Techdirt. Stories about "news corp"

Temporary Paywall Removals Only Highlight The Fundamental Paradox Of Paywalls

Leigh Beadon — Fri, 8 Jun 2012 15:40:00 PDT

While there's room for debate on whether Rupert Murdoch's paywall strategy for the UK Times and Sunday Times has been disastrous or just mediocre, it certainly hasn't been a massive success or reinvented any online news business models. Now we're beginning to see some telling cracks in the facade: the Times paywall recently came down during the Queen's jubilee weekend, and now TNW reports that a similar free-access period is being considered for the 2012 Olympics.

Now, promotional giveaways are hardly a new or crazy idea, and they don't typically say anything bad about a business model—but I don't think that's really what's happening here. Certainly the Times hopes to convert some of those free readers into paid online subscribers, but there's also a clear pattern in the items they choose to make these exceptions for: huge social events that are attended and discussed by lots of people. In other words, precisely the sort of thing where blogs and social media offer the most competition to a newspaper. Why would anybody pay for Olympic reporting when the web is going to be absolutely flooded with constant updates on every little thing that happens, supplied for free by the fans and hangers-on? If the Times content is behind a paywall, it will be all but ignored.

And this really goes to show why, in the long run, paywalls are unsustainable. If the biggest, most popular topics are the hardest to control—and the ones that lose value the most when controlled successfully—while at the same, time social media and citizen reporting output is growing and expanding to new areas constantly, then the inevitable conclusion seems clear: paywalls are, at best, a temporary way of extracting a little bit of cash at the expense of long-term relevance. If your goal is to directly sell news as a product, but you discover that you have to eliminate your prices whenever product demand is highest, something is clearly wrong—you're trying to apply an old model where it doesn't actually fit, and getting kooky results. The solution is not to keep compromising the broken model, but to embrace the underlying realities (infinite content, no barrier to publishing, the huge value of share-ability) that broke it, and build new models around them.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

News Corp. Wonders If There Could Possibly Be Any Arguments Against Anti-Piracy Efforts

Mike Masnick — Thu, 31 May 2012 05:03:00 PDT

The International Institute of Communications is hosting a particularly one-sided "roundtable seminar" in Hong Kong this week about "content piracy." Just from that phrase, you should know the deck has been stacked against a reasoned analysis of the nature of internet communications. So, it shouldn't be a surprise that the RSVP email is actually from News Corp., or that the "agenda" of the session is entirely one-sided, and suggests a pretty impressive tone-deafness to the worldwide protests against SOPA/PIPA and ACTA. For example, the final question is particularly amusing:

Are there arguments against actions aimed to reduce the impact of these overseas rogue websites?

Apparently, all the concerns about collateral damage, free speech, due process, internet security and the like fell on deaf ears at News Corp. Instead, they seem to be wondering how anyone could possibly have an argument against the next SOPA. An intellectually honest discussion would at least admit that there are arguments being made both for and against these kinds of actions, and actually explore the reality. As we've noted plenty of times in the past, it's no secret that online infringement represents a challenge for established players, but that doesn't mean the immediate reaction should be to go on the attack in a way that creates many more problems, and is unlikely to solve the problem they think they're attacking. So, the argument "against" going after such websites is that it won't work, it's a waste of time and money, it will have tons of collateral damage... and you can better deal with the "problem" by providing more quality legitimate services without restrictions and at better prices. See? Not that hard.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Fox Issues DMCA Takedown To Google Over SF Chronicle Article... Claiming It Was The Movie 'Chronicle'

Mike Masnick — Tue, 29 May 2012 05:15:00 PDT

So, Google just revealed its copyright takedown transparency report and it's turning into the gift that keeps on giving. We've already discussed how it shows Microsoft DMCAing links that remain in Microsoft's own search engine... and now reader David Sanger points us to another amusing one. On March 14th, apparently BayTSP (one of the more well-known "anti-piracy" firms), working for Twentieth Century Fox (a News Corp. company), demanded the removal of a link to SFGate.com.
SFGate? That's the website for the San Francisco Chronicle -- the main newspaper in San Francisco. So what was infringing? According to the DMCA notice (which says the filing came from Irdeto, the company that acquired BayTSP last year), insisted that what was actually at that link was:

"The copyrighted work at issue is the film "Chronicle", which is owned by "Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation"

Now, wouldn't that be something if the SF Chronicle was distributing the movie Chronicle illegally? But, of course, that's hogwash. The truth is that BayTSP and Fox screwed up. The SFGate article is now back online and you can see it's just an editorial about how SF Muni (the local public transit authority) should let students ride for free. That has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the movie Chronicle. What's amazing is the word "Chronicle" doesn't even show up in the article. It obviously shows up elsewhere on the page. After all, it is the website for the SF Chronicle.

