Rupert Murdoch's decision to put The Times behind a paywall was one of the more controversial business moves this year, and there's certainly been no shortage of people willing to denounce it as a certain failure. I've been slightly on the fence - I don't know enough about The Times, or internet publishing, to have a set opinion on how it will go, and as a reader I admit to a certain level of indifference as there wasn't much about the website I'd miss.
But last week I found myself taking the plunge and entering my Direct Debit details. I had no other motivation than a love for Caitlin Moran, a columnist who's big on Twitter and practically best friends with Gaga. I wanted to read her articles because I decided that if they're as funny as her Twitter stream, they're worth the £8 a month alone.
They are indeed funny, and worth £8, and I have also benefited from an excellent article on sausages. The surprise is that I really like the site. My delicate little brain gets a bit overwhelmed by the glut of stuff to read on the internet (I don't know if you've realised, but the internet is like, well big) and the site has a layout that's not a million miles from a traditional newspaper. There are probably a lot of digital experts who will say this is a Bad Thing, but one thing I do miss about buying papers is that satisfied feeling you get from finishing one. Once you've read it, you can feel calm in the knowledge that you're up to speed for at least one day. On the internet (oh giant terrifying beast!) you're never finished. There's always something else to read or look at. The Times' new site takes me back to a simpler time, before the internet got big, when you read your paper and felt informed. Before Twitter came along and started spewing links and Twitter dailies at me. Back when children laughed and bells tolled and wise men wrote the editorial column and people actually cared.
The problem is that The Times doesn’t provide me with enough Caitlin Morans. The only way it's going to persuade people to pay is by differentiating itself more. I can get news from anywhere, so I want The Times to tell me the possible implications – basically, give me an opinion I can pass off as my own. The news pages don’t seem to have enough links that essentially say “Click here to find out what everyone’s on about”.
This is why Moran rules. When Gaga wore the dress'o'meat, I was confused. What are you telling me Gaga? (I said.) What does this mean? Do you want me to dress in meat, Gaga? Because I will, Gaga, I WILL. BANG, Moran steps in, explains it all, mentions Germaine Greer, and I am clear. Me and Gaga are back on the same page. I am no longer tentatively balancing a pork loin on my head. Moran has spoken.
I will stick with The Times for a while but I do hope the brand gets a bit stronger. It can't rely on people liking only one or two writers, and it can't rely on these writers promoting themselves. It needs to provide clearer links to in-depth stuff on the news pages, and possibly a front page Caitlin Moran / Gaga feed. If it makes it easy for me to feel properly informed on the main stories of the day I'll stay, but otherwise I think (in all my wisdom) it might struggle.