The end of ARRSE?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Skynet, Nov 30, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Web users would pay to read Clarkson & Brooker

    But research shows less than a third of users would pay for online content in the first place
    They make extremely strange bedfellows, but motoring journalist Jeremy Clarkson and Guardian columnist Charlie Brooker share one thing in common: they are the journalists who newspaper readers would be most likely to pay to read online.

    While coming from ideologically opposed points of view - Clarkson the populist right, Brooker a more elitist position on the left - the pair emerged in the top two positions in research commissioned to discover whether new models of charging for content online would work.

    Brooker (second) was joined in the top 10 by only one other journalist who could plausibly be seen as liberal, the Times's restaurant critic Giles Coren (fourth). Fellow travellers with the table-topping Clarkson (above left) - who writes for the Sun and Sunday Times on motoring and wider issues - were such pin-ups of the right as Richard Littlejohn (third, Daily Mail), the Daily Telegraph's Simon Heffer (fifth), and Peter Hitchens and Melanie Phillips (Mail on Sunday/Daily Mail), who came eighth and tenth respectively.
  2. Being able to read news papers online for free only has a limited time left. It must be costing the media groups millions in lost revenue, but the question is, which one is going to be the first to lay down the gauntlet?

    I remember in the early days of home internet that on AOL you could send text messages for free from your email account. Everything changes.
  3. It will only be the end of Arrse if Arrsers start cutting and pasting paid-for articles and the aggrieved newspapers go legal.
  4. The FT and the WSJ both charge for content, IIRC. Other magazines offer free pages and then charge if you want to go deeper.

    I doubt that something like Arrse will die because the business model is different. However, you are correct that things change, and what we have today will probably not survive the next decade.

    It will be interesting to watch how it all develops.

  5. If a system of charging for internet newspapers is just going to grow like Topsy, then surely it will be quite expensive to have access to all that we get now. Sources of information will be bundled into different packages, each priced accordingly. We have got used to reading several papers a day. Of course, work has to be paid for, but with such a large customer base on the internet I hope that the fees will be small, say £1 a week for the whole lot. Fat chance. Otherwise I shall be of the opinion that it was good while it lasted, keep my pennies, and stay ignorant but happy.

    As an aside, I recall reading that the Queen read 8 (?) newspapers every morning. That does not seem to be such a novelty now, although we do not get our news on a silver platter.
  6. Of course it should not be forgotten that newspapers have in the past obtained many free stories from ARRSE and also find it a good source of information and leads to stories from what is a fairly closed organisation. I would suggest that ARRSE provides more on the plus side than the downside to a free press. Maybe because of its unique position it is given free dispensation from all UK news media for starters? Each blogger from ARRSE is given a unique access code to trawl the national dailies. These who have this facility have to pay ARRSE a annual subscription to get this facility?
  7. I'm an expat in Oz. I looked at getting an electronic version of a British broadsheet (the newspapers here are appalling) but ol' Rupert is trying to charge the same amount for a e-paper as for a paper version!!

    He doesn't pay for ink, paper or transport and all his papers are generated on computers anyway. He's a greedy little sh*t so I hope his charging for online content is the end of him.

  8. Lets us not forget the sources from Sky & BBC news 24 & the foreign media etc, I also agree it is a only a matter of time before a structural change will be implemented, how long that will take who knows,

    Factual evidence is widely available widespread throughout the web, along with journals, working papers, reports etc etc, it will be interesting to see how this further develops.
  9. Of course if the likes of the BBC and Al jazera stay free and the masses just migrate to free sites like these wont this mean that Ruperts strong sway over public opinion will be diminished and he'll lose some of his power?
  10. Auld-Yin

    Auld-Yin LE Reviewer Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    Does this mean we will start getting charged for the Arrse Newletter? :D

    Or is that just giving the COs an idea? :cry:
  12. Nowt. It's not a copy I can carry round and keep dipping into. Overall costs to stick the Times online must be lower, there's no need to pay printers !

    The Media Moguls have to be very carefull over charging for content, get it wrong and that's it, Game Over.
  14. The UK's 4th most read daily get on ok giving their paper away free to 1 million people Metro
  15. The problem with charging for online content is that the newspapers will be competing with the BBC. The Beeb's web site provides a high quality service, free of charge and without adverts. It's funded by tax payers. No commercial organisation can compete with that. Murdoch has hinted that his publications will start charging but I think he'll have a hard time getting the punters to part with cash.

    The papers would be better off finding new ways to flog online advertising. Especially the Guardian that will cease to exist next year if it can't plug the gap from all those Albanian lesbian outreach coordinator job ads that it wont be getting after the election.

    Does anybody know what proportion of newspaper income comes from the cover price as opposed to advertising revenue?