Of course, in filing this DMCA takedown, BayTSP -- who is a "trusted user" of the takedown system -- swears upon the following statements:

I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described in all notifications submitted through the Program as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

The information in all notifications submitted through the Program will be accurate, and I swear, under penalty of perjury, that with respect to those notifications, I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

That's clearly bunk, however, since nothing on that page is even remotely related to the movie Chronicle. How do you have a "good faith belief" that there's infringement when you clearly didn't even take the briefest second to look.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

SEC Investigating Hollywood Studios For Alleged Bribes To China

Mike Masnick — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:59:00 PDT

When the MPAA came out with its annual report about the movie market worldwide, it showed that China was a huge growth market. However, now it appears that perhaps some of that growth was the result of Hollywood studios bribing Chinese officials. For years, China has limited how many Western movies can be released in the country. While Hollywood loves to decry all of the "piracy" in China, much of it is due to the fact that the movies can't be released there under the law. That's a situation where the problem is not piracy, nor the MPAA itself (even as it whines about Chinese piracy), but local laws. However, there has been a loosening of those restrictions lately -- and the SEC is exploring whether or not that came about due to bribes from the studios:

The Securities and Exchange Commission has sent letters of inquiry to at least five movie studios in the past two months, including News Corp's 20th Century Fox, Disney, and DreamWorks Animation, a person familiar with the matter said.

The letters ask for information about potential inappropriate payments and how the companies dealt with certain government officials in China, said the person, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the letters.

That said, there is an interesting tidbit in the Reuters article about all of this, that really serves to highlight how ridiculous the MPAA's fight against "piracy" is. It shows that despite the fact that piracy is rampant for Hollywood movies -- once the MPAA was able to get legit movies into the country, people flocked to the theaters. In other words, despite the cheaper pirated options -- or even free options -- people have no problem paying for the legit product when it's offered in a quality fashion:

China's booming middle class is increasingly willing to pay tickets prices for a cinema experience, forgoing cheap pirated DVDs and free internet downloads.

Once again, this seems to demonstrate why the problem is not piracy. If consumers are offered what they want in a reasonable manner, they are more than willing to pay -- and the Hollywood studios seem to recognize this implicitly (which is why they may have bribed Chinese officials to release authorized versions in that market, even with "piracy" being so common).

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Hulu's Owners Unable To Find Idiots Willing To Overpay To Take Hulu Off Their Hands Before They Kill It

Mike Masnick — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:08:55 PDT

We recently noted that the attempt by Hulu's owners to sell Hulu wasn't going well, mainly because those same owners had made it clear that they hoped to kill Hulu, by limiting how much it could compete with their lucrative legacy business of cable TV. No one was willing to offer more than $2 billion -- significantly less than what Hulu's owners wanted -- other than Google. But Google would only do it if the TV companies agreed to certain conditions (i.e., not killing off Hulu by limiting content, requiring a paywall, etc.)

So it comes as little surprise that Hulu has now announced that its owners are no longer trying to sell the company off. Instead, they'll focus on suffocating it from within. Well, that part wasn't mentioned, but watch what happens to Hulu execs over the next few months. I think it's likely that we're going to start seeing some departures of key people. Hulu was an amazingly well executed offering with a really capable team... but as we predicted, the fact that the only way it could really succeed was to cannibalize the business of its owners, almost certainly meant that Hulu would never be allowed to execute on the strategy it needed to become a massive player.

Of course, what the big TV companies still fail to recognize is that killing off Hulu doesn't stop the move to an a la cart, online driven world. It just means that when it comes, they will be even less relevant, and less able to capitalize on it.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

How Murdoch's Paywalls Meant Some News It Broke Went Unnoticed & Uncredited

Mike Masnick — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 14:07:00 PST

The saga of how ridiculously disappointing News Corps.' paywalls have been continues. We've already seen that the number of subscribers looks dismal, advertisers are running away and even publicists are avoiding pitching The Times stories, because it's just not worth it, considering the diminished audience. Now, as a bunch of you sent in, it's gotten so bad that when The Times actually breaks a story, almost no one notices -- and the eventual "credit" for breaking the story goes elsewhere.

