Gawker says the move has "fail written all over it." Andrew Sullivan (who gets a check from Murdoch's News Corp for a Sunday column) gives it more of a chance. Me, I have the feeling that asking readers to pay for FoxNews.com is like charging $10 for an after-dinner mint. That's not just my liberal commie instincts talking up: I'd say the same about CNN.com or any site subsisting on the lifeblood of AP wire stories. If the bulk of your site is expendable, borrowed, or fungible with Google News, there's no reason to pay a dime for it.
All sorts of details remain unclear, but here are three questions I would want answers to before I deliver a prediction.
1) Is This Happening in Stages?
Presumably, Rupert won't throw a big fat switch that suddenly makes every piece of News Corp online paid content -- from Aussie surf channels to Indian entertainment sites to Glenn Beck. He'll do this in stages. WSJ.com is already a free/paid hybrid site. Perhaps he'll try to expand the paid section and gauge reader response and revenue. Or maybe he'll start tinkering with paid models on Australian sites before unveiling a comprehensive plan in the States. It will be interesting to see how inches toward an empire of all paid content.
2) Will There Be Bundling?
In June, News Corp's chief digital officer Jonathan Miller suggested he might like to charge for Hulu. And lo, a great national wailing was heard. But wait, Miller said, it wouldn't be so bad if we bundled, or asked consumers to pay a low price for access to a number of shows:
"I think what works for consumers most likely -- and this has to be tested, frankly -- is bundles. I think you have to figure out what are the right bundles that people buy and what's contained in that bundle."On Hulu, I guess that would mean you could "buy" NBC access, or maybe sitcom access. Across News Corp, bundling could work too. Murdoch could create national bundles (ie pay a monthly fee to access all his American-based media) or topical bundles (ie a monthly fee for MarketWatch, Barrons, SmartMoney and the WSJ Business and Markets tab). Or it could be like buying discounted shirts at Target. If I buy two website access passes (say, WSJ and Sunday Times) can I get a third of equal or lesser value (Fox News) for free?
3) Will He Close the Google Loopholes?
Pssst, I've got a secret! Technically, much of WSJ.com is already paid content. But there's an easy way around the pay wall. Some articles show the first few paragraphs interrupted by a banner asking you to subscribe to read the rest. But! If you copy the headline and paste it into your Google search, the first item under "News Results" will be the full article...free! That means WSJ's subscriber-only content is, well, not subscriber-only at all. Presumably, Murdoch allows this to optimize traffic from web searches, but it's a pretty obvious loophole and one that he'll have to close if he expects enterprising news readers to actually pony up cash for content.
Murdoch has played the political propaganda-hate game since he began and now no one wants to read his garbage. He has no credibility, protects criminals in Washington. People are fed up with him. I wouldn't give Murdock an ounce of shit on a 10 foot bamboo pole.
Is it not the case that there is no such thing as free news? If you buy tooth paste or a toaster you are paing for news. And those advertisers do not like someone to say bad things about them and even if they are true and even insist some stories they manufacture are told to boot. So is the, so called, free news we get really free and have quality? If advertisers we banned how would media stay in business?
Perhaps people paying for news will be welcome as they can get quality work bereft of political influence (otherwise they would not pay) and hidden scandals (like Madoff) where financially connected oversight institutions look the other way would get uncovered sooner.
Another loophole he'd have to close is RSS feeds, the web's universally accepted free format - would he kill that as well? I access multiple free RSS News feeds now using NewsChomper.com and Google Reader. Killing RSS feeds would probably just make his online news outlets less relevant for the millions of users who use RSS.
If people had to pay their own money for the nux vomica put out by News Corp. then its readership, viewership, and influence would surely shrivel.
This would be a good thing.
It's common known fact that newspapers LOSE money via the printing press.
I remember as a kid taking a tour of my area newspaper printing press and being explained this: They make their money...hold on to your hat...ADVERTISING.
So my question is this...how valuable will their content be to advertisers if their traffic has been reduced down to the few psyophantic readers willing to pay for their drivel?
I can't boycott Murdoch because I don't trust what his platforms say so I don't read him to begin with. I even abandoned WSJ after 40 years of faithfulness. The problem is not so much in paying for on-line content but in the huge explosion of content now available. To pay for all you read would be to reduce the availability of information the average person could afford. The only way we have to evaluate what we do read is the news itself. The news is its own policeman only when it meets Mill's concept of holding nothing sacred. In this case, the "sacred" thing according to Murdoch is money.
Murdoch will fail, because people like me can find many other places that will provide the same information, for free. He would have to have unique content that is also compelling. That's difficult to accomplish. And when it comes to a property like Fox News, it really is advertisement and recruitment for more Republican drones. You can try to charge for recruitment, but not many find that to be successful in any quantity. Those two missions are at odds. This is a desparate gamble that is bound to lose, big time.
I understand the proclivity to polarize this as conservative vs liberal but pay attention. This is a media stunt -- characteristic of Murdoch -- to drive resentment and get people talking. Even if it does happen it would surely be done in stages and using a hybrid abroach. But there comes great risk with this effort. The paid content, while it is compelling now, really has to be compelling post payment model. Mark my words, its mostly a media stunt to beef up interest. Bet your wondering which ones you would pay for even now.
Wow. All this negativity. Hey couldn't this be the end of replicating a failed b-ness model (free/ad-supported) and the beginning of real innovation?
1) What if there were 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) What if 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) What if technology developers begin to focus on emulating the “gold standard” of communications and entertainment? http://twurl.nl/7uzyy2
This may be a very exciting turn of events.
Essentially he is trying to restrict information...a kind of censorship of the free knowledge and information unique to the Internet.
I can remember various newspaper websites trying to charge for articles as little as 2 days old. I NEVER bought one and I erased their website from my computer.
Rupert Murdoch is over-reaching quite a bit.
DOOMED I say.
I hope and pray that he tries to make people pay for ALL of his news affiliated sources. I'm not even religious and I'm praying he does. If he did, people may choose to get their news from a lesser-biased news source. People might stop reading stories with headlines like "Does Cash for Clunkers Help the Environment? It's Debatable" (of course it's debatable. People used to debate about Nazi Germany being righteous, and most likely still do.) or "Obama Daughters Featured in Controversial Food Ad" (the ad talks about how Obama's daughters have healthier choices for lunch at their school than most public schools) or "Running on Empty, 'Clunkers' Program Highlights Government Incompetence, Critics Say" (Critics can say whatever they want. 'Fox News is a sham of a news source run by rich corrupt racists', critics say).
Hopefully by trying to force people to pay, the regular readers of these sort of articles will find a new source of news that have actual reports.
A few things you should be aware of about the owner of Sarah Palin's Indentured Servitude Contract to his HarperCollins Books publishing operation which has the Alaska Quitter on advanced retainer estimated variously between $7M and $11 million.
Rupert Murdoch, former overlord (Director of the Board) of Philip Morris Tobacco Company at a time adjudicated in Federal Court and subsequently upheld on appeal as R.I.C.O. organized crime racketeer, has since been found to be overlord to wiretapping and cell phone hacking criminal operations in London, peeping on estimated 3,000 celebrities and politicians.
While directing Philip Morris crime operations diverting at least $75 million per year of advertising dollars to his TV Guide property, Crime Boss Rupert Murdoch also was directing payments to Cato Institute R.I.C.O. accessory.
Rupert Murdock (and at least one vice president from Philip Morris which he also directed), sat on the Board of Directors of Cato Institute as they carried out hired and paid science frauds on behalf of the R.I.C.O. adjudicated guilty serial manslaughter tobacco companies. The same racketeer corrupt scientists who concocted frauds for the court-proven racketeering tobacco companies were hired out by Cato and Philip Morris to commit similar frauds on behalf of other serial manslaughter corporations, particularly Exxon-Mobil's frauds on confusing Global Warming science.
You are discussing a serial killer threatening to charge the public to read the propaganda and deceptive information spewed out of the R.I.C.O. organized crime operations of this decades-long billionaire crime overlord. Don't you think a little googling is in order, and the topic changed to something more interesting and important?
Here, click this link for 740 courtroom evidence documents taken by prosecutors from tobacco company file cabinets...
http://tobaccodocuments.org/all/documents.php?pattern=Rupert+Murdoch
http://truthiest.blogspot.com/2009/08/re-atlantic-monthly-rupert-murdoch-lame.html
WSJ opinion pages, atleast 4 of them in the main papger are nothing but a Murdoch's propaganda. This has diminished the value of WSJ.
Charging for content might have a better chance than a few years ago. The big issue is security of a credit card number.
If Murdoch wants to succeed, he should accept Paypal. It is far more secure, and what I use, if available.
People are still squeamish, and rightfully so, about giving out credit card details over the Internet.