Murdoch Puts Up Some More Paywalls
from the adios dept
Last year there were rumors that two publications that Rupert Murdoch owned in the UK, The Times of London and The Sunday Times — separate operations, but who share a website and a common owner — would begin experimenting with a different sort of business model, which actually didn’t sound too bad. Rather than charging for news, the rumor was that it would involve a “membership club,” where people would be purchasing access to additional benefits — which actually sounded like a CwF+RtB kind of plan. Of course, there weren’t many details, and we wondered what the benefits would be, and if they’d be enough to make it worthwhile.
Unfortunately, the details look like the rumor was wrong, or the plans changed entirely, because now it looks like both publications are going with your standard everyday super expensive paywall. Starting in June, both publications will begin charging a whopping £1 per day or £2 per week for access — which is actually pretty steep, especially in a market where there’s an awful lot of competition. On a yearly basis, it’s only a bit less than what Newsday is charging for its website — which has been a colossal failure.
Good luck, Rupert, because it seems like you’re going to need it. On the other hand, this might explain why the Times Online is already trying to block companies from sending them visitors. It’s as if they don’t want anyone to know they exist online.
Filed Under: paywalls, rupert murdoch, sunday times, times of london, uk
Comments on “Murdoch Puts Up Some More Paywalls”
let the media thats controlled by the fucktards all paywall up and hole up so no one can see it
this isnt news its
“celebration time , come on”
Normally, I'd advise against shooting oneself in the foot...
…but it’s Murdoch, so let’s pass him some more ammo. 😛
I wish him good luck
Really, I do.
I Woudln't Buy Anything
Rupert Murdoch is selling. He in my opinion may be the most despicable living human being of my time. Thank goodness people like this man don’t come along very often. The real tragedy is Murdoch’s whole professional career is dedicated to stirring up people who don’t know any better. It really doesn’t matter to him that what most of what he is selling if it is bought will just make peoples lives a lot worse. Say Rupert How much money do you really need?
Not going to work for a very simple fact ...
It is not going to work for a very simple fact. You cant fight Free. Rupert Murdoch is putting up these pay walls as just as Alexander Lebedev has bought the Independent titles for £1. This is the same Alexander Lebedev that dropped the 50p price and gives away the Standard’s newspaper and other. I wonder what he is going to do with this new paper … hmmm … I guess he will use at least one pound of profit to buy all of rupert murdochs papers in 5 years …
The great internet wall of Murdoch. You can see it from space using Google earth.
If he gave his money to charity at least it would be doing something useful.
A fool and his money are soon parted.
Could be Murdoch or could be you, if he succeeds.
When you pay for content on the internet it usually means you give up your real life identity. That combined with what you think (i.e. read) is an extremely valuable commodity.
It is also information that can be used against you should it come to that. It infringes on your right to privacy and to hold your own thoughts. It is why authorities shouldn’t know what you check out of the library.
The internet offers tremendous cost savings over print. Murdoch is an extremely greedy man and too stupid to know how to successfully associate content with advertisement or advertisement with content. Or to successfully make the argument that ads should be paid for even if they aren’t clicked on.
The identity driven information Murdoch could glean from you is even greater than anything Google ever imagined.
I will be surprised if this works
I do the opposite of what most do. I pay for local or specialized content (like Rivals.com) but I refuse to pay for any national content as too many free, good sites offer news nationally that I can find
I don’t see their point. When you buy a printed newspaper a fairly hefty chunk of what you pay will be in printing, distribution and retailer costs. Their money would mainly come from advertising, same as their online version.
I blogged on this as well last week. My take is that he is doing The New York Times’ market research for them.