Apparently, The Times first had a particular political insider story concerning UK politics -- but the story got almost no attention until nine days later when a blog called Labour Uncut re-"broke" the story and got all the credit for it. That seems only likely to drive tipsters to make sure to avoid the Murdoch paywalled papers even more.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Custom Toy Blogger Accused Of Infringing On Wolverine

Mike Masnick — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:22:00 PDT

Reader shaniac points us to a blog post on a custom toy blog, where the blogger explains how some of his photo galleries of custom toys he made were forced offline due to a DMCA takedown notice from 20th Century Fox, claiming that they infringed on intellectual property from the Wolverine movie. Except, if you look at the images, it seems pretty clear that they've got nothing, whatsoever, to do with Wolverine. In other words, 20th Century Fox appears to have broken the law, in claiming it held the copyright over the figures in those images, when it appears it did not. Unfortunately, the site hosting his content doesn't fully understand that under the DMCA it can re-enable his content if he files a counternotice and 20th Century Fox fails to file a lawsuit within a specified period of time. Instead, it's told the blogger that he needs to get the lawyer from 20th Century Fox to agree that the content doesn't infringe -- and the lawyers don't seem to be responding to any emails, meaning that the blogger is stuck in limbo for no good reason.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

MySpace Video Blocking Not An Antitrust Violation

Mike Masnick — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 16:16:00 PST

Brad Greenspan, who at one point was CEO of Intermix, the spyware/adware firm that originally created MySpace, has been complaining for years that News Corp. engaged in fraud when it purchased Intermix in order to get MySpace at a discounted price. A court found nothing to support this, pointing out (yet again) that the acquisition was agreed to by both parties. However, that hasn't stopped Greenspan, whose own competitive startup Live Universe filed an antitrust lawsuit against MySpace for blocking Live Universe videos from MySpace profiles.

How is this possibly an antitrust issue? Well, that wasn't clear to anyone... least of all to the courts apparently. After first losing at the district court level, an appeals court has now found no validity in the antitrust claims either, sending Greenspan back to the drawing board for attempts to find ways to suck some more money out of News Corp.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Redlasso Sued By NBC Universal And Fox For Making It Easy For People To Promote NBC Universal And Fox

Mike Masnick — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:26:00 PDT

Redlasso is an interesting company. Something of an online "clipping" service for television content, it has a nice web feature that allows users to do a search and find a relevant clip -- and to also embed that clip in your own website. It's been used to great effect by various sites that want to provide commentary on certain television content. The actions by Redlasso don't seem all that different than some old school TV clipping services, but (once again) the addition of "the internet" to the situation throws a legal wrench in things. NBC Universal and Fox are now suing Redlasso for violating copyrights.

This is especially odd since TV stations are in the business of attracting viewers, and giving people an easy way to promote your content to others (at absolutely no cost to you) would seem like a good plan for attracting more viewers. However, it would appear that the execs suing believe that companies should have to pay TV studios to promote their TV shows. Since it seems unlikely that the TV execs will recognize this any time soon, this particular case will hinge on the question of whether or not Redlasso can prove its claims that this use of clips is fair use. Update: As noted in the comments, the Redlasso has agreed to shut down the site, at least for now.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

News Corp Found Guilty Of Hacking Only A Single DISH Smart Card

Mike Masnick — Tue, 20 May 2008 20:43:52 PDT

Last month we wrote about the strange case of DISH Networks accusing a News Corp subsidiary of hacking its smart cards and distributing them. This seemed really unlikely, as there was little incentive for the company to do so. The company did admit to reverse engineering DISH Networks technology (which is perfectly legal). It appears that a jury wasn't particularly convinced either. It did find the subsidiary guilty of hacking one single smart card, for which the company was fined $49.69 (ouch!), and then the court added another $1000 for "damages." So, technically it's a "victory" for DISH, but probably not to the level it was expecting.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Did DirecTV Hire Satellite Hackers To Leak Dish TV Smart Cards?

Mike Masnick — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 04:31:50 PDT

I had missed this story when it came out last week, but thanks to a reader (who prefers to remain anonymous) for sending it in. Apparently, Dish Network is suing DirecTV, claiming that DirecTV (and its parent News Corp) hired notorious satellite TV hackers to break Dish's encryption and "flood the market" with hacked smart cards. That's quite a claim, and it will be interesting to see what evidence the company has to back it up. After all, reverse engineering a product is perfectly legal -- and, indeed, DirecTV claims that's all it did. Furthermore, it seems doubly strange that DirecTV would go down this route after so thoroughly pissing off smart card hackers of all kinds a few years ago by accusing them all of stealing DirecTV signals with almost no evidence, and then pushing many to pay up to avoid a lawsuit. It's also hard to see what the real benefit to DirecTV is of such a plan. Making it easier to get Dish for free shouldn't increase DirecTV's market at all. One would hope that Dish actually has some serious evidence to go along with these claims.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Can Yahoo, Microsoft, Google, AOL And News Corp Sit Down And Just Divvy Up The Internet Already?

