As Murdoch Puts Times Online Behind A Paywall, Competitors Happily Plan To Stay Free

from the good-luck,-rupert dept

Tue, Apr 27th 2010 7:54pm — Mike Masnick

As Rupert Murdoch is getting ready to put paywalls on two of his UK publications, The Times of London and The Sunday Times, his competitors are remaining adamantly free online. The Guardian, for example, has been a loud and proud supporter of free content, and now the Daily Mail Online is standing by its free online site by noting:

"A pay-wall MIGHT make a little money -- we will make a lot."

The management of the paper explained that people don't pay for news -- they've paid for the convenience of paper, but that online news will likely remain free -- and that they're big enough to make advertising pay well. In fact, it seems likely that if Murdoch locks up his content behind a paywall, that will only drive more readers to sites like The Daily Mail and The Guardian and boost their ad revenue...

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: paywalls, rupert murdoch

39 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

BearGriz72 (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 7:50pm

Anagrams Are Fun...
Rupert Murdoch = Turd Chum Roper
[ link to this | view in thread ]
vastrightwing, 27 Apr 2010 @ 8:08pm

AMEN!
Agreed!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dan, 27 Apr 2010 @ 8:11pm

I know, everything should be free EXCEPT to when it's your paycheck
fucking assholes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lostalaska (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 8:13pm

that anagram is pretty funny BearGriz72

It would be interesting to see their web site statistics and to what extent they drop off over the course of this experiment. Of course I could have awoken this morning in bizarro world and Murdoch's plan totally takes off because people know the value of news. Nevermind, even in bizarro world people know better than that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The raging cleaning lady, 27 Apr 2010 @ 8:16pm

News-papers are more convenient for me.
The biggest problem with internet news is that you can't really swat houseflies with a news-computer like you can with a news-paper. Until they make a swatable news-computer, that swats houseflies as efficiently as a news-paper, I will have a hard time paying for online news because every time I try to swat a fly, I'd have to buy a new computer, which could be quite costly over the year.

Then there's my weekend hobby of making paper maché art. Again, computers are not a good substitute for the news-paper with this either. I've tried.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pink floyd, 27 Apr 2010 @ 8:23pm

another brick in da wall
in this case im all for building a wall, JUST dont let him come back out after
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2010 @ 8:23pm

Re:
there is no way you will see viewership go up. however, the metrics that would be used here (traffic) isnt the same thing murdoch is aiming for. so just looking at traffic will not tell the story at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2010 @ 8:39pm

Re: Re:
What else would one look at?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
slander (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 8:47pm

PSA
Ok, kids... one more time:

This is your brain -- http://idology.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/egg.jpg

This is your brain on drugs -- http://foreskinpress.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/rupert-murdoch-star-tv-india-program-guide-channel- guide-programme-listing-foreskin-press.jpg

Any questions?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 9:11pm

Mike you should know better this is clearly "Hot News". As such you shouldnt talk about it lest you get sued.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 9:15pm

Extra Extra Read All About It ....
To access this comment have your credit card ready.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2010 @ 9:16pm

Re: Re: Re:
bottom line costs and profitability. things that are hard to see by blog writers and new media gurus.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 9:18pm

Extra Extra Read All About It ...
BBC news has increased its page views by 200%
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 9:32pm

Extra Extra Read All About It ...
The winner of the Kidney Pie Pubs "how many paid subscribers will rupert get?" contest was announced today. Mary Scott of London wins with a guess of 17 paid subscriptions in 3 months.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 9:35pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
hi mike!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 9:47pm

Extra Extra Read All About It ...
iPad Sales are up due to the news aggregator app named PaperBoy. Apple released dismal statistics on paid subscriptions to online newpapers and magazines apps.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beaker, 27 Apr 2010 @ 9:55pm

Newspapers don't sell the news they sell advertising. The news is the content used to get you to look at the ads. The money you pay to buy a paper barely covers, it that, the printing and distribution costs. Newspapers make most of their money from ads. The same is true for magazines. This is also how Google makes its money. The problem with putting your content behind a paywall is if I can get the same content free elsewhere, that is where I will go. A paywall will only work if: 1. Everyone does it; or 2. You provide other services or unique items that make it worth paying for. They only thing I see someone paying the NYT for is editorial content and/or ease of access (ex. the iPad app).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
slander (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 10:18pm

Extra Extra Read All About It ...
Rupert Murdoch claims that the Internet is stealing his paying customers. Demands that the government pass legislation that helps underwrite his business model.

Congress rallies to his defense. Passes the Journalism Integrity Support Mandate. Detractors claim that it flies in the faces of every honest American.

More to follow...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brendan (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 10:22pm

Re: Extra Extra Read All About It ...
I doubt it's very often that Rupert Murdoch can talk about successfully passing JISM.

