News Corp tests charge-for-content policy

[Fat Pat]

Surely someone has tried to tell Rupert he's dreaming? How can this allegedly smart man believe that he can exert his will over the internet??

LOL I can see it now, pirate links to fee-per-view news sites, double-blind hosting servers the whole fruit!


BRITAIN'S Sunday Times newspaper will be the testing ground for News Corporation's new policy of charging for internet content, a report says, citing industry sources.
News Corp chairman Rupert Murdoch said this week that the group, owners of The Sunday Times, The Times and The Wall Street Journal amongst others, would end its policy of free access to online editions, with the exception of the Journal which already charges.

The Sunday Times, which currently shares a website with The Times daily, would have its own standalone site by the end of November as part of the new strategy, a report in The Guardian newspaper added.

The Sunday Times currently sells more than one million copies each week and profits have offset losses at its daily stablemate.

Murdoch's holdings also include the New York Post, The Sun, The Australian and news.com.au.

source - News Corp tests charge-for-content policy | Business | News.com.au

[Barfridge]

The whole plan relies on him convincing everybody else to do the same. That way you need to pay for your news somewhere.

I see his chances of success as roughtly the same as me winning the Brownlow this year.

[Para045]

The whole plan relies on him convincing everybody else to do the same. That way you need to pay for your news somewhere.

I see his chances of success as roughly the same as me winning the Brownlow this year.

Thats about it, he reckons because he has the clout and money he can get everyone to do stuff his way, you only have to look at the way people have managed to get around the internet filtering etc in places like China to see it wont work
I mean he can't claim to have ownership rights to "news"

[Taz]

it is amazing how these one time battlers for news rights and stories get to the top of their food chain and want to start to screw the very people where they came from......

[Aphex]

Tell 'im he's dreamin.

Way to loose readership. Fkn goose.

[drifter]

he already gets paid for his news, its called ONLINE ADVERTISING.

[JiggyJigs]

Heres another view...whats the difference between everyone paying for a newspaper as opposed to paying to view it online? It costs money for paper yes..but it also costs money to host a website. They advertise online, but they also advertise in print.

[Jedi]

It's not about people coughing up the two bucks for a paper, it's about how charging for something that is basically free at the moment is doomed to failure.

[Desmo]

Is his news even worth reading? Let alone paying for?

[thro]

^^ comedic value is occasionally there. fuck paying for it though...


if he's serious about charging for online content he might want to make sure the editorial quality is even slightly on par with free hobbyist websites. seriously, news.com.au writing quaity (let alone content) is appalling...

[polonY]

Heres another view...whats the difference between everyone paying for a newspaper as opposed to paying to view it online? It costs money for paper yes..but it also costs money to host a website. They advertise online, but they also advertise in print.

Hosting costs aren't nearly on par with printing costs. His online advertising revenue would far exceed his hosting costs, but advertising in the paper wouldn't come close to the printing costs.

[shmoo]

This is nothing new. There are plenty of news sites throughout the world that charge for content. The Fin Review has always done it. I think the NY Times does it.

Perhaps it is a way of giving credibility to a news source? Certainly the fin review and the NY times are considered highly when it comes to their online content. I'm not sure it will work for tabloid papers, but good papers, it clearly does work.

[Barfridge]

shmoo: the Financial Review has actual information and informed commentary. It is a specialist publication that is useful to people.

Compare this to Fox News, which is just the same (if not worse) than dozens, if not hundreds of other news sources. There is no way I would pay for Fox News, not when I have other options such as the ABC, BBC etc

[shmoo]

^^^ yeah spot on mate, it can work for quality, but probably not for tabloid crap. Either way, its going to be quite interesting to see how it unfolds.

[thro]

^^ unfortunately, given that most of the news corp sites are populated by bright sparks like stanley, they'll probably do quite well.

normal people will just move on and get less biased more relevant content elsewhere.