Yet the news sites demonstrate how utterly clueless they are with the amount they set their online subscriptions to.<p>£1 a day for The Times - very nearly the cost of the actual paper.  $1 daily to access Wired.  Don&#x27;t make me laugh.  No one consumes all their news from a single source any more.<p>If my usage pattern is anything near representative, 2-5p a day for the Times and .5p a day for Wired, based on how often I visit equivalent sites and how many stories I read whilst there.<p>Seems like unless it&#x27;s something very specialised (medical journal or similar), or the FT charging as though it was our sole news source just demonstrates how out of touch they are.<p>Sure, charge me £1-£2 a day for consumption, but that would have to be spread across 50-100 sites daily, some of which I&#x27;ve visited just once in the last year, for one article.  AND, if I am going to be willing to be micro-charged I want a way to NOT pay a specific site (perhaps I visited and the content was poor).  Make that happen I&#x27;ll subscribe today.<p>Ask me for £1 for your shitty site daily and you&#x27;ll wait forever, but good luck with your greed - that&#x27;s what caused the adpocalypse in the first place.