Mike Masnick — Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:17:08 PDT

Well, well, well. So, apparently, the earlier news about Yahoo using Google ads was just the appetizer to the more meaty story, which is apparently... well... that just about all the big name internet players are going to do a bit of horse trading to figure out who owns who in the end. There seems to be a lot of speculating in the WSJ article, but apparently step one is that Yahoo and AOL might merge their internet properties (something that's been rumored before). That pairing would likely lead to Google taking over the ads (it already handles the ads for AOL and owns a stake of AOL). At the same time, the article reports that News Corp., once rumored to be a suitor of Yahoo until it vehemently denied the story, may actually be teaming up with Microsoft to make a joint bid for Yahoo. Who else did we leave out? Nobody?

Anyway, I stand my by original assessment of a potential AOL-Yahoo merger ("like trying to keep a wild animal from eating you by covering yourself with feces"), but honestly, this gathering of the big players should actually be seen as a huge opportunity for everyone else. Basically, the big boys are about to make a big mess, and there will be tremendous opportunities that spill out while they try to figure out what went wrong. People are just starting to realize that you don't innovate by building up huge mega-corporations -- you do it by being small and nimble. These megamergers are going in the wrong direction and will open up huge opportunities for small, quick firms that think big.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Justice Department Sues Fox Over Failure To Pay Indecency Fines

Mike Masnick — Mon, 7 Apr 2008 10:02:00 PDT

Remember how Fox was simply refusing to pay an indecency fine issued by the FCC? Well, it appears that the FCC isn't too happy about that and has had the Justice Department file some lawsuits against the various Fox affiliates refusing to pay (it turns out a few affiliates did pay). Before filing the lawsuits, the FCC rejected Fox's appeal without comment, but merely by saying that Fox's appeal to the FCC was 14 pages too long and the company hadn't asked permission to exceed the limit. Fox called this response "offensive," apparently resisting the more hilarious option of calling it "indecent." In the meantime, it looks like Fox will have yet another indecency case to fight in court to go along with the Supreme Court case on indecency that also involves Fox.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Mother And Daughter Still Blame MySpace For Not Protecting Her From Sexual Assault

Mike Masnick — Tue, 1 Apr 2008 05:11:00 PDT

Two and a half years ago, we wrote about a teenager who sued MySpace following a sexual assault, saying that it was the site's fault that she was assaulted. This despite the fact that she had signed up for the site, lied about her age and the actual assault (obviously) happened outside of MySpace. That's not to say that a crime didn't happen, but it's quite difficult to see how it could possibly be MySpace's fault. In fact, a judge made exactly that point in dismissing the lawsuit last year, noting that MySpace was protected under section 230 safe harbors, and even if it wasn't, it would "cripple" 3rd party communication systems if you could attach liability to them for every crime committed that touched on those services. The judge also pointed out that this seemed like a clear case of a parent trying to blame a big company for her own failings: "If anyone had a duty to protect Julie Doe, it was her parents, not MySpace."

Of course, that's not good enough for the girl and her mother, who have now appealed the case, still claiming that MySpace somehow is responsible. The girl's lawyers claim that MySpace still had a responsibility to protect the girl, even though he doesn't explain how it can protect a girl who lied about her age and then went off to meet with a much older guy in real life. It's difficult to see how that can possibly be MySpace's fault -- but the rule of thumb these days is always sue the big company that has the most money. As for the older guy accused of the sexual assault, he's been indicted, but last we heard, his lawyers were also thinking about blaming MySpace. After all, if the girl is blaming MySpace, then how could it be the guy's fault?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Dow Jones Execs Talk Murdoch Out Of Dropping The Paywall

Mike Masnick — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:34:25 PST

For months there had been a lot of buzz about how Rupert Murdoch was interested in dropping the WSJ's paywall. However, as we noted, execs at Dow Jones were quick to hit back, and said they would convince Murdoch otherwise after the acquisition was completed. It appears that's exactly what's happened. Murdoch today admitted that he's going to keep the WSJ subscription offering and maybe even increase the price. Amusingly, this news is available for free on the WSJ's site. The truth is, it's still not entirely clear what's going to happen to the Journal's website. While Murdoch said there will always be a subscription offering, he also said that more content will be free. It sounds like he's trying to straddle both solutions here, picking the "most valuable" content to remain locked up. Of course, that was the NY Times' strategy -- which failed.

