Murdoch wants to charge for his News websites
Discussion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/me...
The great war between Quality and Free was fought out in the early days of the WWW.
Free won.
You can roll with it or you can die.
I look forward to your vile publications going spectacularly bust. Why would you pay for The Sun when you can read a different paper for nothing?
You're not an idiot. So why on earth are you trying this? Are you that out of touch?
Don
Telegraph said:
Rupert Murdoch to charge to view News Corp's online news
News Corp chairman plans to charge readers of the websites of all his newspapers within the next 12 months.
By James Quinn
Published: 7:58AM BST 06 Aug 2009
Rupert Murdoch said: If we're successful, we'll be followed by other media.
Mr Murdoch, chairman of News Corporation, pledged that the media conglomerate would “assert its copyright” over all its newspapers online, including the Sun and the News of the World (NOTW), to prevent stories and photographs being copied elsewhere.
The septuagenarian media mogul said that readers could expect to pay for its newspaper and television news websites within the current fiscal year, which ends next June.
Mr Murdoch singled out The Daily Telegraph's revelations on MPs expenses as an example of news for which readers would be willing to pay, describing it as a "great scoop".
"I'm sure pople would be very happy to pay for that," he said, adding that eventually the only “free competition” in the UK is likely to come from the BBC.
Although he gave no idea of how users might be charged – whether per article or by some form of subscription – he said he did not think charging was a risk, and that each of News Corp’s major papers had enough strengths to succeed online.
In the UK, it is already known that the Sunday Times is recruiting specialists to launch a separate stand-alone website from The Times. Mr Murdoch stressed that both the Sun and the NOTW played well online, especially when it came to celebrity scoops.
He gave a serious commitment to all four UK titles, saying he wants to “come out of this with much stronger franchises than we had before” and that in spite of significant cuts at some titles, journalism would not be touched.
“There’s already signs of pain and possible closures of one or two of our competitors,” said Mr Murdoch.
When asked if he might be interested in The Observer if it were to close, he responded “Hell no. Why?”
He made the comments as he unveiled a fourth quarter News Corp loss of $203m (£119m), due to a $680m write-down on its MySpace business, compared to a $1.1bn profit in the same period last year.
For the full financial year to the end of June, News Corp made a net loss of $3.38bn as a result of write-downs, against a profit of $5.4bn in the year to June 2008.
Meanwhile, network equipment maker Cisco saw fourth-quarter profits fall by 46pc to $1.1bn as corporate customers refrained from spending money on network equipment. Chairman John Chambers said however he was seeing positive trends in the coming quarters.
Dear Mr Murdoch.News Corp chairman plans to charge readers of the websites of all his newspapers within the next 12 months.
By James Quinn
Published: 7:58AM BST 06 Aug 2009
Rupert Murdoch said: If we're successful, we'll be followed by other media.
Mr Murdoch, chairman of News Corporation, pledged that the media conglomerate would “assert its copyright” over all its newspapers online, including the Sun and the News of the World (NOTW), to prevent stories and photographs being copied elsewhere.
The septuagenarian media mogul said that readers could expect to pay for its newspaper and television news websites within the current fiscal year, which ends next June.
Mr Murdoch singled out The Daily Telegraph's revelations on MPs expenses as an example of news for which readers would be willing to pay, describing it as a "great scoop".
"I'm sure pople would be very happy to pay for that," he said, adding that eventually the only “free competition” in the UK is likely to come from the BBC.
Although he gave no idea of how users might be charged – whether per article or by some form of subscription – he said he did not think charging was a risk, and that each of News Corp’s major papers had enough strengths to succeed online.
In the UK, it is already known that the Sunday Times is recruiting specialists to launch a separate stand-alone website from The Times. Mr Murdoch stressed that both the Sun and the NOTW played well online, especially when it came to celebrity scoops.
He gave a serious commitment to all four UK titles, saying he wants to “come out of this with much stronger franchises than we had before” and that in spite of significant cuts at some titles, journalism would not be touched.
“There’s already signs of pain and possible closures of one or two of our competitors,” said Mr Murdoch.
When asked if he might be interested in The Observer if it were to close, he responded “Hell no. Why?”
He made the comments as he unveiled a fourth quarter News Corp loss of $203m (£119m), due to a $680m write-down on its MySpace business, compared to a $1.1bn profit in the same period last year.
