<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Online content: to charge or not to charge</title>
	<atom:link href="http://itsopen.co.uk/online-content-to-charge-or-not-to-charge/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://itsopen.co.uk/online-content-to-charge-or-not-to-charge</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 14:32:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justin Hunt</title>
		<link>http://itsopen.co.uk/online-content-to-charge-or-not-to-charge/comment-page-1#comment-9716</link>
		<dc:creator>Justin Hunt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:00:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://itsopen.co.uk/?p=1260#comment-9716</guid>
		<description>The Guardian is trying to develop new business models and is heavily influenced by Jeff Jarvis, journalism professor and author of What Would Google Do?. The Jarvis view is to keep the pay walls down and extend the influence of the brand. The Guardian feels that each time a newspaper in its area puts up a pay wall, it gets more readers because it is free. The FT disagrees and argues that even if the guardian charged a small amount they would quickly recoup their costs based on the level of readers. Times are changing and new models are emerging. Different kinds of papers in formats we have not anticipated could emerge.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Guardian is trying to develop new business models and is heavily influenced by Jeff Jarvis, journalism professor and author of What Would Google Do?. The Jarvis view is to keep the pay walls down and extend the influence of the brand. The Guardian feels that each time a newspaper in its area puts up a pay wall, it gets more readers because it is free. The FT disagrees and argues that even if the guardian charged a small amount they would quickly recoup their costs based on the level of readers. Times are changing and new models are emerging. Different kinds of papers in formats we have not anticipated could emerge.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben Davies</title>
		<link>http://itsopen.co.uk/online-content-to-charge-or-not-to-charge/comment-page-1#comment-9714</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben Davies</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:47:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://itsopen.co.uk/?p=1260#comment-9714</guid>
		<description>It is an interesting point. Figures suggest that 70,000 Guardian apps were downloaded for £2.39 in the first month of availability. 

Guardian&#039;s December ABCs show circulatoin at around 300,000. (Technology Guardian already has well over a 1.5million followers on Twitter.) 

It will be interesting to see what the effect of the app is. Will the 70,000 who now have unlimited access to the Guardian.co.uk via their iPhone never buy another copy of the paper? It is probably too early to say with any certainty, but watch this space...

However all these figures do point to the squeeze being faced by traditional print media and the challenges facing companies when setting their communications strategies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is an interesting point. Figures suggest that 70,000 Guardian apps were downloaded for £2.39 in the first month of availability. </p>
<p>Guardian&#8217;s December ABCs show circulatoin at around 300,000. (Technology Guardian already has well over a 1.5million followers on Twitter.) </p>
<p>It will be interesting to see what the effect of the app is. Will the 70,000 who now have unlimited access to the Guardian.co.uk via their iPhone never buy another copy of the paper? It is probably too early to say with any certainty, but watch this space&#8230;</p>
<p>However all these figures do point to the squeeze being faced by traditional print media and the challenges facing companies when setting their communications strategies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alistair Smith</title>
		<link>http://itsopen.co.uk/online-content-to-charge-or-not-to-charge/comment-page-1#comment-9703</link>
		<dc:creator>Alistair Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 11:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://itsopen.co.uk/?p=1260#comment-9703</guid>
		<description>Am still very curious about the economics of online content.  

For instance, the Guardian lets me have complete access to its content (plus podcasts and other things) through an iPhone app for a one-off charge of £2.59.  Given that the Guardian costs £1, I have recouped my cost within three days, but it&#039;s hard to see the Guardian making up the differential through online advertising or other means.

Ultimately cash has to come through the door to pay journalists, designers, etc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Am still very curious about the economics of online content.  </p>
<p>For instance, the Guardian lets me have complete access to its content (plus podcasts and other things) through an iPhone app for a one-off charge of £2.59.  Given that the Guardian costs £1, I have recouped my cost within three days, but it&#8217;s hard to see the Guardian making up the differential through online advertising or other means.</p>
<p>Ultimately cash has to come through the door to pay journalists, designers, etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

