) Read this blog on the Times paywall three years on (note this is the UK Times - not the New York Times!)

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

I believe that Rupert Murdoch was right in putting his news content behind a paywall as content needs to be paid for to be of top quality, and it has proven to be successful. By putting his content behind a paywall managed to improve the number of subscribers of both The Times and The Sunday Times. Figures show that The Times managed to gain 3,000 new subscribers in the first half of 2013. Nonetheless, the effect of free online news is still effecting these websites as they're still losing out on money/profit. 
The paywall provides a "sustainable profitability" as a reliance on advertising revenue and profit from other sources will only cause more harm than good in the long term. The Times has a reliable and loyal audience as it is a middle-class/upper-class newspaper so convincing people to "pay for news" has not had a significantly negative impact on News Uk.



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.


  • In favour of the paywall: 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 vast volumes of (crap) content that the Mail does and it has a very strong brand argument to Ad buyers. 
As much as I do agree with The Times having a strong brand image and being ready for a future that does not rely on print revenue, I believe that the paywall is also having a negative impact.The majority of users will get their sources of news from from news-aggregation sites such as google, and if not they will opt for free news, only those of the middle/upper classes who are of the slightly older generation will pay a subscription for The Times, and they are a minority. 

  • Against paywall: "These papers are full of paid advertising. The fee model will never work."
This quote is completely against the idea of having a paywall on online websites as he believes audiences won't pay for news if there's institutions that are providing news for free. I agree with this statement as I believe audiences would rather look at free news instead of paying for online news.


5) Read this article from the Media Briefing on the continuing decline of the newspaper industry
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 has bucked the trend and has increased in circulation and profit in the last two years because of the fact that they distribute their newspapers to the public for free. Doing so during times such as the rush hour means that the newspaper can have a greater reach. Because of how newspapers they have made as they say 700,000 a day it’s more likely to 900,000 as they are pushing for rise of circulation. They made a 27% increase of flow by the ABC. But they lost 5% of their audiences meaning in that period it was going down slowly.

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.

 I believe that the newspaper industry will eventually die out as the years go by as majority of the newspapers are now adapting to demands for news online and closing down their print news i.e. The Independent and I believe many newspapers will follow. This is not surprising as millennial natives base the majority of their new intake from the digital world, and it is those of the older generation who prefer to get their news through print, and even they are switching to online news. Despite the fact that newspapers are however also adapting in terms of print from (Glamour magazine only giving out one/two prints per year), many will prefer to get their news from their devices as these devices have now incorporated TV and newspapers into one through convergence. However, I think a small hope may be seen in the promoting of newspapers much like The New York times, which direct their newspapers at a specific audience but also represent their newspapers as something of a luxury could be the way for other newspapers to go. If people are able to see that the newspapers is something to read, something exclusive then newspapers can bet on putting a price on them. 






















No comments:

Post a Comment

Representing ourselves: blog task

1) Read the article and summarise each section in one sentence. 'WHO ARE YOU?' This section is about how individuals are a...