For the full financial year to the end of June, News Corp made a net loss of $3.38bn as a result of write-downs, against a profit of $5.4bn in the year to June 2008.
Meanwhile, network equipment maker Cisco saw fourth-quarter profits fall by 46pc to $1.1bn as corporate customers refrained from spending money on network equipment. Chairman John Chambers said however he was seeing positive trends in the coming quarters.
The great war between Quality and Free was fought out in the early days of the WWW.
Free won.
You can roll with it or you can die.
I look forward to your vile publications going spectacularly bust. Why would you pay for The Sun when you can read a different paper for nothing?
You're not an idiot. So why on earth are you trying this? Are you that out of touch?
Don
Don said:
Why would you pay for The Sun when you can read a different paper for nothing?
I'm not sure that's a fair argument since there are loads of free papers out there but people still buy the Sun.Really this move shows a lack of understanding about how the internet works. If I want a paper and there are no free ones around I might pay for one but on the internet there are thousands of alternatives, for free, just a click away.
Don said:
The great war between Quality and Free was fought out in the early days of the WWW.
Free won.
You can roll with it or you can die.
I look forward to your vile publications going spectacularly bust. Why would you pay for The Sun when you can read a different paper for nothing?
You're not an idiot. So why on earth are you trying this? Are you that out of touch?
Don
Please explain the FT and Wall Street journal?Free won.
You can roll with it or you can die.
I look forward to your vile publications going spectacularly bust. Why would you pay for The Sun when you can read a different paper for nothing?
You're not an idiot. So why on earth are you trying this? Are you that out of touch?
Don
The problem in the UK is the government undermines private sector media via the taxpayer supported BBC.
Fittster said:
Don said:
The great war between Quality and Free was fought out in the early days of the WWW.
Free won.
You can roll with it or you can die.
I look forward to your vile publications going spectacularly bust. Why would you pay for The Sun when you can read a different paper for nothing?
You're not an idiot. So why on earth are you trying this? Are you that out of touch?
Don
Please explain the FT and Wall Street journal?Free won.
You can roll with it or you can die.
I look forward to your vile publications going spectacularly bust. Why would you pay for The Sun when you can read a different paper for nothing?
You're not an idiot. So why on earth are you trying this? Are you that out of touch?
Don
The problem in the UK is the government undermines private sector media via the taxpayer supported BBC.
You are absolutely right about the BBC. It is a monster that smothers other media sources.
I think this shows a great misunderstanding on his part as to how and why I believe people buy newspapers.
There is so much 'news' around this days it is simply not necessary to buy a newspaper to keep up to date. I believe that most people buy a paper for something to read, sounds obvious, but bare with me, read as in pass the time with, not for the news article's.
I personlly buy very few papers, because as I have said, you don't need to buy one to keep up to date with the news and I have enough of a reading back log not to need the reading material. When I do buy a paper it will be something with a broad spectrum of articles, etc such as the Sunday Times.
So if people don't buy newspapers to keep up with the news, why are they going to pay to do the same on a medium which is essentially based on being free.
There is so much 'news' around this days it is simply not necessary to buy a newspaper to keep up to date. I believe that most people buy a paper for something to read, sounds obvious, but bare with me, read as in pass the time with, not for the news article's.
I personlly buy very few papers, because as I have said, you don't need to buy one to keep up to date with the news and I have enough of a reading back log not to need the reading material. When I do buy a paper it will be something with a broad spectrum of articles, etc such as the Sunday Times.
So if people don't buy newspapers to keep up with the news, why are they going to pay to do the same on a medium which is essentially based on being free.
Fittster said:
Don said:
The great war between Quality and Free was fought out in the early days of the WWW.
Free won.
You can roll with it or you can die.
I look forward to your vile publications going spectacularly bust. Why would you pay for The Sun when you can read a different paper for nothing?
You're not an idiot. So why on earth are you trying this? Are you that out of touch?
Don
Please explain the FT and Wall Street journal?Free won.
You can roll with it or you can die.
I look forward to your vile publications going spectacularly bust. Why would you pay for The Sun when you can read a different paper for nothing?
You're not an idiot. So why on earth are you trying this? Are you that out of touch?
Don
The problem in the UK is the government undermines private sector media via the taxpayer supported BBC.
