Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rupert Murdoch's move to charge for content opens doors for competitors
Guardian.UK ^ | 6 August 2009 | Jeff Jarvis

Posted on 08/05/2009 9:28:46 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182

Vivian Schiller, now CEO of National Public Radio in the US, said in an interview with Newsweek last week that talk of charging for news online is "mass delusion". She should know. Schiller was head of nytimes.com when it charged and then stopped charging for its content.

If you can charge for your content - if you are the FT or the Wall Street Journal, the only brands that do it successfully - and your readers can make money on your content, and pass the cost of it onto their employers I have nothing against it. But for most, pinning hopes for the survival of news on charging for it is not only futile but possibly suicidal.

Charging for content brings marketing and customer-service costs. Online, it reduces audience and the advertising they justify. Putting content behind a wall cuts it off from search and links; they cut off your Googlejuice............"

(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: murdoch
If this was Pinch Sulzberger doing this, (He already tried it and failed) I would not worry, but Rupert Murdoch is a serious guy.
1 posted on 08/05/2009 9:28:46 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182

You can charge for serious journalism.

The problem is that Almost all so called journalism has just become variants on AP newslines.

Who’s gonna “pay” for that?


2 posted on 08/05/2009 9:35:34 PM PDT by mylife (The roar of the masses could be farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182

That will only make freerepublic more popular. I’m sure some will pay, but the vast majority will move along to where it’s free.


3 posted on 08/05/2009 9:41:39 PM PDT by miliantnutcase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182

Murdoch doesn’t understand the internet very well. Most of us will not pay for our news, we’ll just go elsewhere for it.


4 posted on 08/05/2009 9:41:46 PM PDT by Guyin4Os (My name says Guyin40s but now I have an exotic, daring, new nickname..... Guyin50s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife

You would have to pay for content somewhere to get the AP, Reuters, etc. story. If someone tries to post that content for free they will get landed on hard. Excerpt and link would only work if subscribers with privileges to the same source were talking to each other.


5 posted on 08/05/2009 9:42:23 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182
If this was Pinch Sulzberger doing this, (He already tried it and failed) I would not worry, but Rupert Murdoch is a serious guy.

Doesn't matter what he is, charging for news content won't work. The WSJ is a unique animal - people use that paper as part of their daily jobs. No one has to have the NY Post or the Fox News websites. Charge for them and people will move on - there's too much free content of comparable quality out there.
6 posted on 08/05/2009 9:44:36 PM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182
Murdoch will fail. He is cutting off his nose to spite his face. It is too late to charge and really make any money. The WSJ tried it and it hasn't worked all that well. Moreover, we have the entire world to get our news from including Google, Yahoo, etc.

87% of the revenue for American newspapers comes from advertising. Murdoch must come up with a better business model for the Internet that will attract advertisers. Limiting the number of viewers will just reduce advertising revenue.

7 posted on 08/05/2009 9:46:28 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Guyin4Os

I think this may be different. The big players will follow Murdoch and that would include AP, Reuters etc. Then they sue anyone using their content without payment. Fair Use will be under continuous challenge.


8 posted on 08/05/2009 9:47:15 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182

It could be one step in trying to control the information flow. Independent internet news and blogs don’t exactly support the party line if you know what I mean.

Either that or Murdoch is just another stupid, greedy ba$tard.


9 posted on 08/05/2009 9:48:57 PM PDT by khnyny ("The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182

Unfortunately, this may save the NYT.


10 posted on 08/05/2009 9:52:16 PM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fso301

That is possible.


11 posted on 08/05/2009 9:53:37 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182
The "link economy" notwithstanding, it doesn't seem right that Google et al. are making boatloads of money while the news-gathering organizations are losing money. (I'm focusing on just the pricing issue & not considering the biased content.)
12 posted on 08/05/2009 9:56:09 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Guyin4Os

Not only that..we PICK our news. We laugh at AP and other MSM stories because of their amusing leftwing slant. FR is where I get my news.


13 posted on 08/05/2009 10:05:34 PM PDT by max americana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182

bookmark


14 posted on 08/05/2009 10:25:37 PM PDT by GOP Poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife
The problem is that Almost all so called journalism has just become variants on AP newslines. Who’s gonna “pay” for that?

BINGO! Its all the same leftover leftie propaganda. I get most of my global news from Europe and Asia and they don;t seem to want to charge anything at all...

15 posted on 08/05/2009 10:53:14 PM PDT by April Lexington (Study the constitution so you know what they are taking away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kabar
The fact is, the "news" is a public commodity and there really isn't a market for this stuff now that the net exists. Newspapers are struggling and folding every day because nobody wants to read the leftist crap or buy greasy paper that gets your hands and cloths dirty.

The leftist monopoly is ending. That's why the White House is making fools of themselves today with the fishy web site. They can't rely on a national media to hype the bullsh*t anymore...

16 posted on 08/05/2009 10:56:18 PM PDT by April Lexington (Study the constitution so you know what they are taking away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fso301
Unfortunately, this may save the NYT.

People only buy the Times so they look cool reading it. If it becomes a private experience, the Leftist bullshit will become so daunting and boring that people simply won't pay.

The era of custom "news" via PDA is at hand and those in the know will be twittering and "apping" for news. A slow loading web page full of immature crap will not sell. Read Tim Egan's nonsense on today's NYT web site for a perfect example of how the left thinks we all still watch Sesame Street....

17 posted on 08/05/2009 11:00:44 PM PDT by April Lexington (Study the constitution so you know what they are taking away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: April Lexington
Someone has to report the news. The stuff on the net comes, for the most part, from reporters and the news services. It doesn't appear by magic.

Hard copy newspapers are going the way of the buggy whip. There are a number of reasons why with the internet and the electronic media being major ones. Young people just don't read newspapers like their parents do or did. And newspapers are just a daily snapshot compared to the steady stream of news from TV, radio, and the Internet. Moreove, you have access to more sources.

18 posted on 08/05/2009 11:04:14 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kabar
Good point. But, the Iran situation showed that we ALL are reporters now. We don't need leftist trained “journalism” students and hacks creating leftist spin news for propaganda purposes. Someone twitters and a million people read the “news.” The monopoly s broken. Problem is, the brain dead GOP hasn't figured this out yet so the Dems are whacking them to bits at the polls.
19 posted on 08/05/2009 11:10:01 PM PDT by April Lexington (Study the constitution so you know what they are taking away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182

He has only the power internet readers give to him. If we make him fail, we will deter all others. They make money on hits and advertisers. We have to give him zero hits unless we want to pay for all news sources on the Net.

Let this business model fail. They get hits and advertizing rates that reflect those hits; or they go belly up!


20 posted on 08/06/2009 11:30:08 AM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson