rupert-murdoch-001Just a quick follow up on Death Cycle of NewspapersNews Corp will charge for newspaper websites, says Rupert Murdoch - Current days of free internet will soon be over, says media mogul (The Guardian)

Rupert Murdoch expects to start charging for access to News Corporation‘s newspaper websites within a year as he strives to fix a ­”malfunctioning” business model.

Encouraged by booming online subscription revenues at the Wall Street Journal, the billionaire media mogul last night said that papers were going through an “epochal” debate over whether to charge. “That it is possible to charge for content on the web is obvious from the Wall Street Journal’s experience,” he said.

The key points are:

  • The Times, the Sunday Times, the Sun and the News of the World might charge ”We’re absolutely looking at that.” moves could begin “within the next 12 months‚” adding: “The current days of the internet will soon be over.”
  • Plunging earnings from newspapers led the way downwards as News Corporation’s quarterly operating profits slumped by 47% to $755m, although exceptional gains on sale of assets boosted bottom-line pretax profits to $1.7bn, in line with last year’s figure
  • Dwindling advertising revenue across print and television divisions depressed the News Corp numbers despite box office receipts from Twentieth Century Fox movies such as Slumdog Millionaire and Marley and Me. But Murdoch said he believed signs of hope were appearing.

Alan Schram gave some insight into Warren Buffets thinking this week (huffington post):

Newspapers: Berkshire would not buy most newspapers at ANY price. Some have only unending losses to look forward to. Twenty years ago newspapers were essential, with pricing power and monopoly over local advertising, but their “essentially” eroded. Readers no longer need them, and hence advertisers do not need them either. There is nothing on the horizon to change that.

Who is right? Amber Smith at Save The Media has a tip – Ask Yourself: What Would Google Do?  

Three rules in the age of Google:

  • Focus on the user, and all else will follow.
  • Do one thing really, really well.
  • Fast is better than slow.

Have a read of her old vs new ways of thinking about newspapers – lots of community and service based stuff. I completely and arbitrarily re-jigged her points. Heh: 

  • Old: Newspaper a product
  • New: Newspaper a service
  • Old: eyeballs
  • New: participatory audience
  • Old: Mass, broadcast media 
  • New: niche, geo-local, interest based 
  • Old: Population based
  • New: peer to peer rippling of news stories
  • Old: Scarcity – print costs, limited ad room, etc
  • New: long tail of unlimited pixels online
  • Old: Web as another broadcast out medium/channel (what I call Heritage Media Online)
  • New: reciprocity of links, place in interconnectedness
  • Old: Artificial focus groups to find out readers tastes
  • New: ask them.
  • Old: Gave the readers what the papers thought they needed
  • New: Monitor online behaviour
  • Old: Linear access to content in different sections of the paper
  • New: Hello search, tagging, bookmarking, popular by votes, popular by comments
  • Old: The Daily Miracle occurred once a day
  • New: News is always on 24/7
  • Old: Deadlines
  • New: Twitter has it already
  • Old: Branding and Form strong (fonts etc)
  • New: RSS and distribution of content stripped of Form. Googley.
  • Old: Editor sits to the right hand side of the Gods of Media
  • New: Readers will decide, edit, correct, argue and harangue en masse. 
  • Old: Newspapers delivered the same meal to each reader
  • New: personalization. Sport vs Cartoons vs Business vs Entertainment. You choose. 

And heaps heaps more. (hat tip @rodPeno)

More than once I’ve blogged about the fact that if the content doesn’t have a value-add, we will go to the original source (doctor that blogs, judge that Facebooks, victim on Twitter, Police social media press releases complete with vids and photos). Murdoch may well be right – but I want my news with convenient iTunes type features (without DRM thanks) rather than clunky unwieldy, comment based,  community-less content management systems (CMS) like most of ‘em have now.  And the whole triple and quadruple dipping – charging subs, charging advertisers, charging for marketing info and whatever else passes for a revenue stream these days will make us more and more disinclined to pay anything for anything. 

Totally off topic, what’s with the extra ads on Foxtel? I thought if you paid a 100 bucks a month, for crappy programming, it should at least be ad free? o.O 

Trivia: A charity fundraiser saw lunch with Mr Murdoch auctioned on eBay for 57,100, whereas Warren Buffet’s lunch (he auctions it on ebay most years) goes for 100′s of thousands of dollars (2005, $351k, 2006 $620k). Me, I’d go to lunch with Amber Smith (more affordable :P )

 

You had better be real scared if you offer me friendship on Facebook – I might take out a court case against you instead of simply Decline and Block. Not. Sheesh. Facebook friends are not real friends: Judge (Daniel Emerson from Sydney Morning Herald) A British judge has made official what many of us have long suspected – that being “Facebook friends” with someone doesn’t necessarily make you their friend. The magistrate was presiding over a harassment case in which a woman accused her former boyfriend of hounding her by sending her a “friend request” on the popular social networking Continue Reading…

 

A slide from a community media presentation I give. Have you ever been asked “…but how can we trust the content online? how do we know the identity of the person writing the review? how do we know the person is a recognised authority on the subject?” I’ve never fully understood this issue of societies ‘established authority’ figures, particularly when it comes to news on events. Maybe because I’ve always questioned traditional media. Made myself very unpopular after the first Gulf War asking people “you don’t really think we won that war, do you?”. I am reading Remote Control – Continue Reading…

 

I don’t think that anyone has really realised how much the web 2.0 stuff is going to affect law and the courts and judgements on defamation and privacy. If web 1.0 was bad enough – html savvy pissed off punters creating a page that a handful of people could find and view, what do we think the limits are of everyone from 11 year olds up creating anti-marketing, anti-advertising, anti-privacy campaigns? From the SMH: A Brazilian judge has ordered YouTube to find a way to stop Brazilians from viewing steamy footage of supermodel Daniela Cicarelli and her boyfriend on the Continue Reading…

 

Monica Attard has just taken over a tough job – hosting Media Watch. The previous host, Liz Jackson said “You are setting yourself up as the judge of your colleagues.” While it gave Monica second thoughts “Yeah, I did hesitate,” she became convinced:At the end of the day, I think what convinced me was that I know how much more cautious we are as journalists when Media Watch is on,” she says. (SMH today) Her last words on the subject were:I am very mindful that the onus is upon me to be fair and right, all the time, and it’s Continue Reading…

© 2011 Laurel Papworth Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha