| KoA/EADT 13:27 - May 14 with 8879 views | Skip_Intro |
How many of you have paid for a subscription to access their content?
BTW I am not looking to rake up the debate on whether or not the EADT should have introduced the paywall - that has been done to death
I'm just curious as to a) how many on here have paid (using the £3 for 3 months offer) and b) how many will continue to pay once it costs £7.99 per month after the introductory offer ends.
Personally I haven't subscribed but would consider if for £1.99 a month just for the football content like that lot up the road can. I refuse to pay to access the 'news' content. |  | | |  |
| KoA/EADT on 13:29 - May 14 with 5284 views | Stu_boy |
Hope twtd doesn't introduce this |  | | |
| KoA/EADT on 13:29 - May 14 with 5269 views | Illinoisblue |
I haven’t and it seems it would be weird timing to subscribe just as the season ends. |  |
| |
| KoA/EADT on 13:37 - May 14 with 5227 views | Churchman |
A paper version goes to my dad’s house and they’re saved for me for my weekly visit so no, I don’t subscribe. Will I one day? Honest answer is probably. |  | | |
| KoA/EADT on 14:00 - May 14 with 5172 views | franz_tyson |
I'd pay a couple of quid a month if Stu and Andy are still dishing out good quality reporting ( or any other proper journalists). I'm not paying 8 quid a month for other news / articles I don't want.
I can see Stu/Andy moving on pretty soon as I can't see this working. I've already started to get used to not reading their articles or watching their videos. They're missing an opportunity when most of us are in good spirits Town-wise. | | | |
| KoA/EADT on 14:12 - May 14 with 5120 views | catch74 |
It’s hard in most industries at the moment and I think newspaper journalism must be high up there.
I’ve not subscribed, feels wrong for something that was free. The issue is where we were happy to pay £1 for a physical copy of a paper this no longer happens.
I imagine Andy and Stu and the rest work just as hard on articles plus put the time and effort in to the podcasts - so really we shouldn’t mind paying for the content.It just feels a little bit wrong and a little bit opportune on the timing front.
I’d be interested to know what EADT sales have been over the last 20 or so years. |  |
| |
| KoA/EADT on 14:16 - May 14 with 5104 views | J2BLUE |
Would happily pay if I used their site but I never do. If TWTD went to a similar model I would pay in an instant but i'm not going to go out of my way to support the EADT. That's no judgement on Stu or Andy who are both great but I just use TWTD for 99% of Town news. |  |
| |
| KoA/EADT on 14:20 - May 14 with 5086 views | Herbivore |
£7.99 is too much for me to justify to read a few footy articles a month. I don't watch the podcast or read the news so it would be just a small number of footy articles I'd be interested in and it's too steep for that. For a couple of quid I'd be happy to pay. |  |
| |
| KoA/EADT on 14:53 - May 14 with 4937 views | OldFart71 |
I fully understand their reasoning behind the need to charge for the content. But it seems not only is this bad timing from a end of season point of view, but also as so many are struggling to pay bills. I used to subscribe to terrestrial football but due to the fact that i didn't wish to see a majority of the games I decided to stop taking it. Now I go to a neighbours with a few beers or go to a local pub. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| KoA/EADT on 14:59 - May 14 with 4902 views | strikalite |
Not a chance I'm paying, as much as I like Stu&Andy I think it's bad timing when people are tightening their monthly outgoings, thankfully Blue Monday is still free and like J2 says this place gives all the info/debate you'd want.. |  | | |
| KoA/EADT on 15:10 - May 14 with 4848 views | RegencyBlue |
I think they’ve shot themselves in both feet with this.
Plenty of alternatives out there, not least TWTD, which are just as informative and still free. As somebody else said in this thread, I’m already used to not watching KOA anymore and I really cannot see this working for them. |  | | |
| KoA/EADT on 15:17 - May 14 with 4799 views | BlueBadger |
| KoA/EADT on 14:20 - May 14 by Herbivore |
£7.99 is too much for me to justify to read a few footy articles a month. I don't watch the podcast or read the news so it would be just a small number of footy articles I'd be interested in and it's too steep for that. For a couple of quid I'd be happy to pay. |
A one-off purchase of a 12ft ladder can help with that... |  |
| |
| KoA/EADT on 15:50 - May 14 with 4687 views | Stenvict |
I've paid the £50 odd for the year subscription. I want to still watch the KOA pods and content, so may thought I may as well pay for the year.
Regarding the timing, it makes sense on their part as fans are effectively paying £3 for 3 months of a few news articles/pods regarding transfers, fixture release, new kits etc. before getting fans to pay £7.99 for the usual content when the season starts. | |
| |
| KoA/EADT on 15:57 - May 14 with 4671 views | DublinBlue84 |
I've paid £3 for the first 3 months.
However, the genuinely poor standard of the news means the overall package for £7.99 is not good value since the quality of the 'news' articles for the most part is worth almost nothing in terms of value. Therefore the argument that you are getting much more than the football that I've had with the shadowy figures doesn't hold any water.
