Is this the future of websites?

  Paperback Writer 19:07 15 May 03
Locked

Interesting to note that The Inquirer (click here) are offering a subscription service to their website which will have no adverts.

Costs $5 per month or $50 per year.

Do you think it's worth it or are you not bothered with adverts?

  sgtdibble 19:40 15 May 03

ignore the ads and save your cash it would be
better spent on other things

  powerless 20:11 15 May 03

Clicking the ads generates the cash ;-)

Just as PCA gets a wod of cash from us clicking the underlined keywords.

Adverts pay - So keep it free for us little soles out on the web.

As to paying for access a website with no ads (in this case) its already on other sites too. View more information, gain access to this and that...

The future is alredy here, so its kinda the past ;-))

I like the ads and do click them now and again to see what there offering.

  powerless 20:12 15 May 03

But i wouldn't pay.

  anchor 16:39 16 May 03

Neither would I.

We tolerate ads every day, those of us who watch ITV or Sky. Newspapers and commercial radio are similar, so why should I pay for an internet site free of ads.

  fitshase 16:53 16 May 03

It seems that this is well established in other media. We have to pay a television license in order to recieve BBC so we are, in effect, paying for an ad free service (if you discount the ads for the other BBC channels and BBCi website, etc.).

I remember a test case where a man proved that his TV couldn't recieve BBC and only ITV and Channel 4 and was let off with the license fee.

As for paying for websites with no advertising, I for one don't mind banner ads as you can just choose to ignore them. I sometimes, like Powerless, click on some ads to see what is on offer. It is the annoying pop-up ads that I don't like, but with free software to stop it, why should you pay to see a website.

I would pay, a reasonable price, for additional content if it was of use. I used a newspaper site (can't remember the one) which allowed you to search their archives but charged for the full article. I found this useful while at university and regularly paid the money for the information I needed.

Some people are dead against any kind of charging and say that the internet should be free. However, creating, updating, hosting and maintaining websites costs money and that money needs to come from somewhere. As long as it is not to prohibitive and is worth paying for, why not charge for extra content? I'm not sure the ad-free charging will catch on though.


Regards


Fitshase

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

What is Amazon Go and will it come to the UK? The store without checkouts or queues

1995-2015: How technology has changed the world in 20 years

Why ecommerce hasn't taken off on social media

New MacBook Pro 2016 review | MacBook Pro with Touch Bar review: Apple's expensive and powerful…