News Corps.' Jon Miller Continues His War Against Free; Wants Hulu To Charge

from the that-will-go-over-poorly dept

Just last week we were talking about how News Corps' "chief digital officer" was claiming that free doesn't work, though his reasoning was incredibly weak. It was also incredibly ironic, because Miller's previous work included convincing Time Warner to turn AOL's walled garden into an open and free platform... which was the right move, but got him fired. Perhaps because of that, he now has an aversion to free and is trying to put up garden walls wherever he can, not realizing that the animals won't go back into a walled garden very easily. His latest suggestion, as sent in by robert, is that Hulu should start making shows available by paid subscription only. In other words, take all the good that Hulu did to get people to watch TV online with ads, rather than downloading unauthorized versions... and put it behind a paywall, to drive people right back to unauthorized downloads where there is no ad revenue.

Filed Under: advertising, business models, economics, free, jon miller
Companies: hulu, news corp.

News Corp. Digital Boss Says Free Doesn't Work, Doesn't Bother To Explain How Pay Will Work

from the good-luck dept

A bunch of folks have been sending in various versions of the fact that News Corps. digital media boss Jon Miller apparently said that "free doesn't work," though that isn't quite what he actually said. He said that ad-supported content doesn't work. Now, it may be true that he's making the (false) assumption that the only way to make money off of free content is advertising, but that's not the same as saying "free" doesn't work. Either way, I'd argue he's wrong. Ad supported free content has been shown for ages to work in various different ways if you do it right. Perhaps the problem is that he's not doing it right. Either way, his suggestions for where News Corp. is heading don't sound very promising:

"It's pretty clear that there has to be some recognition of value," said Jon Miller.... Miller noted that Web companies will have to figure out a way to charge consumers for content they have grown accustomed to getting for free, noting that cable television service providers learned how to charge for television shows. Miller also said he expected to see the rise of Internet micro-payments.

If there's one nearly universal truth out there, it's that you can never go back to charging for content people were used to getting for free. You may be able to charge for new content or services, but never what they're already used to getting for free.

But the real root of the problem is Miller's opening statement. That there needs "to be some recognition of value." There is a recognition of value. Otherwise people wouldn't consume your content. But that doesn't mean they'll pay for it. Notice what he doesn't say. He never says that they need to give people a reason to buy. He's talking about putting up a paywall, not providing a reason to buy. That's destined to fail.

The reason that cable providers learned to charge for television shows was because there was a scarcity there... and even then there's a big push to break out of that and move to free television shows online as well. Trying to cram the internet into that dying model sounds like a terrible idea.

The most ironic thing about all of this is that, if anyone should understand all of this, it's Jon Miller. After all, he was the one who realized that AOL's walled gardens were killing the company, and put in place its strategy of opening up and going free. So now he wants to do the opposite for Fox Interactive? Good luck!

Filed Under: advertising, business models, economics, free, jon miller
Companies: aol, news corp.

WSJ To Try Micropayments: What A Bad Idea

from the watch-this-fail dept

There are all sorts of bad ideas around trying to get people to pay for news, but perhaps the worst is the idea of micropayments. Micropayments are trotted out every other year or so as the "savior" to paid content by people with little understanding of economics. The problem is that micropayments never work in a competitive market. First, the "cost" is much bigger than the nominal sum, because of the mental transaction costs ("is this worth buying?") that add friction to the process. Second, and more importantly, it's a self-defeating move. In adding micropayments, you automatically decrease the value of the content. This may sound paradoxical, but what matter is why and how people value content. These days, many people value content for the ability to engage with it, comment on it and share it with others. Micropayments take away that ability, and thus decrease the value of the content. In some sense, adding a micropayment option gives people fewer reasons to pay! Micropayments have been tried over the years, and every time someone announces them the press goes all nuts about how they're the business model of the future for content. And then the projects go nowhere for a few years, whither and die. And the press never seems to notice.

So, it should probably come as little surprise that it's the press itself that's going to try such a plan. The Wall Street Journals' managing editor, Robert Thomson says that the WSJ is going to start offering a micropayment offering for individual articles. Of course, it sounds like it's not always micropyaments either:

"It's a payments system -- once we have your details we will be able to charge you according to what you read, in particular, a high price for specialist material."

A "high price," by definition, isn't a micropayment of course. And it's just as likely to fail miserably. Putting a paywall in the way of people, and they'll find the content elsewhere. Put a paywall in front of good content, and it just opens up the opportunity for other, smarter, publications, to provide the news for free and run away with all the advertising money.

Filed Under: micropayments, robert thomson, wall street journal
Companies: news corp.

20th Century Fox Sends Takedowns Over Its Own YouTube Mashup Contest

from the nice-one,-guys... dept

We're seeing this all too often these days, but 20th Century Fox is the latest company to force videos offline over copyright infringement claims on something they officially endorsed. In this case, it involved a mashup contest promotion, where Burger King and 20th Century Fox created a promotion asking people to create their own mashups of Seth MacFarlane's online animated series Cavalcade of Cartoon Comedy. So that's just what people did... and now at least one has had his account suspended due to copyright infringement claims from... 20th Century Fox. In this case, it was also a guy who had a vast history of using YouTube and all his videos are gone, with YouTube telling him he has no option to have his account reinstated. That'll really get people excited about participating in future contests. Update: Good news! Apparently all of the attention this has gotten has helped the user get his account reinstated. However, it's still quite problematic that it was taken down in the first place... and that it required publicity to get reinstated.