If they want us to pay £7.99 a month for overall access to the EADT then they need to provide a premium level of content across the board. They cannot dish out mediocre quality of news content out as they are when everything was free and expect that people are going to pay for it. You literally can get better quality of content for free elsewhere in terms of local news etc.
If they are not going to then they need to allow people to subscribe to the football content only, which you can in Norfolk at £1.99 for the Pink Un which is run by the same people. And the laughable thing there is actually the local news content seems to be a little better than it is here.
I'd say it's quite likely Stuart Watson might be off anyway before the start of the new season. There's been a few hints at that over the past few weeks including one on the latest podcast about him not being around for the first game of the season. I'd guess Warren will then step up to be number one which is why Newsquest are advertising for a new Ipswich Town reporter. Someone has to be leaving as they only recently made Mike Bacon redundant. | |
| |
| KoA/EADT on 16:39 - May 14 with 4522 views | DJR |
| KoA/EADT on 15:57 - May 14 by DublinBlue84 |
I've paid £3 for the first 3 months.
However, the genuinely poor standard of the news means the overall package for £7.99 is not good value since the quality of the 'news' articles for the most part is worth almost nothing in terms of value. Therefore the argument that you are getting much more than the football that I've had with the shadowy figures doesn't hold any water.
If they want us to pay £7.99 a month for overall access to the EADT then they need to provide a premium level of content across the board. They cannot dish out mediocre quality of news content out as they are when everything was free and expect that people are going to pay for it. You literally can get better quality of content for free elsewhere in terms of local news etc.
If they are not going to then they need to allow people to subscribe to the football content only, which you can in Norfolk at £1.99 for the Pink Un which is run by the same people. And the laughable thing there is actually the local news content seems to be a little better than it is here.
I'd say it's quite likely Stuart Watson might be off anyway before the start of the new season. There's been a few hints at that over the past few weeks including one on the latest podcast about him not being around for the first game of the season. I'd guess Warren will then step up to be number one which is why Newsquest are advertising for a new Ipswich Town reporter. Someone has to be leaving as they only recently made Mike Bacon redundant. |
I thought his reference to missing the first game was that he had booked a holiday, given there isn't much time for a football journalist to book a holiday in the school summer holidays.
But who knows? [Post edited 14 May 2023 16:39]
|  | | |
| KoA/EADT on 16:45 - May 14 with 4479 views | DJR |
I already have separate digital subscriptions to the EADT and Ipswich Star at roughly £40 a year each.
I will probably keep them both going, even if they increase in price, but I may well opt for the annual subscription.
There is some overlap in news, but I quite like finding out what goes on in Suffolk, given I no longer live there.
I also much prefer reading news and sports content on a digital edition of the paper, rather than the internet, and read at least one of the papers every day with my breakfast, preferring to wait until the Ipswich content appears in print. There is also complete access to the excellent KOA podcasts. | | | |
| KoA/EADT on 17:08 - May 14 with 4385 views | LancsBlue |
I've paid the £3 for three months but have marked the expiry date on my calendar with the intention of cancelling before the full rate applies. I would pay a couple of quid for football only content but I have zero interest in what's happening in Saxmundham etc. - I live in Greater Manchester FFS! so I won't be paying the full rate. The EADT doesn't have a monopoly on ITFC news and debate and although I love listening to the thoughtful and intelligent analysis of Stuart and Andy, I can equally get by without it. |  |
| |
| KoA/EADT on 17:27 - May 14 with 4316 views | dirtyboy |
I’ve subscribed but I do think, given I won’t touch the other sections, the price may end up not being worth it.
For me, would prefer access to just Club news and kOA (which is great) |  | | |
| KoA/EADT on 17:39 - May 14 with 4276 views | chicoazul |
I’ve tried a few times to listen to the KoA podcast and it is unlistenable. Blue Monday is much better.
Here is something everyone who does podcasts needs to remember; every episode is someone’s first episode. That’s a lesson from comics. |  |
| |
| KoA/EADT on 18:03 - May 14 with 4163 views | monty_radio |
Not enough of their regular stuff is payworthy. At this moment one article invites me to look inside a £775k house for sale - I'd use Rightmove if I wanted to do that. Another article invites me to celebrate a shop that's been open a year.
Recently they've re-run an article about pubs people wish were still open and restaurants that have recently closed. And when there is "an incident" e.g. a main street closed off by police, then they often send a cub reporter who gleans precisely nothing of the why.
While I might idly dip into some of this stuff, i wouldn't pay for it. I don't know if there is a viable hope for them, but meanwhile their praiseworthy Town journos will be looking elsewhere, probably sooner rather than later. | |
| |
| KoA/EADT on 18:27 - May 14 with 4056 views | yorkshireblue |
I don’t mind paying for quality online journalism - I’ve shared several Athletic articles on this very forum for example.