The simple fact is that news reporting content is incredibly difficult to monetize directly anymore -- due to a variety of factors, mostly having to do with the nature of trying to sell content. There are models (even subscription models) that work, but they will be not for the content directly, but for advanced services, such as personalization or analysis. The risk in locking up your best content is that the WSJ will continue to lose relevance, as the next generation of readers won't even bother to sign up, as they won't be able to understand why it's worth paying for this content, no matter how good WSJ execs claim it is.

The next generation of content users have learned something important: it's no longer reasonable to take it on faith that content they don't have access to is good and worth paying for. They need to have access to the content itself, and will figure out for themselves if it's valuable -- and if it is, they'll want to do more with it than just read it. They want to share it, vote on it, discuss it, analyze it and many other things. Locking up the content makes it a lot more difficult and takes away much of the value. Taking away value from consumers isn't exactly a strategy for success these days.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Dow Jones Pours Cold Water On Murdoch's Free Journal Plans

Timothy Lee — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:22:15 PST

For months, we've been reporting on rumors that Rupert Murdoch is thinking about dropping the Wall Street Journal's paywall in the hopes of dramatically expanding the paper's readership. This week we've had the first direct confirmation of Murdoch's plans when he predicted at a shareholder meeting that dropping the Journal's paywall would expand the paper's online readership from a million readers to 10 or 15 million. But Dow Jones executive Michael Rooney rushed to pour cold water on Murdoch's comments, insisting that they would need to wait until after the sale closed before any decisions were made. He said he wanted to figure out how much revenue Dow Jones would lose before deciding whether to drop the paywall. Frankly, I think it's a good thing Murdoch will soon be in charge of the paper. Short-term revenues are far less important than the paper's long-term influence and visibility. Murdoch understands that continuing the paywall would virtually guarantee continued readership stagnation by keeping the Journal out of the online conversation. That would leave a huge opening for one of the Journal's competitors to establish itself as the leading online business news outlet. That's a far bigger threat to the paper's financial health than a short-term loss of subscription revenue. Murdoch has a long history of being willing to take temporary financial hits to build up successful and ultimately profitable media properties, and that shrewd business sense looks set to continue with his acquisition of Dow Jones.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Studios Unveil Meaningless 'Guidelines' For User Content Sites

Mike Masnick — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:55:30 PDT

There's a lot of talk about the new "guidelines" that were announced today mainly by the big television studios, along with a few smaller players in the online video space. The press coverage highlights two things: this is a big deal and it's notable that Google didn't agree to join. I'm not sure either thing is really true. Reading through the actual principles, about the only thing that's noteworthy is how pointless they are. If anything, they're basically a "full employment for Audible Magic" document in that they require companies to install the type of filters that Audible Magic is selling (though, it's still questionable how well they work). There are some totally meaningless statements about supporting fair use, but no details on how that's actually to be done. In other words, these principles are basically "everyone should install filters that block unauthorized content and... uh... the content companies will remain aware that fair use sort of exists sometimes." That's somewhat meaningless. Google's reason for not joining, even though it has come up with its own filters, is that it doesn't see why it should agree to stand by any specific guidelines that go above and beyond what the law requires, as there could be conditions under which such guidelines hold back necessary innovation. The bigger point, though, is how truly meaningless these guidelines are. If those guidelines are truly effective in stopping some unauthorized content on these sites, that content (and many users) will simply migrate elsewhere. In other words, it won't stop that unauthorized use of content and it won't help any of the companies that have agreed to the principles. That means that the impact of such things is likely to be pretty much nil.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Will Fox Sue Congress For Simpsons Parody?