Filed Under: 20th century fox, copyright, fox, promotions, seth macfarlane, takedowns, videos
Companies: google, news corp., youtube

Fox Fires Columnist For 'Reviewing' Leaked Copy Of Wolverine

from the calling-more-attention... dept

Last week, we discussed why it looked like movie studio 20th Century Fox was overreacting to the leak of a workprint copy of the upcoming movie Wolverine. The studio could have easily used the leak to get good publicity. Instead, it's freaking out and rushing around trying to blame everyone. The latest person caught in the crossfire? A columnist for Fox News who downloaded the leaked copy and wrote a review... Since both 20th Century Fox and Fox News are owned by News Corp., the studio flipped out and the writer, Roger Friedman, has supposedly been fired. For what? For actually admitting that the movie was out there? It's not like it hasn't been all over the news. For calling more attention to the fact that the movie can be downloaded? Firing Friedman seems to be getting a lot more attention than the review actually did. Once again, just because you have the legal right to do something about infringement, doesn't mean it makes any sense. Here's yet another case of a Hollywood studio letting its legal rights override common sense, and because of that, it's harming its own reputation.

Filed Under: fired, leak, movie, review, roger friedman, wolverine
Companies: 20th century fox, fox news, news corp.

Ocean Tomo Patents Being Used To Shake Down Companies That Have Online Recommendations

from the ebay-for-patent-trolls dept

Ocean Tomo is a company that's been around for a few years, trying to establish itself as the auction house for patents. I've already made clear how troubling I believe its business model to be, but the company always tries to put a friendly face on it, claiming that it's not about aiding so-called "patent trolls" but actually reducing the problem of patent trolling. However, that (of course) isn't what's actually happening. A patent on personal recommendation systems ("if you bought x, you'll like y") was bought via Ocean Tomo by what seems likely to be a bunch of lawyers under the company name Quito (though, it's not entirely clear who's involved) and is now being used in a lawsuit against thirteen big internet companies that employ any type of rating system. The companies being sued are: Netflix, Amazon, Yahoo, RealNetworks, last.fm, Pandora Media, Slacker Inc., Veoh, Hulu, NBC Universal, CBS, News Corp., and Strands.

As you look through that list, you'll recognize that some have done significantly innovative work in taking the concept of an online recommendation system and actually making it useful. The simple idea of doing recommendations is pretty straightforward. Making it work well? Not so much. Hell, that's why Netflix is offering $1 million to anyone who can improve their recommendation engine by just 10%. The basic ideas expressed in the patent are not where the value in these recommendation systems lies. It's in the actual effort of figuring out how to make them work better. This patent has nothing to do with the actual success of a recommendation system, but the holders of it may now get a pay day just for holding the patent, thanks to Ocean Tomo's auctions. And, of course, this means that all of those companies that were actually innovating will, at the very least, now need to spend legal dollars defending against this massive innovation blocker.

Filed Under: patents, recommendations
Companies: amazon, cbs, hulu, last.fm, nbc universal, netflix, news corp., ocean tomo, pandora, quito, realnetworks, slacker, veoh, yahoo

Singapore Fines The WSJ For Editorials It Considered Contempt Of Court

from the opinions-not-allowed dept

The Wall Street Journal is running a story about how it's been fined by Singaporean courts for two editorials the paper published over the summer. The story notes how nearly every foreign publication distributed in Singapore has been sued in court at one point or another, and the article goes through detailing the specific charges against it by Singapore. Obviously, the WSJ's story can be seen as biased since they were a party in the lawsuit, but from the description, it sounds like Singapore was upset that the WSJ accurately reported on a defamation lawsuit by a former government official against an opposition party candidate, and later a critical study by the International Bar Association on the rule of law in Singapore. It's difficult to see how those reports can be said to be "contemptuous of the judiciary," but in a country that isn't known for taking criticism well, perhaps it's not that surprising.

Still, what's most interesting is that in response to this, the Wall Street Journal has chosen not to publish this particular story about the decision in the Asian edition of the Wall Street Journal -- though, the story is obviously available online. Apparently the WSJ recognizes, probably accurately, that if they published the story about the decision, where they are somewhat critical of that decision, they would probably be in for yet another "contempt" charge. To some extent, this decision makes you wonder how effective suppression of the press can be going forward. Yes, countries can build filters and block out certain publications, but online content can always be filtered through eventually. The very fact that the WSJ is purposely leaving the editorial out of Asian editions of the paper seems more likely to draw more attention to the story from within Singapore as well, accomplishing exactly the opposite of what the country thinks it's doing in fining the paper.

