Rupert Murdoch made big headlines this week with the announcement that he plans to charge for content across his digital portfolio by mid 2010.
“Quality journalism is not cheap,” said Murdoch. “The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive distribution channels but it has not made content free. We intend to charge for all our news websites.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/07/2648972.htm?section=entertainment
Ultimately, Murdoch is spot on with his assessment here, he and news organizations around the world are providing daily and immediate content for every man, woman and dog; people who can simply elect not to pay for it by going online. Not only do you not have to pay for it, but the experience you have with that news is more engaging, more involved (through video, comments and forums) and most importantly of all – real-time. Ironically, you only have to look at this story itself to prove this point - it has generated over 5,000 stories online and 15,000 blog posts in the past few days. Hard for a newspaper to deliver that!
It is this web 3.0 (sorry) thirst for real-time information that is driving more and more people online for their news, and why the likes of Murdoch have seen a 30% drop in revenue for their offline properties.
At some point in time, users will have to pay for content online because the advertising model doesn’t support the investment the publishers are making. But it takes a brave man (And I think we can say Rupert is that) to lead publishers in to a new pay revolution because there’s little doubt it’d be easier if they all did it together…
The flaw in his argument is that the news he is presenting isn’t particularly specialist, so we could all simply get our news feeds from the good old ABC and BBC. Rupert references the Wall Street Journal who has been charging for content for years, but news.com.au is hardly on the same page as them. Financial comment and political news from the Economist or Fin Review - yes, Rugby League player naked in a hotel or Paris Hilton breaks a nail – no.
The great ‘pay for music’ debate is a good guide too, no-one pays for music anymore – over 95% of all music downloads are illegal, which shows the uphill battle Murdoch and peers face with todays online audience.
Please post your comments, it'd be interesting to hear your views.
Nic
I think Murdoch is outlining the media landscape as we will see it in the not to distant future. People don't just go online because it's free. They like the speed the news is delivered and they like the enriched content such as news reports with video footage. As more people migrate over and sites increase market share - advertisers will be happy to pay more for their spots. Enough in fact, to keep the site free. Ross.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean Murdoch is outlining the media landscape for the future? You reckon he won't be able to persuade people to pay.
ReplyDeleteSorry, to clarify - I think Murdoch is right in the sense that, in the future, news will be disseminated online rather than through newspapers. Because if he thought newspapers had a future, he wouldn't be so concerned with making online news sites pay.
ReplyDeleteBut as I said, I don't think he'll need to. Ross.
What if, instead of charging readers for content, Murdoch charged those who syndicate the news? Think about all the blogs, websites and web services (including aggregators) that reference news articles and videos.
ReplyDeletePerhaps there should be some sort of micropayment system, kind of like paying royalties. I mean paying a few cents to embed videos (or paste articles) on your site seems fair to me.
Crazy idea, I know... and I sense it would be rather impossible to enforce online.
Phon - You're right, near impossible. No-one will be putting their hands up for that administration...
ReplyDelete