Economics
Reuters Report: Who’s paying for news?
This report uses survey data from 20 countries and qualitative research from the United Kingdom (UK), United States (US), and Germany to explore who is paying for news content online, which publications they pay for, how much they pay, and what motivations they have for subscribing or donating to news.
We focus, in particular, on how the cost-of-living crisis is impacting willingness to pay for online news, through talking to those who have cancelled their subscriptions over the last 12 months as well as those who have maintained subscriptions during this period. We also look at the prospects for attracting new subscribers amid this economic downturn and ask what approaches, if any,
might persuade these reluctant consumers to pay for online news in the future. Finally, we use insights from our research to explore ways in which the publishing industry could adapt current strategies around news payment.
Key findings:
- Across most of the 20 countries we analyse, payment for online news is levelling off, with high levels of cancellation strongly linked to the cost-of-living crisis.
- Low-price introductory offers are effective at attracting new subscribers but many struggle to see the value when it comes to renewal and paying the full sticker price.
- Long-term news subscribers tend to be male, older, richer, and better educated, with a strong interest in news and politics. Younger subscribers tend to pay less and are more likely to make donations than older groups.
- News subscribers are attracted by a combination of distinctive high-quality, curated, and exclusive content, identification with the brand, a desire to support quality journalism, and a higher-quality user experience.
- Around half of non-subscribers say that nothing could persuade them to pay for online news, but others could be attracted by a lower price, more relevant content, or less cluttered (ad-free) websites and apps.
- For some people the value of news subscriptions is partly conditioned by the amount and quality of free content (from both commercial and public service outlets) available in a market, as well as by the price and experience of entertainment services such as TV, sport, and music.
[embeddoc url=”https://mobilizednews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Newman_and_Robertson_Paying_for_News.pdf” download=”all”]
Richard Allen comes across a massive tax fraud that makes the Channel Islands loophole look like a tea party. He teams up with two more retailers whose businesses are being destroyed by it and they start to apply pressure to the tax authorities, HMRC, who seem reluctant to take on big online market players Amazon and eBay.
Music (in order of use) is courtesy of Cherry Red Records: Steal No Egg by Electric Orange and Movement by Praise Space Electric.
This is a Tax Justice Network podcast with Naomi Fowler of the Taxcast podcast. Produced by Naomi Fowler and Leo Schick and sound designed by Leo Schick.
Tax evasion is an illegal – usually criminal – activity, by which a taxpayer escapes tax through deception. Tax avoidance, on the other hand, means getting around (or avoiding) the spirit of the law without actually breaking the law. There is a large grey area between the two poles of avoidance and evasion.
Tax evasion is an illegal – usually criminal – activity, by which a taxpayer escapes tax through deception. Tax avoidance, on the other hand, means getting around (or avoiding) the spirit of the law without actually breaking the law. There is a large grey area between the two poles of avoidance and evasion.
A tax haven or secrecy jurisdiction is a place that deliberately provides an escape route for people or entities who live or operate elsewhere. They shield them from whatever taxes, criminal laws, financial regulations, transparency or other constraints they don’t like. Ordinary people whose lives are affected by tax haven laws are not consulted on these laws because they live in other countries: they have no say in how those laws are made, thus undermining their democratic rights.
“Tax is one of the smartest investments you can make.” That’s Professor Chris Harrop’s promise to companies, and his new tax funded impact model proves it by helping quantify how paying tax is not only good for their businesses, but for the economies they’re operating in, and of course for people and society.
Plus: Why have OECD countries just bent the knee to Donald Trump and given up their sovereign rights to tax US businesses operating within their own borders? Naomi Fowler speaks with Zorka Millin of the FACT Coalition about how US companies now have an exemption from the global minimum corporate tax. Also, Zorka discusses some progress on the Corporate Transparency Act’s rollercoaster journey in the US towards setting up a beneficial ownership register – a court ruling has pushed things a little further forward, which is good news since the United States is the world’s biggest financial secrecy offender. Now some of the watering down of the act needs to be reversed…
And finally, the UK has strengthened its whistleblower reward scheme, lawyer Mary Inman of Whistleblower Partners tells us more.
Produced by Tax Justice Network
