Rupert Murdoch says "kiss the days of the free web goodbye!"
How many of you enjoy being able to access information for free on the web?
Yeah, me too.
Rupert Murdoch, however, is convinced that the feel-good era of free things on the Internet will soon come to a close. And because he's a proactive kind of guy, he's strongly considering a plan to institute pay-for-access on News Corp's newspaper websites.
Making the switch may not be a difficult decision, what with the horrifying 47% drop in News' profits and Wall Street Journal enjoying significant succes from online subscription services.
Murdoch told The Guardian that he hopes to fix a "malfunctioning business model."
Good luck with that. There will still be plenty of free alternatives where potential subscribers can get their news, and there's certainly no guarantee that News Corp will be able to duplicate the WSJ's success.
Although, I suppose if I had just been handed a profit sheet showing a drop from $216m to $7m year-on-year, I might think subscriptions were a pretty good idea, too.
[via Slashdot]
So, just how good at time waster games are you? Think you've got the stuff? Well, The World's Hardest Game 2.0 doesn't think you do.
Yes, amazingly, it's possible to have a sequel to a game called "The World's Hardest Game". It doesn't seem logically possible, since if the first one was actually the world's hardest, how could another one come along and share the moniker? It made me doubt the name in the first place. That is, until I tried the game.
The mechanics of the game are very simple. You are a small red square, ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
r3loaded said 7:18PM on 5-08-2009
Please, research your markets first Mr. Murdoch, surely you're smart enough to know that? WSJ's subscription model has worked because it's a specialist niche-market newspaper with quality content - other more mass-market newspapers aren't going to necessarily follow the same trend.
Just a hint ;)
Reply
Shan said 7:34PM on 5-08-2009
Just like the MPAA/RIAA, another business person who doesn't get it! This will go down in the same way as Microsoft's Bill Gates when he said "640K of memory should be enough for anybody."
Reply
Iocane said 8:53PM on 5-08-2009
That's actually an urban legend.
Jerky said 7:57PM on 5-08-2009
I hope he does try this. Then people can seek out quality news sources they otherwise wouldn't look to. I'd be fine saying goodbye to News Corp permantently, in fact.
Reply
Kenn.keeper said 8:58PM on 5-08-2009
Why should anyone pay for the same BS news we hear everyday, the paper gets smaller, the ads bigger. Mr Murdoch owns most of the "malfunctioning business models."and this is another way of him and his cohorts to manage to get their fingers twisted into the lives of many...
Kenn.....
Reply
Ridgecity said 9:08PM on 5-08-2009
LOL. Only old people pay for the news. not to mention of the damage the paper industry has done to the planet. The only paper I buy is for my ass and once I get my japanese toilet, that will be gone too!
Reply
Eh? said 4:07AM on 5-09-2009
TMI.
Rob said 10:47PM on 5-08-2009
It's really sad that I'm the first person here to point out that Mr. Murdoch OWNS Dow Jones, and thusly OWNS the Wall Street Journal.He really doesn't own any other reputable papers in the USA, and his acquisition of DJ caused quite a stir when it occurred. The news magazine the Economist already has a similar policy in effect for old articles; if people are willing to pay for it, why not charge them? DJ's publications are niche; Fox News is Murdoch's mainstream news brand, and will not change their policy because their crappy reporting and drama is not worth anything save for a few laughs. And as for the caption, I'd be more than happy to pay a nickel in order to have a clean toilet... and I'm sure that most people who have ever used a public restroom and public pay restroom will agree.
Reply
Michael Leung said 11:46PM on 5-08-2009
And I'm sure he would know.
Reply
Ridgerunner said 9:22AM on 5-09-2009
Poor old coot... doesn't get it that the "malfunctioning business model" aspect of publishing is the reliance on *advertising*, not the publishing, per se.
As anyone from my generation who's had a "paper route" as a kid can tell you, the economics of newspaper publishing don't come from the .25 to .50 you pay for the daily paper at the newstand (that barely covers the cost of distribution), the revenues come from the advertising.
So what Murdoch and other dinosaurs are proposing is that since they can't command the same ad revenues as before, they're now going to *shift* their business model to extract their (potential) profits directly from the consumer.
Remember, Murdoch's customers are the advertisers - not you and I. We (our eyeballs) are the commodity he sells to advertisers. So hmmm... if your number one customer (the advertisers) no longer want to pay the prices you ask for the product you offer, usually that means that you change the design / cost of creating your product, and adjust your business to be profitable in this new reality. Every manufacturer on the planet knows this. Why does mass media feel it's any different? (note: Of course I am logically excluding niche/specialty, or entertainment content, which warrants direct purchase by the audience).
I've recently heard even that a**hat Sean Hannity make the similar claims that consumers are going to have to start paying "again" (sic) for content, in reference to the plight of newspapers.
What these arguments miss is that we as consumers traditionally DON'T pay for this type of content.
- Radio, and broadcast television have been free to consumers for decades
- Newspapers (and many weekly magazines) were effectively "free" as their low price primarily covered distribution -- ads payed the salaries & generated profit.
- Even much of Cable TV is somewhat distorted here, as evidenced by what happened in the late '90s, when new cable networks had to start paying Time-Warner, Comcast, Cablevision, et al, to get carraige. So in effect, *you* weren't really paying Speed Channel for your subscription via your cable operator, as they'd already gotten paid themselves by the network! Speed's revenue comes from the ads. Of course, throw this equation away for premium channels like HBO, and demand-drivers like ESPN.
Reply
Fyrewerx said 2:25PM on 5-09-2009
The good "news" is, Rubert will be inspecting sod from the brown side long before the Internet is no longer free.
Reply
jfjb said 1:46PM on 5-10-2009
Maybe someone said it already, but I think the Rupert guy is trying to NOT say goodbye to the world of news he used to be able to control, purchase, manipulate and resell.
The web is free, dude. Only its access has been privatized and monetized.
My take, I may be wrong.
Surf's up.
Reply