*ba-dum, tssh*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Apr 2010 @ 10:32pm

rupert. suck it and good luck w/that paywall since they've been so successful in the past.

news is news, i don't pay my neighbors to tell me what happened on the freeway or the way to work. but then again they aren't walking viagra ads either

/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
georgied, 28 Apr 2010 @ 12:43am

Bloody Daily Mail
Maybe if we tell the Daily Mail that foreigners, murders and rapists are reading their news for free, hopefully they'll put a paywall up and we can all be rid of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mikex (profile), 28 Apr 2010 @ 1:20am

Murdoch's 'Paywall'
I don't know whether this has been discussed here. All you have to do to find a paywall protected Wall Street Journal story is copy and paste the headline on the story- even off the link that gives you the truncated version of that story-go to google search, pop the headline in the search blan and you will find the ENTIRE story therewith. Even the links with the truncated dead-ends on line like Slatest Morning News, can be retrofitted to get the entire story. Google, probably holding the WSJ to the letter of the legalities, is responsibile. I wonder if the Murdoch people are even aware this is true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mikex (profile), 28 Apr 2010 @ 1:21am

Murdoch's 'Paywall'
I don't know whether this has been discussed here. All you have to do to find a paywall protected Wall Street Journal story is copy and paste the headline on the story- even off the link that gives you the truncated version of that story-go to google search, pop the headline in the search blan and you will find the ENTIRE story therewith. Even the links with the truncated dead-ends on line like Slatest Morning News, can be retrofitted to get the entire story. Google, probably holding the WSJ to the letter of the legalities, is responsibile. I wonder if the Murdoch people are even aware this is true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Apr 2010 @ 2:20am

Re: Murdoch's 'Paywall'
Google, probably holding the WSJ to the letter of the legalities, is responsibile. I wonder if the Murdoch people are even aware this is true.

Yes, Murdoch's people are very much aware of this. The WSJ worked out that deal with Google early on -- and Google now offers a similar deal to other paywall sites, but it's those sites' choice.

Murdoch has indicated that he may do away with that deal in the future.

So, no, it's not Google "responsible" for it. It was an agreement worked out by both sides.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
grumpy (profile), 28 Apr 2010 @ 2:21am

Mixed feelings
Anything that puts Murdoch behind a wall is good. Anything that gives the Daily Fail more readers is bad. I'm in two minds about this...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2010 @ 3:49am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
C'min AC, when newsday put up a paywall, they had 35 subscribers. They lost 700,000 visitors and monetized 35 of them.

And by the way, this site does okay financially. And yet, everything is free.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mikex (profile), 28 Apr 2010 @ 3:54am

I can't take your word that this is an agreement between Murdoch and Google. The reason: I fail to see how this suits Murdoch's WSJ in the least. But go ahead, you explain it to me?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mike allen (profile), 28 Apr 2010 @ 3:54am

gurdian
as i if i buy a paper tend to buy either the gaurdian or telegraph then murdoch can have his paywall. only wish it was a real wall and we could put rupert and his entire family behind it. then drop the lot in the Atlantic ocean.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mikex (profile), 28 Apr 2010 @ 3:57am

Murdoch's 'Paywall'
I can't take your word that this is an agreement between Murdoch and Google. The reason: I fail to see how this suits Murdoch's WSJ in the least. But go ahead, you explain it to me? (Sorry to have to put this up twice, failed to check the email when there are comments box)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2010 @ 5:29am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
yes it does because the masnick is selling your eyeballs. so the site isnt free because you cannot get the pages without massive amounts of targeting advertising and sponsorship notices. free just means you didnt pull money from your pocket. as for newsday they still have the 1.4 million or so cable subscribers. the 700,000 loss is the freeloaders from outside the area that were not contributing to ad value on the site.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BreakthePaywall, 28 Apr 2010 @ 5:42am

BreakthePaywall
BreakthePaywall! is a free add-on for Internet Explorer (Firefox coming soon!) that simplifies using the various methods for circumventing website paywall restrictions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 28 Apr 2010 @ 6:15am

Re: Re: Murdoch's 'Paywall'
"Murdoch has indicated that he may do away with that deal in the future."

If newsdays 38 paid online subscriptions is any example, its doubtful that he will do away with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
senshikaze (profile), 28 Apr 2010 @ 6:25am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
not completly true. my eyeballs don't count because i block all ads. BUT he has made money off me directly. I bought the Approaching Infinity book and a t-shirt during the big CFW push. I would much rather pay for something worth it than have to sit through ads (and frankly, some of the ads on this site are pretty annoying, last time I looked) or pay for content.

and i think your analogy is kinda off. techdirt makes all money from ads, but 700,000 ad viewers being lost from newsday are just freeloaders? huh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stuart, 28 Apr 2010 @ 6:45am

Re: Bloody Daily Mail
Bravo you. Their paywall would certainly need to guage the degree of anger and outrage a reader has (necessary preconditions for liking the paper) before signing up. Questions: 'Do you think the country is going to the dogs? Why yes! Are you just plain angry about it? Most certainly! Do you know what we should do? Eh, no. Tremendous, nor do we and that makes us so angry! Sign here please.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 28 Apr 2010 @ 1:29pm

Re: BreakthePaywall
I think the best way to deal with a paywall is to go get the story from somewhere else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nastybutler77 (profile), 28 Apr 2010 @ 1:38pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Logic FAIL. Nice one TAM.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nastybutler77 (profile), 28 Apr 2010 @ 1:48pm

Re: BreakthePaywall
Spam, Spam, Spam, baked beans and Spam!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mikex (profile), 28 Apr 2010 @ 2:11pm

BreakthePaywall
I still don't see how leaving the stories available to reasonably astute web parsers, benefits Murdoch's WSJ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kalinina, 25 Aug 2010 @ 1:55am

opinion
http://wwww.google.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]