LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.After announcing a full-year net loss of $3.4 billion, Rupert Murdoch decides things need to change online.
Read more.After announcing a full-year net loss of $3.4 billion, Rupert Murdoch decides things need to change online.
Lead balloon?
I can't see people wanting to stump-up extra for stuff you could find on the beeb site? Or am I missing something? (I'm probably biased anyway as Murdoch = the Great Satan as far as I'm concerned.)
Well that's an epic fail. Thank god for bugmenot!
cannot see that working too well with the BBC being funded via the TV license, why pay for something twice
What's the odds that they keep ads too... another parallel with Sky.
Sales have fallen but surely it’s not just because of the free online content - the rise of the free newspapers such the Metro, London Lite etc have all have had a part to play.
In fact, I don’t think I would mind paying 20p a day for the online content of some newspaper websites; I like to read other peoples opinions instead of having a bland unbiased, unemotional view of things from the BBC.
Yes, but is anyone really going to pay the read The Sun online?Originally Posted by DeludedGuy
No, but some people will pay for the TimesOnline.
BBC Worldwide is a commercial operation. If you're not in the UK you see ads on BBC News.cannot see that working too well with the BBC being funded via the TV license, why pay for something twice
PHP Code:$s = new signature();
$s->sarcasm()->intellect()->font('Courier New')->display();
Yeah like people are going to pay for content they can get elsewhere for free.
Good luck to them, it will be a cold day in hell I pay for access to any of their websites.
News corps sites are not my contact points for news anyway, as I pay for SKY I feel I should probably get free access anyway! My news sources are Bloomberg, BBC and Reuters.
A quote from Murdoch: 'Quality journalism is not cheap and an industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalising its ability to produce good content.'
Quality journalism and Murdoch just don't belong together!
...and HEXUS
It would have to quite a lot better than the advertisement based sites for me to warrant using a subscription fee or pay-per-view site. I have a particularly strong dislike for Murdoch, so I am hoping this results in a massive failure for them.
Oh yes, but Hexus provides me interesting news and opinion, going down those lines I like The Register and Slashdot as well.
In my opinion, Murdoch is both right .... and wrong.
Will subscription-based sites work? Depends in the site.
He mentioned the Wall Street Journal. That, in my opinion, is one where the model will work. It did with the FT in the UK. The reason it works is because they provide a very high quality of content, in a fairly specialised field, and you can't really get it anywhere else, at least, not in as concentrated a form, and with such a solid reputation behind it. As a result, people will pay for it. Not everybody will, obviously, but those that need it and value it enough will.
But ..... the notion that news is "free" is in the mindset of the internet generation. They're wrong, of course. It isn't, and never has been. You pay for it, whether it be via adverts, or via BBC licence fee, or via subscription.
And, though it's perhaps not a direct correlation, what you pay influences the quality of what you get.
Anybody think running is newspaper is cheap? Anyone think having reporters covering all sorts of events, all over the world, doesn't cost a fortune? It's a simple law, both of economics and human nature, that anyone providing a service free has something to gain. Even charities. Okay, there's volunteers, but any charity of any size has a lot of paid staff too. And if you investigate what some of the charity bosses are paid, you'll likely get a shock.
Anyone think even HEXUS doesn't cost a lot to run? Anyone tried booking hotel rooms in conference towns when a big conference is on? Or seen what tends to happen to prices of flights? Or about paying the lease/rent of office space, or full-time staff, business rates, power bills, tax (and accountancy) and so on. So unless you're a benevolent multi-millionaire indulging in a hobby site, even something like HEXUS costs serious money to run, and it has to come from somewhere. And we're no multi-national news organisation.
Oh, and by the way, I'm not involved on the business side of HEXUS and have very little knowledge of the business side, beyond what's been mentioned in casual conversation. What I'm saying here isn't in any way based on inside knowledge of HEXUS, 'cos essentially, I don't have any. I'm an unpaid volunteer, not paid staff.
Anyway, when you read a site like HEXUS, you expect plenty of information, you expect a constant stream of new content, you expect quality investigation and testing, and you expect articles to be prompt and timely, not days or weeks behind the curve. And all that costs money to do.
So Murdoch is right, quality journalism isn't free, any more than the NHS is. It might be free at the point of delivery, but it isn't, never has been and never will be free.
So if quality content, whether it be news or technology reviews, costs to produce and serve up, a revenue stream has to be coming from somewhere. So far, it generally hasn't been direct payments ... at least, in relation to most internet sites. But, in my opinion, it's coming. So start getting used to the idea.
Exactly how you end up paying for it is another matter. Weekly, monthly or annual subscription is one possibility. Micropayments per article read is another. Some blend of sub or micropayment is yet another.
And don't think that guarantees it'll be ad-free either. That might be part of what you buy when you pay a sub, but generally, my guess is that just like most subscription TV channels, the level of subscription necessary to provide the service is kept down by the revenue stream from adverts.
We all used to pay for "magazine" content, like PC hardware reviews. We become used to the notion that it's free, because so much of it is on the net at no apparent cost. But the advertising reveneue streams are reducing at the moment, both on and off the net. They're reducing drastically off the net and many newspapers are in trouble ..... and at least in part, they;re in trouble precisely because of free content on the net. But if those newspaper go under, that content will disappear off the net too, since people simply won't be producing it.
In my opinion, there'll always be at least some free content on the net, but how much and how good it is, will vary. The decision we are all going to have to make, at some point, is whether were are prepared to pay for content and if so, how much and from whom.
For instance, you may well find that you can get basic news content "free" from the BBC, but if you want more analysis, or the perspective of specific commentators, you'll have to pay for it. It may well be that newspaper websites will provide basic headline news free, but that "value" content is subscriber-only.
It could be, and again, this is not based on sindie knowledge since I've never heard it even mentioned, so this is just an example, that a site like HEXUS could provide a lot more detailed coverage, and a lot quantity of coverage, if a revenue stream from a subscription was paying for it. People then have to decide if they want to pay for the extra content. After all, we could all just accept Freeview and Freesat, but it doesn't stop a lot of us paying a monthly sub for Sky or VM TV service, now does it?
At the moment, most content on the net is "free". But the net is only just growing up. Don't make the mistake of thinking that because most of it is free now, it'll necessarily always be that way. My bet is that it won't. We're in the glory days of free net content. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Note: One more time, since I'm a HEXUS admin and people might get the wrong idea, I have no involvement in or knowledge of HEXUS business or plans. The above is all just my opinion, and personal speculation. Ilv e never even discussed subscriptions with HEXUS and have no idea if they've ever considered it or not.
Scott B (06-08-2009)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