People will only pay for specialist stuff, the BBC is a good enough source of news for the general populous not to even consider paying for online content.
fadeaway said:
but free isn't sustainable.
someones got to pay for stuff (be it movies, music, or journalism), the hard bit is figuring out a business model that works (ie one that people will except).
This idea isn't going to fly, but you can see why they want/need to try.
Remove the compulsory licence fee and commercial media organisation would be able to compete.someones got to pay for stuff (be it movies, music, or journalism), the hard bit is figuring out a business model that works (ie one that people will except).
This idea isn't going to fly, but you can see why they want/need to try.
fadeaway said:
but free isn't sustainable.
Of course it is. Google is free, for example. Pistonheads is free. It's paid for via advertising. Canny businessmen like Murdoch are used to selling you the goddamn paper (or tv channel etc) and STILL putting advertising in it. The problem they have is that the "free (paid for by advertising)" business model is here to stay. It's profits are lower per subscriber but you get loads more of them - if you're any good.
fadeaway said:
someones got to pay for stuff (be it movies, music, or journalism), the hard bit is figuring out a business model that works (ie one that people will except).
This idea isn't going to fly, but you can see why they want/need to try.
I do see why they want to try. It would really boost profits. It's just that it's not the way the 'net works. The net's tradition is that everything is free. Try to move away from that and you are fighting a losing battle.This idea isn't going to fly, but you can see why they want/need to try.
Fittster said:
fadeaway said:
but free isn't sustainable.
someones got to pay for stuff (be it movies, music, or journalism), the hard bit is figuring out a business model that works (ie one that people will except).
This idea isn't going to fly, but you can see why they want/need to try.
Remove the compulsory licence fee and commercial media organisation would be able to compete.someones got to pay for stuff (be it movies, music, or journalism), the hard bit is figuring out a business model that works (ie one that people will except).
This idea isn't going to fly, but you can see why they want/need to try.
Don said:
fadeaway said:
but free isn't sustainable.
Of course it is. Google is free, for example. Pistonheads is free. It's paid for via advertising. The news on here is little more than manufactures press releases.
fadeaway said:
Fittster said:
fadeaway said:
but free isn't sustainable.
someones got to pay for stuff (be it movies, music, or journalism), the hard bit is figuring out a business model that works (ie one that people will except).
This idea isn't going to fly, but you can see why they want/need to try.
Remove the compulsory licence fee and commercial media organisation would be able to compete.someones got to pay for stuff (be it movies, music, or journalism), the hard bit is figuring out a business model that works (ie one that people will except).
This idea isn't going to fly, but you can see why they want/need to try.
Personally I like the BBC...but I do not rely on it for everything. I use a myriad of forums and other news outlets...there are many many out there. And it doesn't take long to find them.
Halb said:
fadeaway said:
Fittster said:
fadeaway said:
but free isn't sustainable.
someones got to pay for stuff (be it movies, music, or journalism), the hard bit is figuring out a business model that works (ie one that people will except).
This idea isn't going to fly, but you can see why they want/need to try.
Remove the compulsory licence fee and commercial media organisation would be able to compete.someones got to pay for stuff (be it movies, music, or journalism), the hard bit is figuring out a business model that works (ie one that people will except).
This idea isn't going to fly, but you can see why they want/need to try.
Personally I like the BBC...but I do not rely on it for everything. I use a myriad of forums and other news outlets...there are many many out there. And it doesn't take long to find them.
Unless every news web sites (r at least every site of a similar standard) starts charging on the same day, why would people pay for a particular one?
fadeaway said:
I think people are getting hung up on the BBC and Google. Paid for newspapers and TV news stations/networks from lots of countries all have their own free websites at the moment. There doesn't seem to be enough available advertising revenue to keep these being free, so the question is how do they remain (or probably get) profitable. Especially as the companies traditional revenue streams decrease (less sells and less money for adverts in papers/tv).
Unless every news web sites (r at least every site of a similar standard) starts charging on the same day, why would people pay for a particular one?
I concur!Unless every news web sites (r at least every site of a similar standard) starts charging on the same day, why would people pay for a particular one?
I think people's view of what is and what is not biased sometimes leads them into an argument. The BBC (news outlet) and google (search engine) are free...but they both are specks in the ocean, they are just the most successful and best run specks.
Murdoch is making a mistake here I think, because there will always be someone willing to supply news on the net for 'free'. I think this is another example of a businessman not understanding how proletariat the net actually is.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff