As Murdoch Puts Times Online Behind A Paywall, Competitors Happily Plan To Stay Free

from the good-luck,-rupert dept

As Rupert Murdoch is getting ready to put paywalls on two of his UK publications, The Times of London and The Sunday Times, his competitors are remaining adamantly free online. The Guardian, for example, has been a loud and proud supporter of free content, and now the Daily Mail Online is standing by its free online site by noting:
"A pay-wall MIGHT make a little money -- we will make a lot."
The management of the paper explained that people don't pay for news -- they've paid for the convenience of paper, but that online news will likely remain free -- and that they're big enough to make advertising pay well. In fact, it seems likely that if Murdoch locks up his content behind a paywall, that will only drive more readers to sites like The Daily Mail and The Guardian and boost their ad revenue...


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    BearGriz72 (profile), Apr 27th, 2010 @ 7:50pm

    Anagrams Are Fun...

    Rupert Murdoch = Turd Chum Roper

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    vastrightwing, Apr 27th, 2010 @ 8:08pm

    AMEN!

    Agreed!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    dan, Apr 27th, 2010 @ 8:11pm

    I know, everything should be free EXCEPT to when it's your paycheck

    fucking assholes

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    lostalaska (profile), Apr 27th, 2010 @ 8:13pm

    that anagram is pretty funny BearGriz72

    It would be interesting to see their web site statistics and to what extent they drop off over the course of this experiment. Of course I could have awoken this morning in bizarro world and Murdoch's plan totally takes off because people know the value of news. Nevermind, even in bizarro world people know better than that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    The raging cleaning lady, Apr 27th, 2010 @ 8:16pm

    News-papers are more convenient for me.

    The biggest problem with internet news is that you can't really swat houseflies with a news-computer like you can with a news-paper. Until they make a swatable news-computer, that swats houseflies as efficiently as a news-paper, I will have a hard time paying for online news because every time I try to swat a fly, I'd have to buy a new computer, which could be quite costly over the year.

    Then there's my weekend hobby of making paper maché art. Again, computers are not a good substitute for the news-paper with this either. I've tried.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    pink floyd, Apr 27th, 2010 @ 8:23pm

    another brick in da wall

    in this case im all for building a wall, JUST dont let him come back out after

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 27th, 2010 @ 8:23pm

    Re:

    there is no way you will see viewership go up. however, the metrics that would be used here (traffic) isnt the same thing murdoch is aiming for. so just looking at traffic will not tell the story at all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 27th, 2010 @ 8:39pm

    Re: Re:

    What else would one look at?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Apr 27th, 2010 @ 9:11pm

    Mike you should know better this is clearly "Hot News". As such you shouldnt talk about it lest you get sued.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Apr 27th, 2010 @ 9:15pm

    Extra Extra Read All About It ....

    To access this comment have your credit card ready.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 27th, 2010 @ 9:16pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    bottom line costs and profitability. things that are hard to see by blog writers and new media gurus.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Apr 27th, 2010 @ 9:18pm

    Extra Extra Read All About It ...

    BBC news has increased its page views by 200%

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Apr 27th, 2010 @ 9:32pm

    Extra Extra Read All About It ...

    The winner of the Kidney Pie Pubs "how many paid subscribers will rupert get?" contest was announced today. Mary Scott of London wins with a guess of 17 paid subscriptions in 3 months.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Apr 27th, 2010 @ 9:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    hi mike!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Apr 27th, 2010 @ 9:47pm

    Extra Extra Read All About It ...

    iPad Sales are up due to the news aggregator app named PaperBoy. Apple released dismal statistics on paid subscriptions to online newpapers and magazines apps.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Beaker, Apr 27th, 2010 @ 9:55pm

    Newspapers don't sell the news they sell advertising. The news is the content used to get you to look at the ads. The money you pay to buy a paper barely covers, it that, the printing and distribution costs. Newspapers make most of their money from ads. The same is true for magazines. This is also how Google makes its money. The problem with putting your content behind a paywall is if I can get the same content free elsewhere, that is where I will go. A paywall will only work if: 1. Everyone does it; or 2. You provide other services or unique items that make it worth paying for. They only thing I see someone paying the NYT for is editorial content and/or ease of access (ex. the iPad app).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    slander (profile), Apr 27th, 2010 @ 10:18pm

    Extra Extra Read All About It ...

    Rupert Murdoch claims that the Internet is stealing his paying customers. Demands that the government pass legislation that helps underwrite his business model.

    Congress rallies to his defense. Passes the Journalism Integrity Support Mandate. Detractors claim that it flies in the faces of every honest American.

    More to follow...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Brendan (profile), Apr 27th, 2010 @ 10:22pm

    Re: Extra Extra Read All About It ...

    I doubt it's very often that Rupert Murdoch can talk about successfully passing JISM.


    *ba-dum, tssh*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 27th, 2010 @ 10:32pm

    rupert. suck it and good luck w/that paywall since they've been so successful in the past.

    news is news, i don't pay my neighbors to tell me what happened on the freeway or the way to work. but then again they aren't walking viagra ads either


    /sarcasm

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    georgied, Apr 28th, 2010 @ 12:43am

    Bloody Daily Mail

    Maybe if we tell the Daily Mail that foreigners, murders and rapists are reading their news for free, hopefully they'll put a paywall up and we can all be rid of it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    mikex (profile), Apr 28th, 2010 @ 1:20am

    Murdoch's 'Paywall'

    I don't know whether this has been discussed here. All you have to do to find a paywall protected Wall Street Journal story is copy and paste the headline on the story- even off the link that gives you the truncated version of that story-go to google search, pop the headline in the search blan and you will find the ENTIRE story therewith. Even the links with the truncated dead-ends on line like Slatest Morning News, can be retrofitted to get the entire story. Google, probably holding the WSJ to the letter of the legalities, is responsibile. I wonder if the Murdoch people are even aware this is true.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    mikex (profile), Apr 28th, 2010 @ 1:21am

    Murdoch's 'Paywall'

    I don't know whether this has been discussed here. All you have to do to find a paywall protected Wall Street Journal story is copy and paste the headline on the story- even off the link that gives you the truncated version of that story-go to google search, pop the headline in the search blan and you will find the ENTIRE story therewith. Even the links with the truncated dead-ends on line like Slatest Morning News, can be retrofitted to get the entire story. Google, probably holding the WSJ to the letter of the legalities, is responsibile. I wonder if the Murdoch people are even aware this is true.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Apr 28th, 2010 @ 2:20am

    Re: Murdoch's 'Paywall'

    Google, probably holding the WSJ to the letter of the legalities, is responsibile. I wonder if the Murdoch people are even aware this is true.

    Yes, Murdoch's people are very much aware of this. The WSJ worked out that deal with Google early on -- and Google now offers a similar deal to other paywall sites, but it's those sites' choice.

    Murdoch has indicated that he may do away with that deal in the future.

    So, no, it's not Google "responsible" for it. It was an agreement worked out by both sides.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    grumpy (profile), Apr 28th, 2010 @ 2:21am

    Mixed feelings

    Anything that puts Murdoch behind a wall is good. Anything that gives the Daily Fail more readers is bad. I'm in two minds about this...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 28th, 2010 @ 3:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    C'min AC, when newsday put up a paywall, they had 35 subscribers. They lost 700,000 visitors and monetized 35 of them.

    And by the way, this site does okay financially. And yet, everything is free.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    mikex (profile), Apr 28th, 2010 @ 3:54am

    I can't take your word that this is an agreement between Murdoch and Google. The reason: I fail to see how this suits Murdoch's WSJ in the least. But go ahead, you explain it to me?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    mike allen (profile), Apr 28th, 2010 @ 3:54am

    gurdian

    as i if i buy a paper tend to buy either the gaurdian or telegraph then murdoch can have his paywall. only wish it was a real wall and we could put rupert and his entire family behind it. then drop the lot in the Atlantic ocean.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    mikex (profile), Apr 28th, 2010 @ 3:57am

    Murdoch's 'Paywall'

    I can't take your word that this is an agreement between Murdoch and Google. The reason: I fail to see how this suits Murdoch's WSJ in the least. But go ahead, you explain it to me? (Sorry to have to put this up twice, failed to check the email when there are comments box)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 28th, 2010 @ 5:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    yes it does because the masnick is selling your eyeballs. so the site isnt free because you cannot get the pages without massive amounts of targeting advertising and sponsorship notices. free just means you didnt pull money from your pocket. as for newsday they still have the 1.4 million or so cable subscribers. the 700,000 loss is the freeloaders from outside the area that were not contributing to ad value on the site.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    BreakthePaywall, Apr 28th, 2010 @ 5:42am

    BreakthePaywall

    BreakthePaywall! is a free add-on for Internet Explorer (Firefox coming soon!) that simplifies using the various methods for circumventing website paywall restrictions.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Apr 28th, 2010 @ 6:15am

    Re: Re: Murdoch's 'Paywall'

    "Murdoch has indicated that he may do away with that deal in the future."

    If newsdays 38 paid online subscriptions is any example, its doubtful that he will do away with it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    senshikaze (profile), Apr 28th, 2010 @ 6:25am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    not completly true. my eyeballs don't count because i block all ads. BUT he has made money off me directly. I bought the Approaching Infinity book and a t-shirt during the big CFW push. I would much rather pay for something worth it than have to sit through ads (and frankly, some of the ads on this site are pretty annoying, last time I looked) or pay for content.

    and i think your analogy is kinda off. techdirt makes all money from ads, but 700,000 ad viewers being lost from newsday are just freeloaders? huh?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Stuart, Apr 28th, 2010 @ 6:45am

    Re: Bloody Daily Mail

    Bravo you. Their paywall would certainly need to guage the degree of anger and outrage a reader has (necessary preconditions for liking the paper) before signing up. Questions: 'Do you think the country is going to the dogs? Why yes! Are you just plain angry about it? Most certainly! Do you know what we should do? Eh, no. Tremendous, nor do we and that makes us so angry! Sign here please.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Apr 28th, 2010 @ 1:29pm

    Re: BreakthePaywall

    I think the best way to deal with a paywall is to go get the story from somewhere else.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    Nastybutler77 (profile), Apr 28th, 2010 @ 1:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Logic FAIL. Nice one TAM.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    Nastybutler77 (profile), Apr 28th, 2010 @ 1:48pm

    Re: BreakthePaywall

    Spam, Spam, Spam, baked beans and Spam!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    mikex (profile), Apr 28th, 2010 @ 2:11pm

    BreakthePaywall

    I still don't see how leaving the stories available to reasonably astute web parsers, benefits Murdoch's WSJ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Kalinina, Aug 25th, 2010 @ 1:55am

    opinion

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This