Rupert Murdoch = TARD
 

This will go voer like a lead ballon

News Corp.: We're
walling off our news

Change will happen sometime over the next fiscal year

By Diego Vasquez
Aug 6, 2009

If Rupert Murdoch gets his way, and he usually does, internet surfers will no longer be getting something for nothing from the vast majority of News Corp.?s web sites.

The company chairman and chief executive officer said as much yesterday during an earnings call with investors.

Though Murdoch has been cheerleading the paid content model for online newspapers for some time, his comments yesterday seemed to go beyond papers to all of News Corp.?s news content, including sites for Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network.

?We intend to charge for all news sites,? Murdoch said.

Online editions of the London Sun, New York Post and News of the World, as well as other News Corp. papers, will begin to charge for content this fiscal year, Murdoch said, though he did not detail how those charges will be implemented or how high they?ll be.


Ok not even Sticky and 12clicks and their ilk are going to pay for a subscription to FauxNews.com. WTF there is news everywhere for FREE. WTF are they going to offer people that is an incentive to PAY? Are they going to remove the ads? I seriously doubt it.

Everything about that guy stinks.

Nobody will pay. News is everywhere. Just put adds and commercials in the video clips and call it a day. This clown has no idea what his traffic and clicks are worth.lol

He is just a stupid old man..He has no clue that people will not pay..Go ahead Rupert...your headed for chapter 11...

News will happen and get reported, no matter if there are people like Rupert Murdoch here or not. There was news before him, and there will be news after him.. and most likely also better news if he goes down.

He paid way too much for WSJ, myspace had no plan, and basically Fox is the only thing making him money -- and Fox is in danger of losing top-level advertisers.

Maybe this is a giant headfake ....

I do see him charging the cable companies to broadcast fox, etc. but i doubt the papers will ever make it to a paid model. At least not completely.

Not sure where your getting this idea of them losing advertisers... gotta remember they have the highest ratings of all the other news channels combined... and they still beat their collective ratings... ie cnn, abc, nbc, msnbc, cbs, etc... < fox

So in terms of money I don't eee how your arguement stands up, and as far as charging... internet is adapting and changing...

Beck just lost 3 top level advertisers this week. Fox beats the highest cable news programs (cnn, msnbc, hln) combined, not network tv. There's a huge difference, if you don't realize that I'm not sure what to tell you. Murdoch's empire is built on newspapers, again, if you don't realize that I'm not sure what to tell you.

I wouldn't call a dude who turned shit newspapers into a massive corporate media empire a Tard.

another out of touch old dude.

Although I respect the opinions of fellow GFY'ers. A media billionaire should probably be at least listened to. It's not like he got rich by being lucky, he's had a string of successes. He's a total ass, but he knows how to make money.

Most news sites are losing money. This move could be like the airlines, where they wait for one to move on prices then they all do it. Murdock could take the heat for going to a paid model, but the other sites could slowly fall in line. They are already heading for the dumpster anyway, so many have nothing to lose by testing a paid model, they are just afraid to be the first. Murdoch is not afraid as he's been telegraphing this for months and he is hearing support from other news outlets.

But think about what could be offered in a paid news model. Instead of just reposts of AP reports like you get now, you get actual reporting. Take healthcare reform for example, maybe someone could actually read the bill and report on the actual details of the program. No news site is doing that now. Discussion boards with people who actually pay for the site and have a real discussion unlike now, when you read a news story and the comments on a free news site it degrades into racial slurs no matter what the subject is. I would pay $5 a month for a site like that. In depth news, smart discussion, limited advertising.

I don't think he is talking about getting AP reposts for a fee. I'm sure there will be value added to the paid model.

someone will many a site to copy the news with sevral paid accounts to copy all the new news

game over

Yea because some severely mentally handicapped GFY moron such as yourself is clearly smarter than a self made billionaire. :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Definitely Murdoch is a smart guy, but the writing is sort of on the wall with newspapers and he has a portfolio full of them. WSJ is in good shape, but he paid a huuuuuuuuuuuge premium for WSJ and WSJ still isn't helping fox business get off the ground.

