Murdoch On Leading The Charging Charge

topics

News From Us:

Our latest report; our new video section; and jobs with paidContent.org and paidContent:UK

Murdoch On Leading The Charging Charge

Rupert Murdoch really, really, really wants to charge for online news. Really. At least, he keeps saying so even though by far the bulk of News Corp.‘s online news content continues to be ad supported. Wednesday, finally setting even the most vague of timetables, he said that would change starting in the next 12 months: “We’re thinking in terms of this fiscal year.”

The News Corp chairman and CEO told analysts and reporters during the Q4 earnings call: “We intend to charge for our news websites. The Wall Street Journal‘s WSJ.com is the world’s most successful paid news site and we will be using our profitable experience there and the resulting unique skills throughout News Corp (NYSE: NWS). to increase our revenues from all our content.” Murdoch cited the arrival of Jon Miller as chief digital officer and his work “leading a company-wide effort to establish a new economic model to profitably transition our print properties to digital.”

What does that mean? While News Corp. execs have been a tad shy with actual details, using WSJ.com as a model suggests we’re not talking about the pay fortress so many people immediately started to visualize.

WSJ.com is a hybrid model of subscription and ad-support, with more content available for “free” under News Corp. then when it was owned by Dow Jones. (Chris Anderson prefers to call it “freemium” but then his goal is to sell books by coining cool terms.) Murdoch himself has swung between opening access to WSJ.com and charging for it any number of times; the steep decline in advertising has converted him into a pay evangelist, a pragmatic one with a belief in multiple revenue streams. That belief means not cutting off advertising, which is why you’re not likely to see any of the News Corp. news sites completely walled off.

—The message: But Murdoch ramped up the rhetoric a bit. “Quality journalism is not cheap and an industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalizing its ability to produce good reporting. ... We can be platform-neutral but never free.” And Chase Carey chimed in on his first call as vice chairman and COO: “We believe customers value quality journalism. We need to get paid for our product as it shifts to the digital world.”

—The problem? Beyond the “OMG, he’s going to kill the sites by shutting off the free oxygen” factor already making the rounds like the wave, not all News Corp. news outlets are created equal. WSJ.com and its offshoots produce financial news and info for which a small group of people are willing to pay decent sums. Not the amounts Murdoch thought they would pay, but still real money. But Murdoch’s plans include charging for the websites of UK tabloids The Sun and the News of the World; U.S. tabloid the New York Post, which already failed with its own celeb site sunk by high expenses; for general newspapers like the Times of London and The Australian. They also include non-print sites like FoxNews.com. What will News Corp. charge for? MIcropayments to see the Sun‘s topless Page 3 girls (or maybe 10p not to see them)? “World exclusive” interviews with 15-second celebs? Bill O’Reilly outtakes?

When a reporter for the Daily Telegraph asked about charging for sites that aren’t “quality,” Murdoch quickly replied: “I think they are very, very high quality and they’re entertaining.” When the question extended to the same content being available across the web at no fee, Murdoch was equally quick: “Not if they’re ours. We will be asserting our copyright at every point. ... You can sneer at it from the Telegraph but I’m sure your great scoop, the about parliamentary expenses, people would be very happy to have been paying for that on a website.” Still, no details about what he would charge for, how or how much.

Asked by a reporter for UK rival Guardian (our corporate big sibling) what he could do to stop readers from migrating to free sites, Murdoch simply said: “Just make our content better and differentiate it from other people. And I believe if we’re successful, we will be followed by all the media.” He added, “Frankly, the big free competition will be coming from the BBC.”

Staci D. Kramer

@sdkstl Aug 6, 2009 5:00 AM ET

Photo: AP Photo/Evan Agostini, File

Posted In: Advertising, Media & Publishing, Newspapers, Online News, TV, Companies, News Corp.

latest headlines

John

Murdoch is no fool but let’s face it he has lost his way on this one. He is a megalomaniac who wishes to destroy the BBC because he is jealous of its reach and authority.
The man is old and should have retired years ago, he is simply flaying around in the dark on this one. I hope he and his organisation comes a real cropper for the damage he has done to the British press. ANPW

chocolate ugg boots

Ugg Australia sheepskin boots on the history dates back to 1978, and Brian Smith called the young Australian surfer with one member of a group of sheepskin boots to the United States. In the past many years, Australia has been the craftsmen who used to sew the beach in New Zealand sheepskin boots, however, is the business-minded young people with bold and want to try using the traditional products in Australia to the United States.
site: http://www.chocolateuggboots.net

Replica Loutoutin

Chance: No it was not the same company. Premeir Global Productions was the company with this particular stage.

CHI straightener

viewsagent they have said a couple of months ago theyâre working on a micropayments platform.

Keith Geddes

MySpace is failing? Is it? Being an amateur muso and knowing others, that site is VERY useful.. ah well…
Charging for news on the net will just collapse the sites that try it. Murdoch has gotten so large, in his head, he thinks he cant fail.. well Rupert, not everyone pays for Sky..free to air or nothing, same with the web sites. There ISNT as much `disposable` income about now, havent you heard? That doesnt affect you, or course.

Chad

Journalism has been in significant decline for a number of years. I have no problem paying for quality, but there's no way I'll pay a single penny for 99.99% of the content that's available today. Besides, at least 50% of the "news" is simply media shilling for corporate PR. Take for example the just reported story that the WSJ will no longer take news embargoes. That's not news, that advertising. I have yet to see an online news source that has content that I find interesting enough to consistently pay for.

patricia

@viewagent, why does everybody assume subscription content needs to be a micropayment to work? Am I misunderstanding micropayments?

Rafat Ali

@viewsagent they have said a couple of months ago they're working on a micropayments platform.

Guest

How come they havent worked out micropayments yet?

Katherine Warman Kern

@patricia - AGREED.
Could this be the end of replicating a failed b-ness model and the beginning of real innovation?
1) Will Reuters, Paypal, et al develop a 1-click transaction system that rewards good content, rewards linkers who foster responsive audiences, and rewards audience participation with integrity? http://twurl.nl/uxd6hp
2) Will content creators start thinking beyond the internet as an incremental distribution point for content that originated on a passive, one-way medium? http://twurl.nl/m7wp6v
3) Will technology developers begin to focus on emulating the "gold standard" of communications and entertainment - the live event http://twurl.nl/7uzyy2

patricia

@Richard, I would completely disagree with that statement. I think media entities are looking at huge issues most people in business can't even begin to understand. Adapting an entire industry (print media) to a new platform (digital) is not easy. It doesn't help that the world is also full of inexperienced journalists and bloggers about the topic. Subscription models are working all over the web and have for at least five years. You don't hear many people reference it beyond the WSJ because they don't know the market. Otherwise, why wouldn't their analysis include it?

The world really isn't that different—just the platform. Someday, everybody, and I do mean everybody, will realize it. I wish the media and blogs overall would stop talking about the topic until they actually read into the market thoroughly, study the history of subscription content over platforms, user behavior, etc. and then write articles about it. That's what my company did. We will see consumers—not companies—drive the proliferation of subscription online because that is who always has over every other platform in the past. We - not them—choose to pay it (or not).

One size fits all doesn't apply for the argument against paid content either.

Anne

Why pay for it? Because all those online sources of information that Richard refers to are getting that info from newspapers and TV news channels that have to pay reporters, editors and photo journalists. The money has to come from somewhere.

James R

I think it's unwise to assume the "fremium model" will work across all Fox properties. Demographic of visitor, content quality and 'reason for visit' vary too much between sites, for example The Sun and the WSJ. To try and claim publications like The Sun in the UK will compete on quality of content is beyond a stretch. A one-size-fits all model will only lead to massive drop off of uniques across sites where differentiation of content is difficult and free options exist elsewhere. I do like the fremium model for quality content like the WSJ, however even then, I prefer the Financial Times approach of monetizing the user rather than the content (i.e. access X number of stories a month for free after which you have to pay), it's a subtle difference but I think a meaningful one.

Richard

Murdoch seems to have lost his way in the digital era. MySpace is withering. The online WSJ is next. His model for online eyeballs is doomed to fail. Paying for online content is not what most people want or accept. There are too many alternative ways to get that same news on the web, why pay for it.