Rupert Murdoch's Latest Foray Into Online News Business Models... Not So Ridiculous
from the hold-on-here... dept
We've chronicled Rupert Murdoch's flip-flopping on charging for news online (he originally claimed that free news made sense, and he wanted to free up the WSJ, but now says all of his news sites should have paywalls). And a bunch of folks have sent in Michael Wolff's Vanity Fair profile of Murdoch as a clueless luddite on the internet, and someone who doesn't seem to care about the important nuances of why or how charging for news might not make much sense. Wolff paints Murdoch as the type of guy who just thinks he can bully the entire market into agreeing that people should pay for news online. In that article, Wolff discusses the tension between the Times of London and The Sunday Times, which are separate operations owned by Murdoch, but share a web site. However, apparently that's changing, and Wolff presents it as an opportunity to start charging for The Sunday Times online, since it won't be "losing" anyone via putting up a paywall (the question remains if it would gain anyone).And yet... the recent revelation of a new business model experiment by the two papers suggests an approach that is a bit more nuanced -- even if the (competing) Guardian's explanation of it isn't particularly enlightening. The plan appears to be not to charge for news but to charge for some kind of membership club which provides additional benefits, along with the paper. So, becoming a member gives you the ability to add certain "packs" of information to your paper. I'm not sure how compelling that is. However, it's also going to involve access to events and discounts on other goods and services (including Murdoch-owned satellite TV service, Sky+).
While it may depend on what's really included in this offer, initially it makes quite a bit of sense. It's not based on locking up the web content or limiting how it can be used, but in providing additional scarce value that people will buy. Who knows if this is an indicator of what Murdoch is planning -- but it's significantly different than a paywall, and a lot more reasonable, economically speaking.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: business models, journalism, news, paywall, rupert murdoch, times+
Companies: news corp.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
depends on the offer here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: depends on the offer here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: depends on the offer here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: depends on the offer here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does...not...compute, brain...melting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pedantry Corner
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pedantry Corner
...
the amount of snark involved in making any further comment advises me t hat it's better to stop here :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pedantry Corner
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paywall Foxnews
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Paywall Foxnews
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Paywall Foxnews
So you admit that it is not news?
Is it fair and balanced or unscrupulous and one sided?
If you are going to teabag the nation, you're going to need a Dick Armey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Paywall Foxnews
Well, as a staunch Independant, let me say this: I want people to stop listening to both sides of the stupid spectrum. I have as much use for Fox News as I do for NBC Nightly News on the other side, which is to say none at all.
In all honesty, how can one claim to be a conservative network AND pretend to offer the "news"? No, you idiots, you're offering CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINTS, and that ain't news. My favorite is their tagline: fair and balance.
My ass. I have no love for the liberal media channels either, mind you. Both of them are full of shit. So where do you get real news? On a national level: probably nowhere. But I like my local news folks. They might have a bias too, but it sure as shit doesn't come shining through like Murdoch's goons or MSNBC's gang of retards...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The strange thing is that they started with it years before the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judicial Balancing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
legitimate internet businesses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great content
Brad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rupert
[ link to this | view in chronology ]