Filed Under: contempt of court, freedom of the press, singapore, wall street journal
Companies: dow jones, news corp.

Hey MySpace, Aren't You A Little Late To The 'Portal' Bandwagon?

from the retro dept

Brian Stelter opens his piece on MySpace on a generally positive note, suggesting he was intending his write-up for the New York Times to be a sympathetic look at the company's relationship to its corporate parent, owned by Rupert Murdoch. But the article ends up painting a picture of a site without a clear vision of its future. In probably the most damning paragraph in the article, an advertising executive says that the MySpace's parent company had envisioned the site as a portal, but that he "thought they would be much further along with that today." For about a decade, websites have tried to mask their lack of focus by labeling themselves portals. A decade ago, that strategy worked pretty well for Yahoo! in 1996, when it had enough content to really make it stand out from the crowd. But it's hard to imagine that a similar strategy will work in 2008. Users have many more choices and more sophisticated tools for finding the content they need, so the attraction of a one-size-fits-all portal is much lower.

I suspect that the fundamental problem is that it just doesn't make much sense for an "old media" company like News Corp. to own a tech startup like MySpace. They key to MySpace's success in the years before the acquisition was precisely that the company didn't need to produce content; users created "content" of their own by swapping messages, posting pictures and music, etc. Social networking sites are fundamentally technology platforms that enable users to share their own content with one another. Trying to produce "original content" for the site is a step in the wrong direction. There's no way they can satisfy the diverse tastes of their millions of users, but they can waste a lot of money trying. And while MySpace focuses on becoming more like the mainstream media, its competitors—especially Facebook—are working feverishly on enhancements to their underlying technology platforms. Meanwhile, the MySpace user experience continues to deteriorate. I regularly get spam from other MySpace users (although this has become less common in recent months), the site is littered with gaudy banner ads, and I encounter error messages a lot more frequently than I do on Facebook. These are the sorts of problems that an 80-year-old newspaper mogul like Murdoch just isn't going to know how to deal with. He is, by all accounts, a brilliant businessman, but he's not a technologist, and it was probably a mistake for him to buy what was fundamentally a technology company.

Filed Under: content, portals, social networks, technology
Companies: myspace, news corp.

FoxNews Fear Mongering: Online Games May KILL You!

from the sensationalism-at-work dept

In a piece that with just a few tweaks could easily be from The Onion, FoxNews has written up a fear mongering article about online game players. It selectively picks out a few extreme cases where people who met via online worlds ended up doing something bad, and broadens that to suggest that online games like World of Warcraft are a threat that's only going to get worse. To be fair, the article does squeeze a few quick quotes in the middle from folks who point out that the premise is highly exaggerated, but it brushes them off and quickly goes back to fear mongering. It includes typical fear-inducing sensationalist statements like: "But some hook-ups have had deadly consequences" (you can practically hear the scary voiceover voice saying it). The article offers nothing in the way of proof that anything described in the article is a common occurrence, instead just offers scary words and conjecture not supported by facts: "You're going to see a lot more of these stories, unfortunately." Oh really? Then how come as these games have become more popular, violence has been dropping? How soon until we see Congress start looking into laws regulating online games?

Filed Under: fear mongering, foxnews, online games, violence
Companies: fox, news corp.

Is LinkedIn The Latest To Play The Skype-Hype Valuation Bubble Game?

from the anyone-taking-bets-on-the-final-amount? dept

Over the past few years, we've noticed a pretty consistent pattern among startups trying to create huge valuations for themselves in a short period of time. While other companies have done it in the past, the latest cycle really kicked off with Skype confusing people into thinking it was worth billions. Despite having relatively low revenues, there suddenly leaked rumors that Skype was for sale. Skype denied it, and then had one of its investors say the company was worth well over a billion. Then the feeding frenzy began, until eBay came out the winner -- a move it later regretted. Facebook was the next to follow the Skype Hype Strategy, but may have been a bit too early to the game. It took an extra year, but the company may have outdone Skype in its $15 billion valuation (though, unlike Skype, Facebook hasn't turned that into real cash yet). In between, YouTube used a nearly identical strategy to pump up its valuation.

Here's what you do: get a little buzz. Leak a report to the press about a buyout offer. Deny the reports of the buyout offer and then have either an exec or an investor make an offhanded remark about how the company is actually worth billions, allow the feeding frenzy to begin and eventually pick an exit opportunity. It also doesn't hurt to have some sort of PayPal connection (which both Facebook and YouTube had). The latest to test out this strategy may be LinkedIn, which also has the PayPal connection. Last week the rumor broke that News Corp was trying to buy LinkedIn. The company's CEO quickly denied the report and said that the company would need to sell for "a lot more" than a billion dollars. Now, the latest reports are that News Corp isn't buying LinkedIn, but just like those other stories, the stage has now been set. Suddenly others may start thinking that perhaps LinkedIn is a good buy for over a billion dollars, and the feeding frenzy begins again. Anyone want to take guesses on the next startup to play this game?

Filed Under: buyout, hype, rumors
Companies: facebook, linkedin, news corp., skype, youtube