I get it I really do, local journalism is really struggling. And it’s a vicious circle - people want their news not not yesterday so look online, so people stop buying papers. Therefore they need to cut costs and make cuts… so less journalists means the quality drops as they have time pressures. In addition, they now get measured by the number of clicks they get, rather than quality of the work - so we get more clickbaity articles. They need to look for alternative ways to make money else these publications will sadly disappear. John Oliver did a great section on local journalism and it’s importance - well with a watch if you find it on YouTube.
That being said, I don’t subscribe at at £8 a month I won’t be. If, like those up the road, there was a £2 a month just for sport section I absolutely would. |  | | |
| KoA/EADT on 19:09 - May 14 with 3952 views | DublinBlue84 |
| KoA/EADT on 18:03 - May 14 by monty_radio |
Not enough of their regular stuff is payworthy. At this moment one article invites me to look inside a £775k house for sale - I'd use Rightmove if I wanted to do that. Another article invites me to celebrate a shop that's been open a year.
Recently they've re-run an article about pubs people wish were still open and restaurants that have recently closed. And when there is "an incident" e.g. a main street closed off by police, then they often send a cub reporter who gleans precisely nothing of the why.
While I might idly dip into some of this stuff, i wouldn't pay for it. I don't know if there is a viable hope for them, but meanwhile their praiseworthy Town journos will be looking elsewhere, probably sooner rather than later. |
It feels like for a lot of their stuff they don't send anyone, let alone a cub reporter.
A lot of their articles appear to be based on what is on social media and Google Maps which is why there is never any detail as there has been several mistakes I've seen over the past few months that nobody who knew Ipswich would get wrong. They've often described areas exactly how they appear on the last Streetview image.
My favourite one recently was them describing the Ex Bonmarche store as being empty since it closed down, despite the fact there has been a bed store there for well over a year, but because it didn't happen to appear on Google Maps, obviously it didn't exist.
There was another news article recently where they talked about an entity known as 'Portman Road' applying for planning permission building executive boxes in place of white hoardings as well. I mean if you can't even write an article like that right then what hope do you have? It says a lot about the quality of journalism.
The photography is just as bad, clearly ripped from Google Street view or really dated photos, again because nobody has actually bothered to take any new ones. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of the articles are being run from someone sitting behind their computer who has never lived or worked in Ipswich. | |
| |
| KoA/EADT on 19:15 - May 14 with 3931 views | DublinBlue84 |
| KoA/EADT on 18:27 - May 14 by yorkshireblue |
I don’t mind paying for quality online journalism - I’ve shared several Athletic articles on this very forum for example.
I get it I really do, local journalism is really struggling. And it’s a vicious circle - people want their news not not yesterday so look online, so people stop buying papers. Therefore they need to cut costs and make cuts… so less journalists means the quality drops as they have time pressures. In addition, they now get measured by the number of clicks they get, rather than quality of the work - so we get more clickbaity articles. They need to look for alternative ways to make money else these publications will sadly disappear. John Oliver did a great section on local journalism and it’s importance - well with a watch if you find it on YouTube.
That being said, I don’t subscribe at at £8 a month I won’t be. If, like those up the road, there was a £2 a month just for sport section I absolutely would. |
Yes - but now they are starting to charge people for things poor quality is no longer acceptable.
The best thing Newsquest can do during the next 3 months where the special offer runs is to ensure by the end of those 3 months the quality of journalism in the content it provides in the news section increases. Yes this will cost money up front as £1 a month isn't much extra income but the alternative is simply people are going to cancel at the end of the 3 months.
If they do sort out and invest in the quality, the numbers of people they get who will renew is likely to put them in a better position than not doing anything and having a much larger percentage of cancellations as not only will they be losing the subscription incomes, having everything behind a paywall where nobody is paying to get inside the paywall will be the worst of both worlds for them as it'll plunder advertising revenue further.
They can use this as an opportunity to convince those in the trial period that paying for journalism will make a difference or they can essentially say you can pay £7.99 for someone to scour social media all day and eat themselves. Their choice. | |
| |
| KoA/EADT on 19:19 - May 14 with 3918 views | Mullet |
I probably will do once the season is back in view. A football only option would surely generate way more revenue given that so many fans live outside the area.
Think the new owners are chancing their arm on the model and will eventually cave if take up is slower than they anticipate. |  |
| |
| KoA/EADT on 19:31 - May 14 with 3872 views | JackNorthStand |
A good move for the club would have been to get stu and Andy as part of the town TV lineup, not for matchdays - but in the same capacity as they work now. Summarising, opinions etc. | | | |
| KoA/EADT on 19:35 - May 14 with 3844 views | franz_tyson |
| KoA/EADT on 19:31 - May 14 by JackNorthStand |
A good move for the club would have been to get stu and Andy as part of the town TV lineup, not for matchdays - but in the same capacity as they work now. Summarising, opinions etc. |
They're supposed to be objective journalists.
What if they disagree with something - would they be allowed to express that against their employers? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
