Rupert Murdoch expects to start charging for access to News Corporation’s newspaper websites within a year as he strives to fix a ”malfunctioning” business model.
Encouraged by booming online subscription revenues at the Wall Street Journal, the billionaire media mogul last night said that papers were going through an “epochal” debate over whether to charge. “That it is possible to charge for content on the web is obvious from the Wall Street Journal’s experience,” he said.
Asked whether he envisaged fees at his British papers such as the Times, the Sunday Times, the Sun and the News of the World, he replied: “We’re absolutely looking at that.” Taking questions on a conference call with reporters and analysts, he said that moves could begin “within the next 12 months‚” adding: “The current days of the internet will soon be over.”
Wow! Since when did they start reporting news you couldn’t find anywhere else? Are their writers that good?
anyone would think that he had an agenda
This will only work if you have something of value to sell that can’t be obtained elsewhere for free. Good luck with that Ruppie.
Sure thing. Just remove all the ads and tracking cookies. You can’t have your cake and eat it too
Sure thing. Just remove all the ads and tracking cookies. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Stop writing and reprinting crap, and I will be happy to pay for anything.
Now, most of the big news papers are just crap, though.
He may want to rename his crud “Faux News” and put it under clown shows or something.
I’m sure it will do well with the same target audience.
“Rupert Murdoch wants YOU to pay for online newspaper access!”
So? If you don’t like the pub, don’t pay for it.
Wouldn’t that be like paying for manure?
When he launched Fox, Murdock was upset to find people could watch his new network without paying for it. I believe the response was on the order of “They’re stealing our stuff!”
There are those (MPAA et al) who believe each person should pay each and every time content is accessed. Buying a physical copy that any number of people can view as many times as they want makes them very sad and upset.
Look at Newspaper ‘honor boxes’ where there was nothing preventing someone from taking multiple copies. When those went away, so did the reading public. Kindle copies will likely cost more than the old ‘chattel’ newspaper that any number of people could read.
if every newspaper went to an online subscription model it might work, but as long as there are free news sites, there has to be something special about the site to attract subscribers.
WSJ is a special case, because it is the paper of record for the financial industry. Variety has a successful subscription model as well, being the paper of record for the entertainment industry.
Ordinary publications are more likely to lose money on such a model.
#11 ArianeB
>>Ordinary publications are more likely to lose money on such a model.
You are exactly right. Just like the banks the news organizations will be forced to dwindle in number making it easier for government to control information.
It’s a new world – where nobody but the ruling class will want to live.
Yeah, I really want to pay for his Neocon pro-Zionist propaganda to be shoved down my throat.
Improbus said, on May 8th, 2009 at 10:17 am
This will only work if you have something of value to sell that can’t be obtained elsewhere for free. Good luck with that Ruppie.
ArianeB said, on May 8th, 2009 at 11:12 am
if every newspaper went to an online subscription model it might work, but as long as there are free news sites, there has to be something special about the site to attract subscribers.
Don’t worry. Guys like Murdoch are HEAVILY politically connected. As soon as they get their way with Internet 2.0 and kill off the current version of the Internet you won’t have free sites like this one anymore. It will ALL be pay sites.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/05/07/murdoch.web.content/
“We have been at the forefront of that debate and you can confidently presume that we are leading the way in finding a model that maximizes revenues in return for our shareholders… The current days of the Internet will soon be over.”
– Rupert Murdoch
http://prisonplanet.com/rupert-murdoch-internet-will-soon-be-over.html
New Category: Online Newspaper Death Watch
Regarding the internet as a river of money, is a sure way to loose some.
good luck with that. I’ll be busy not paying for my news on multiple 24 hour news channels and other places online like I have been for the last few years…
When Murdoch bought the WSJ the rationale was that business reporters were doing the best work in the newspaper industry. Then after the banking crisis it was clear they were just cheerleaders.
Murdoch tried to pump up the right wing in the U.S. and it worked for awhile, but things aren’t going well there either.
I don’t see that any of Murdoch’s outlets provide an essential service. DirectTV is decent, but scrap everything else.
The Wall Street Journal is a unique and special exception.
Now!
Personally, I don’t believe Rupert Murdoch believes this. I think he is intentionally being deceptive to try to mess with the heads of the other newspapers.
Rupert Murdoch owns too many web companies that exclusively make their money through advertising to actually believe what he is saying.
Therefore he is doing it for a purpose and I believe that purpose is to help tank some other newspapers. Maybe to buy them or maybe to have greater marketshare.
@14 Barnacle Bill — I mean Troublemaker
“Don’t worry. Guys like Murdoch are HEAVILY politically connected. As soon as they get their way with Internet 2.0 and kill off the current version of the Internet you won’t have free sites like this one anymore. It will ALL be pay sites.”
Rupert Murdoch owns MySpace, IGN (think of any gaming website and he probably owns it) and has a 45% stake in Hulu.com (free movie and TV site).
All the fat cat wealthy guys occasionally make brash and bold statements of terrible advice or misinformation to misdirect and sabotage competitions.
Believe me you, Rupert Murdoch knows money on the web isn’t from user pays web sites (except WSJ which is accepted as a legit business expense by the business world).
I see very little “right vs wrong” decision making here. This is another demonstration of the unintended effects of the internet.
Times change. Thinking if the buggy whip makers had just made better decisions that they would still be around is in fact, ironically, just another example of the same defective thinking that is being criticized==and not understood at all.