Via game theory there is simply no incentive for all newspapers to charge, in the new era the newspapers with the lowest cost structure will win.

That said, I don't like the guy making money by significantly lowering political discourse in America by putting idiots like Hannity and Beck on the air. Although Beck and Hannity appeal to a particular segment of the conservative/republican base, they so horribly misinform people on a daily basis that they drag down the whole republican party.

At least O'reilly makes semi-relevant points (but he does do that creepy stalking thing).

My guess is News Corp will go down in flames in the next few years, but Fox will remain profitable and will be spun out.

At least SOMEONE is realizing there's too much free content out there.

Amen. I don't know if he will succeed with this model, but I would love to see him try it.

People that try to sell stuff that is freely available all over the internet are retarded.












...Oh wait

I think news is a lot easier to find on the net than porn. And if their news is that much better than everybody else's, im sure that Brazzers will get into the "News tube site" business soon.lol

its the future free doesnt work and with devices like the iphone.Since I got mine I havent bought a paper and I was good for 3 to 8 a week. Ads dont pay for things in the long run. He will be the first and I think there will be less and less for free online. That's how it is in the real world, you want something you have to buy it.

The only way it'd work is if all other major news sites collude to do the same around the same time. Otherwise people will just go elsewhere, except of course for sheeple republicans (not calling all republicans sheeple but there's certainly some of them) that have to have the republican bias in their news and would pay to do so.

As much as Fox News might own the cable news airwaves, Yahoo and CNN afaik have been the sites of choice to go online - perhaps if Fox was as dominant online, I could see this move MAYBE working out well for them, but as is I kinda doubt it.

Case in point: If a site like RedTube or PornHub all of a sudden charged money exclusively (ergo no longer free tubes), you think anyone would stick around? Heck no, plenty of other free tubes to take the visitors. Even if conservative slanted news media is more scare than liberal, there would be many happy news corps waiting in the wings for people that don't want to pay.

old rupert would sue them out existence not bend over like our industry does. lol

They are all dying not making money. He does it they are all going to fall in line.

lmao... yeah... ok...

That's what I was saying above. I have a strong feeling the other news outlets will quickly fall in line. The reason: the added viewership they might gain by staying free won't matter since on-line ad revenue isn't enough to keep them afloat, even if they doubled it in most cases.

On-line ad revenue only works when your product is free to produce or virtually free. It will never command the type of money that TV/radio/newspaper advertising does regardless of traffic. This is a proven fact now so on-line newspaper sites don't really care about free traffic anymore since it's been proven unable to support their costs.

There are no options left. This may not work, but it's all they can do. On-line ad revenue simply won't cover the costs of actual journalism.

Just registered FreeFoxNews.com

Private registration
DNS Switching DNS Proxy through Russia and China

Even IF he does it the right way (spend a ton of money upfront to start getting exclusive interviews and scoops on things), he'd still be seeking money for something people have been getting for free online and on TV and in times that will still likely be tough economic times. Oh yea, and he'll also be competing with this Twitter thing which is representing what is likely be people's primary way of finding breaking news out in the future - realtime search and trends...also for free.

Who knows though. People already waste money needlessly, maybe they will buy into this and pay for their news.

Sorry it won't work...as I said it is a basic game theory problem. The newspapers who stay open to the general public stand to directly benefit from the increase in traffic due to the pay-wall.

Further consider that subscription revenues go AGAINST the offline newspaper model -- which is subscription subsidizes the paper/magazine, but ads pay the bills.

A pay-wall is a NEW model where significant revenue to generate profits would come from subscriptions.

What needs to happen is that papers get smaller and ditch the printed models except for high-end magazines that are actually worth it Economist, New Yorker etc.

As ad dollars finally shift online (due to dying publications) the online model for premium content will improve.

Anyway..... at least real journalism will come back online instead of paid celebrities like that CNN guy Wolfer or something like that.

We'll see...they may be suffering but they may also get a significant percentage of visitors that were going to Murdoch-owned sites that don't want to pay. If I were the other conglomerates, I would wait and see so that Murdoch is taking all the risks.

