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.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: news corp

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Rupert Murdoch's Latest Foray Into Online News Business Models… Not So Ridiculous”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Paywall Foxnews

“ha, you libs all want to silence other opinions.”

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…

Francisco says:

La Nacion, Argentina’s most traditional newspaper has implemented this idea nicely. If you sucribe to the newspaper you become member of “Club La Nacion”. The membership is pretty valuable because with it, for example, you obtain discount in several things. My favourite is 2×1 in most cinemas.
The strange thing is that they started with it years before the internet.

thirdwave (profile) says:

Judicial Balancing

The mistake is not to employ balancing for copyright law. The mistake is to think that judicial balancing is a valid method for resolving any dispute. Balancing is nothing more than the emperors clothes placed over political choices. Or as one professor of mine put it years ago- some day they are going to let us into the back room where the balancing is done and we will find ourselves knee deep in quarters. Heads I win tails you lose

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...