Mike Masnick — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:37:00 PDT

If you follow politics outside of the tech world you've probably seen plenty of talk in the last week or so about the battle over SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The details of the debate really aren't worth getting into on a tech/business news site, but a bunch of Republican Congressmen put out what can only be considered a parody press release using characters from the TV show The Simpsons to try to highlight their side of the debate. This was so random and bizarre that a few people actually wondered if the Republican site had been hacked. That turned out not to be the case, but apparently none of the Representatives who put together the mock press release sought the approval of Twentieth Century Fox, who apparently is not at all happy that Simpsons characters are being used in this manner: "Twentieth Century Fox was unaware of the illegal use of characters from The Simpsons in this press release. Let me assure you, Fox did not authorize this use. Characters from The Simpsons may not be used in this manner…" Some would argue that parody is covered by fair use, but that may only be true if the parody is of The Simpsons itself, rather than using them for a parody of something else. Either way, while Congress has been bending over backwards to give the entertainment industry everything it wishes when it comes to keeping control over their creative works, it seems that even those same Representatives can think of cases where it made perfect sense to them to make use of characters without having to first license them. Somehow, why do I get the feeling this lesson won't stick and these same Reps will have no problem putting in place more stringent copyright laws that eat away at fair use?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

MySpace Turns A Profit, Barely

Joseph Weisenthal — Thu, 9 Aug 2007 13:47:04 PDT

Ever since News Corp. bought out MySpace, there have been lingering doubts about the social networking site's profitability. The deal that the company signed with Google did put some of these doubts to rest, as it seemed likely that News Corp. would comfortably recoup its initial outlay. But the fundamental issue of whether a popular social networking site is necessarily a cash cow remains up in the air. Yesterday, News Corp. announced that in this past fiscal year, the company's interactive division (which is mainly MySpace) turned a profit of $10 million on revenue of $550 million. These are incredibly paltry margins. This division is still growing rapidly, so it's understandable that it would be putting a lot of money towards new investments. However, the figures include money from the Google deal, which should drop right down to profits. In other words, while the company may be crowing that the unit is now profitable, it's far from showing that things are truly successful.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Does Sale Of Dow Jones Mean The End Of The Paywall?

Joseph Weisenthal — Wed, 1 Aug 2007 12:23:45 PDT

With News Corp.'s purchase of Dow Jones now all but certain, there's a lot of discussion about whether Rupert Murdoch will pull a Mikhail Gorbachev and tear down that (pay)wall at the Wall Street Journal. Yesterday we argued that if the Financial Times wants to raise its profile in the US, it should do just that, as a way of differentiating itself from the Journal. At this point, there's no way of knowing whether Murdoch will make the move first and preempt Pearson (parent company of the Financial Times). You have to figure that he has other things on his mind right now than how best to monetize the Wall Street Journal online. But, seeing as part of the deal's rationale is to bolster the credibility of Fox's forthcoming business channel, it makes sense to make the Journal's content more widely available. Another possibility, put forward by the founder of MarketWatch (also a Dow Jones property), is to tie MarketWatch in with Fox, leaving the Journal as it is, a premium offering for non-retail investors. But, realistically, the MarketWatch brand doesn't carry near the value that the Journal does -- if Murdoch is really intent on bolstering its business channel, it has to do it by leveraging the Journal.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Pearson Mulls Possibilities To Exploit News Corp./Dow Jones

Joseph Weisenthal — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 08:31:38 PDT

By all accounts, News Corp.'s bid for Dow Jones is coming down to the wire, although the latest indication is that the deal is likely to go through. If the deal does happen, one of the big winners could be Pearson, the publisher of the Financial Times, which has been making an aggressive push to expand its global presence and present itself as an alternative to the Wall Street Journal. Already, the company has indicated that it would like to partner up with another major media organization in order to promote its brand. One possibility would be to partner up with CNBC if News Corp. decides to sever Dow Jones' relationship with the business news network. In addition to striking such a partnership, Pearson should be looking to open up its content as a way of differentiating the Financial Times from the Wall Street Journal. At the moment, the sites of both papers are largely locked down, with most content available to subscribers only. Were the Financial Times to take down this wall, opening up its best content to the public, it wouldn't be hard to imagine the paper usurping some of the Journal's influence.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

News Corp. Looks Set To Lock Down Dow Jones

Joseph Weisenthal — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 08:37:52 PDT

After months of negotiations, News Corp.'s bid for Dow Jones looks like it's close to completion. A tentative agreement still needs to be ratified by the full board, but barring any last minute surprises, it seems as though the original offer of $5 billion will stand. The timing is great for News Corp., as it recently set a date for the launch of its business channel, and it will undoubtedly use the Dow Jones brand to bolster the channel's credibility, helping it take on the industry leader, CNBC. It's safe to assume that there are various measures in place designed to prevent Rupert Murdoch from radically changing the Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones' crown jewel, but ultimately, once the Bancroft family hands over the keys, all bets are off.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story