“Rupert Murdoch wants YOU to pay for online newspaper access!”
Rupert Murdoch can kiss my fanny.
jccalhoun said, on May 8th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
good luck with that. I’ll be busy not paying for my news on multiple 24 hour news channels and other places online like I have been for the last few years…
We’ll see how long these guys let you have free news on the Internet.
You guys really need to wake-up. Do you think that the power brokers and influence peddlers that control the worlds media, and already have a stranglehold on traditional media outlets, will really allow the Internet to continue on as it currently exists? These people are extremely powerful and politically well connected. They WILL get their way…
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread406375/pg1
“In April 2007, Time magazine reported that researchers funded by the federal government want to shut down the internet and start over, citing the fact that at the moment there are loopholes in the system whereby users cannot be tracked and traced all the time. The projects echo moves we have previously reported on to clamp down on internet neutrality and even to designate a new form of the internet known as Internet 2.”
“- A landmark November 2006 legal case on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America and other global trade organizations sought to criminalize all Internet file sharing of any kind as copyright infringement, effectively shutting down the world wide web – and their argument was supported by the U.S. government.”
“- A landmark legal ruling in Sydney goes further than ever before in setting the trap door for the destruction of the Internet as we know it and the end of alternative news websites and blogs by creating the precedent that simply linking to other websites is breach of copyright and piracy.”
…thus ends the Murdoch Tail.
“You guys really need to wake-up. Do you think that the power brokers and influence peddlers that control the worlds media, and already have a stranglehold on traditional media outlets, will really allow the Internet to continue on as it currently exists?”
Yes, because the power brokers will really be able to prevent someone from reposting things on their blogs or from accessing international news sources that are government funded like the bbc. or just watching the television. yawn. non-story.
This is one aspect of the Internet that truly disgusts me: the remarkably pusilanimous attitude of the populace in this newfound confrontation with the Man.
Since Napster, it has become an everyday issue to see media content owners strive to regain control of their property and the general public say something tantamount to “screw you, we’ll rob you cos we’re too many and there is nothing you can do about against us – neener neener neener.” There is a name for that practice here in my country: “arrastão” (fishing net). Dozens of muggers storm the beach on a crowded Sunday and mug dozens of people in a couple of minutes and people have no defense against them because they are so many. That’s what the interwebitubes is turning into: a cowardly, rank-and-file plundering mob of uneducated underachievers who simply can’t afford to pay for anything and decided to elect theft and scorn as the ultimate disguise to their miserable failure as respectable citizens.
In the case of newspapers, I never see anyone ask these fundamental questions:
Does any of these fucking neener-neener trash talkers ever get up from their fat asses and make the news? Do they invest time and fuel to go places to take notes and pictures of what is going on, come back and write a piece? Do they ever fund and incorporate companies and run staff to keep a media organization chugging along? Do they pay any salaries to the people who make the news? Do they support expensive logistics and machinery to maintain the broadcast?
Obvious rhetorical question. The answer is big fucking no. The position of these people is almost invariably that of a young, fat, spoiled cocksucking prince who sits around and gets spoonfed all day. And that spoonfeeding is cost-free because there is an awful lot of stealing going on. There are just too many blogs photocopying stories and banging drums in the jungle with content that they never created. Fuck, these worthless parrots will never create anything. They hardly have the basic education for that. All they do is use the fact that news and overall media content are “freely” available everywhere and tell the actual content creators to fuck off. Expecting that rabble to understand that there will eventually be no content left to be stolen and distributed “for free” if all the creators actually do fuck off eventually is just asking too much. These misguided trash talkers surely think that content just grows on trees. They might as well believe that a stork delivered them to their parents when they were born.
I understand and completely accept the fact that things have changed and the paid content model is facing an uphill struggle. That’s particularly easy for me since I am NOT in the media or content creation business. I also support wholeheartedly the notion that most media outlets produce a lot of subpar quality content, especially news outlets. That is one very valid argument. But making fun of companies that are trying to charge a fee for their work is a very shameful attitude.
I include Dvorak Uncensored in this rant, of course. I am sick of the derisive tone used in these stories about the perishing paid subscription media outlets. It’s brainless. What the fuck is wrong with charging for one’s work? What the hell happened to making an honest buck, you fucking communists? You panhandle for donations at the top of the blog and feel entitled to mock companies that try to charge a fixed fee in return for their work? Fucking grow up already. The content creators are not right about everything, but at least they’re working and creating something. They deserve to be paid. The general public who scorns the media industry is by far the most despicable side of this historical confrontation. The absolute majority is comprised of a bunch of Roman emperor wannabes who recline in their living room chairs with languishing eyes and point their stupid thumbs down at stuff without ever standing up to contribute something. Please quit this charade.
The problem is I’m not sure this man or his media outlets have anything to sell that you can’t get elsewhere.
There are two sorts of news: National/international and local news.
A large hunk of what Murdock owns is trying to sell information in group one and I already know I don’t agree with his slant on the news which is the same from all his media outlest. As for as I’m concerned they are all the same source. That being the case there would never be a reason to look at more than one of them.
#29–Luc==Hah, hah, Lots of “passion,” but completely DEVOID of analysis.
You begin with a completely irrelevant analogy to Napster, Public Thievery, and mob mentality. COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the issue at hand here which you only mention: In a free market, how does one charge for content that is available elsewhere for free.
So, the issue is real. Any solutions, insights, history you want to post?