RSS
Rupert Murdoch's Latest Foray Into Online News Business Models... Not So Ridiculous
from the hold-on-here... dept
We've chronicled Rupert Murdoch's flip-flopping on charging for news online (he originally claimed that free news made sense, and he wanted to free up the WSJ, but now says all of his news sites should have paywalls). And a bunch of folks have sent in Michael Wolff's Vanity Fair profile of Murdoch as a clueless luddite on the internet, and someone who doesn't seem to care about the important nuances of why or how charging for news might not make much sense. Wolff paints Murdoch as the type of guy who just thinks he can bully the entire market into agreeing that people should pay for news online. In that article, Wolff discusses the tension between the Times of London and The Sunday Times, which are separate operations owned by Murdoch, but share a web site. However, apparently that's changing, and Wolff presents it as an opportunity to start charging for The Sunday Times online, since it won't be "losing" anyone via putting up a paywall (the question remains if it would gain anyone).
And yet... the recent revelation of a new business model experiment by the two papers suggests an approach that is a bit more nuanced -- even if the (competing) Guardian's explanation of it isn't particularly enlightening. The plan appears to be not to charge for news but to charge for some kind of membership club which provides additional benefits, along with the paper. So, becoming a member gives you the ability to add certain "packs" of information to your paper. I'm not sure how compelling that is. However, it's also going to involve access to events and discounts on other goods and services (including Murdoch-owned satellite TV service, Sky+).
While it may depend on what's really included in this offer, initially it makes quite a bit of sense. It's not based on locking up the web content or limiting how it can be used, but in providing additional scarce value that people will buy. Who knows if this is an indicator of what Murdoch is planning -- but it's significantly different than a paywall, and a lot more reasonable, economically speaking.
And yet... the recent revelation of a new business model experiment by the two papers suggests an approach that is a bit more nuanced -- even if the (competing) Guardian's explanation of it isn't particularly enlightening. The plan appears to be not to charge for news but to charge for some kind of membership club which provides additional benefits, along with the paper. So, becoming a member gives you the ability to add certain "packs" of information to your paper. I'm not sure how compelling that is. However, it's also going to involve access to events and discounts on other goods and services (including Murdoch-owned satellite TV service, Sky+).
While it may depend on what's really included in this offer, initially it makes quite a bit of sense. It's not based on locking up the web content or limiting how it can be used, but in providing additional scarce value that people will buy. Who knows if this is an indicator of what Murdoch is planning -- but it's significantly different than a paywall, and a lot more reasonable, economically speaking.
I’m looking for policy...
Jon Potter: Software Patent Trolls Can Be Stopped By U.S. Patent Office And Congress
Developers On Patents: Ron Garret of Awun
I have an app...
Developer Census: Be Counted. It takes less than two minutes.
App Developer Conversations: What Does The iPad Mini Mean For The App Economy?
I’m looking for research...
Why Data Is The New Oil, With Dan Foreman Of Lumi Mobile
The Growing App Market
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
depends on the offer here
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: depends on the offer here
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: depends on the offer here
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: depends on the offer here
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Does...not...compute, brain...melting...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Pedantry Corner
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Pedantry Corner
...
the amount of snark involved in making any further comment advises me t hat it's better to stop here :D
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Paywall Foxnews
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Pedantry Corner
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
The strange thing is that they started with it years before the internet.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Paywall Foxnews
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Paywall Foxnews
So you admit that it is not news?
Is it fair and balanced or unscrupulous and one sided?
If you are going to teabag the nation, you're going to need a Dick Armey
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Paywall Foxnews
Well, as a staunch Independant, let me say this: I want people to stop listening to both sides of the stupid spectrum. I have as much use for Fox News as I do for NBC Nightly News on the other side, which is to say none at all.
In all honesty, how can one claim to be a conservative network AND pretend to offer the "news"? No, you idiots, you're offering CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINTS, and that ain't news. My favorite is their tagline: fair and balance.
My ass. I have no love for the liberal media channels either, mind you. Both of them are full of shit. So where do you get real news? On a national level: probably nowhere. But I like my local news folks. They might have a bias too, but it sure as shit doesn't come shining through like Murdoch's goons or MSNBC's gang of retards...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Judicial Balancing
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
legitimate internet businesses
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Great content
Brad
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Rupert
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment