Would you pay to read thed news online? This is sure to be the way ahead; Is it too far or just to be expected as newspapers profits fall from more people reading the news online? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8186701.stm Murdoch signals end of free news Mr Murdoch has warned of possible job losses News Corp is set to start charging online customers for news content across all its websites. The media giant is looking for additional revenue streams after announcing big losses. The company lost $3.4bn (£2bn) in the year to the end of June, which chief executive Rupert Murdoch said had been "the most difficult in recent history". News Corp owns the Times and Sun newspapers in the UK and the New York Post and Wall Street Journal in the US. 'Revolution' We intend to charge for all our news websites. I believe that if we are successful, we will be followed by other media Rupert Murdoch, chief executive, News Corp Mr Murdoch said he was "satisfied" that the company could produce "significant revenues from the sale of digital delivery of newspaper content". "The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive methods of distribution," he added. "But it has not made content free. Accordingly, we intend to charge for all our news websites. I believe that if we are successful, we will be followed by other media. "Quality journalism is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalising its ability to produce good reporting," he said. In order to stop readers from moving to the huge number of free news websites, Mr Murdoch said News Corp would simply make its content "better and differentiate it from other people". What a ridiculous idea. Why would anyone pay for news from the web? Paul, Lichfield Send us your comments HAVE YOUR SAY What a ridiculous idea. Why would anyone pay for news from the web? Paul, Lichfield Send us your comments Alfonso Marone, analyst and partner at Value Partners Group, told the BBC that the model could work "for well-known publications - for must-read, must-know content. The Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times are already charging for content, for example," he said. He believes that a micro-charging structure, where readers pay just 5p or 10p to access an article, might work. "This is less than the price of an SMS [text message]," he argued. "This is definitely the way the [newspaper] industry is going," he concluded. Recovery The firm has suffered from plunging advertising revenues. "Our financial performance clearly reflects the weak economic environment that we confronted throughout the year," Mr Murdoch said. He did, however, say that there were signs of life in the advertising market. "I think the worst may be behind us, but there are no clear signs yet of a fast economic recovery." He added that News Corp was "particularly well-placed for the coming recovery". New Corp's $3.4bn loss was due to $8.9bn in write-downs already announced, compared with a $5.4bn profit a year earlier. Revenues at the media giant, which owns BSkyB and 20th Century Fox, fell 7.8%. In the fourth quarter, News Corp lost $203m compared with a net profit of $1.1bn in the same period a year ago.
There have been a lot of rumblings from technology news groups like Zdnet lately that "free internet content" is going to be a thing of the past. I think that for the big boys, this may be true. It will allow them to cut costs, and it makes sense for locally focused news organizations. However, it's my belief that with this there will be tremendous opportunities for new competitors. What's a great way to beat someone who is charging money? Do what they're doing for free. Make money off of ad revenue. You can become a mogul that way if you do it right. All you have to do is look at the major search engines to see that free draws consumers. This won't be, in my opinion, an overnight exodus towards payed internet services. We will see a mix and a match, and this could be tumltuous. Who knows, Murdoch might have signed himself a nice check, or signed his company's death warrant.
What newspapers should do is to partner with Amazon and give everyone who buys a two year subscription a free Kindle, the large one, or develop one of their own. Stop printing editions and offer them only electronically. People could them pay for the paper and be given access to the website. They cut production and distribution costs and still get ad abs subscription revenue.
If he thinks people are going to pay for news outside of a niche like the WSJ where there's no competition, he's sorely mistaken.
Pfft. I already pay for the internet. This is like making a regular news channel on my satellite television service PPV. If anything, this will drive down advertisement dollars for that website and it'll be a double whammy.
Yes. Already having to pay for licencing fees (in the UK at least) and ISP's suggests that we already pay. Is it unacceptable for us to pay twice?