Chances are what will happen is some of the large news conglomerates will get buried while others will figure out how to reduce overhead enough to keep at least the online news free, plus with fewer big players, there'd be more revenue going to the remaining ones. It may not be as lucrative as it used to be, but news flash: internet changed and is continuing to change the world...some stuff isn't going to be as easy to do. It could just be that there's too many big players splitting up the pie too much for it to work and some of them failing will allow the remaining ones to make enough to make it work.

Disagree. On-line ad revenue will not catch up with print and TV advertising anytime in the near future. The reason is advertisers simply don't have the control they have in those other mediums and therefore will not pay a premium for it like they do with TV or newspapers.

Newspapers that remain free will NOT benefit from the increased traffic. The current on-line ad revenue is not enough to cover their costs, even if it doubles. Newspapers don't make enough now from free traffic, not even close. How will getting a little bit more free traffic make a difference?

Prove to me how newspapers that stay free will make more in ad revenue when their current ad revenue doesn't even come close to paying the bills now.

There is ZERO incentive for newspapers to stay free and try to gain marketshare. That model has been proven a failure, just look at the balance sheets of the newspapers that have gone on-line for free. Explain the benefit of continuing to chase this failed model that has left them all on the edge of bankruptcy?

:2 cents:

This is one of the changes they need to make. They may be failing, but that doesn't mean charging for news is the answer...it's far from the only option they have to save themselves.

Exactly. Here, b/c I'm procrastinating doing what I'm supposed to be doing I'll break it down a little more for those who think pay-walls will work.

1.) Newspaper / Print offline model -- subscriptions barely cover the cost of publication,
the money is made from two sources of advertising: large advertisers and classifieds.
a.) Large advertisers are still around.
b.) Classifieds has been decimated by craigslist and ebay.
outcome => money made from advertising (except for high-ends like economist, new yorker etc... the shit you put around our house to impress people ;) )

2.) Newspaper/Print online model --
a.) Large advertisers are around but pay pennies for branding campaigns.
b.) Classifieds are basically non existent save major high markets
(e.g. NYtimes real estate)

So, given newspapers essentially have a large chunk of their news from similar sources:
ap, reuters, upi, syndicated cartoons, syndicated columnists ....before we finally get to local sports and local news.

Newspapers do not have that much content that is actually unique that is not covered by other news outlets -- local tv, local radio, and now local bloggers.

Say we add subscriptions into the mix -- well instantly you have killed your chances at advertising revenue -- online ad rev is about volume.

How much are you going to charge those visitors that have to have local news?
How easy would it be for a blogger along with a staff of 10 home-based workers to REPLICATE your index of unique content by simply rewriting, attributing and following up every single unique local source? (this is an extreme example, but it is basically gawker.com and other clever aggregators work).

There are projects like everyblock.com that are already going for micro crowd-sourced news.

etc.
:2 cents:

YES. There's a reason why magazines like Wired stay alive in print, even though they cater to the high tech set and put practically everything they do online -- DEPTH. Only true nerdiacs will sit and read the equivalent of a 6 page 3cols/page 10pt type article online. It's there if you REALLY want it, but people will still buy the magazine so they can read it at their leisure in the Barcalounger or while dumping.

A newspaper full of AP wire articles? Not so much.

I also think advertising doesnt have the pull of a tv ad or print ad. There is too much distraction on the web and bombardment online is so great I think people really tune the ads out.
This has been proven before in 2000, ads were going to pay for everything and it failed. I would gladly pay $5 a month for access to a news site. Like I said before nothing is free in the bricks and mortar world why should the net be different?

:Graucho thank you! I take my laptop in with me when i need to dump :upsidedow :upsidedow

See I think iphone and devices like that are killing the print model. I used to buy papers and mags because I didnt want to carry a computer in the john or in a store while my wife was shopping.But now with my phone im reading constantly, the 30 bucks a month for the data has paid for itself many times over.

Well it's like the music and movie industry, like my favorite philospoher and sometime media critique Sarah Palin said, "Only a dead fish goes with the flow."

:thumbsup

going pay news online isnt going with the flow:) the flow is failing online.