Murdoch's web policy

[Pete]

Sure, if you want the basics then go to the BBC, but that's all you'll get. Murdoch isn't stupid, he knows you can't compete with free -- if the quality is the same.

I made this point above but it bears repeating, BBC News isn't free. I think it's a great example of where people ARE willing to pay for their news.

I think the BBC argument is moot as you've paid for it as part of a larger fee whether you like it or not. Plus few people pay it exclusively for the news site.

If ITN had a comparable website and the BBC didn't exist, would people pay for that?

[timgraham]

Public broadcasters are something you don't really get a choice about paying for. Perhaps, then, it raises the question of whether you want to sign up to something you're already paying for?

Murdoch's plan has a fatal flaw in that there are lots of alternatives, some better than others, that will put people off paying for his stuff. There's a bit of a difference between what you get in a free newspaper, and what you can get for free online.

It sounded to me at first like we'd be paying extra for stuff we're not already getting, but that doesn't seem to be the case any more.

[Chie]

Well look, in Murdoch's interview he said his biggest newspaper websites make, "a couple of million" each in advertising revenue.

If he can get just 10,000 people paying say, £15 per month to subscribe to TimesOnline, that's getting on for £2 million per year - plus the advertising revenue. This relatively small number of subscribers will spend more time browsing TimesOnline in order to get their money's worth, making the advertising opportunities just as lucrative as they are now, if not more so. The number of subscribers will only increase as consumers gradually move away from print newspapers to online.

This is just a guess of course, but I have to say, to my mind it really makes sense. Murdoch's been in the game since 1953 and I seriously doubt he and his team would make this kind of decision if they weren't almost certain it was going to be profitable.

[cdd]

£2 million per year - plus the advertising revenue.

Paying for news AND advertising?

"not in my lifetime"...

[Chie]

Well, yes.

Have you not seen how many adverts there are inside newspapers? People have been happily buying them for centuries. Why would you expect the online equivalent to be any different?

[cdd]

Sorry, I was trying to be ironic...

and failing!

[Chie]

Oh.

[Sput]

Sorry, I was trying to be ironic...

and failing!

You're right, cdd.

[timgraham]

Is that not an oxymoron?

Well look, in Murdoch's interview he said his biggest newspaper websites make, "a couple of million" each in advertising revenue.

If he can get just 10,000 people paying say, £15 per month to subscribe to TimesOnline, that's getting on for £2 million per year - plus the advertising revenue. This relatively small number of subscribers will spend more time browsing TimesOnline in order to get their money's worth, making the advertising opportunities just as lucrative as they are now, if not more so. The number of subscribers will only increase as consumers gradually move away from print newspapers to online.

This is just a guess of course, but I have to say, to my mind it really makes sense. Murdoch's been in the game since 1953 and I seriously doubt he and his team would make this kind of decision if they weren't almost certain it was going to be profitable.

I think it might cost a little bit more than £2 million plus advertising revenue to run a newspaper the size of the Times, without it being subsidized by its print operation. Which is not exactly a sustainable business plan.

A journalist by the name of Annabel Crabb said during a media conference here last week that “I think it is wonderful that your survival strategy depends on the robust genes of a 78 year old.”

Murdoch is certainly very clever but he doesn't give the impression that he 'gets' the internet. First he was keen on taking away the paid parts of the Wall Street Journal, now he's turned that on its head and plans to charge for all his properties. Or something.

[Gavin Scott]

This is just a guess of course, but I have to say, to my mind it really makes sense. Murdoch's been in the game since 1953 and I seriously doubt he and his team would make this kind of decision if they weren't almost certain it was going to be profitable.

Hmm. You said the same thing about ITVplc taking STV to court.

I can tell you, so little in the business world is about absolute certainty. Its *mostly* about taking an educated guess, and sometimes not so educated; or indeed taking a gamble.

This is nothing but a pure gamble from Murdoch, and its based on a poor understanding of how people use the net.

Its taken the music and movie industry a long time to realise that they're not going to succeed by being intransigent towards the consumers - and their expectations.

Sure, everything has a value and a worth - news is no different to music or movies.

But when the stable doors are already open for consumers to entertain and inform themselves for free, they won't be persuaded the other way by some septuagenarian who considers the journalistic quality of his organs to be worth a premium.

Murdoch, if he wants people to consume his product, is going to have to find a way that suits consumers whilst bringing him an income. There will be a way to do it, and that's the struggle all publishers will be having.

You can't put the internet genie back in the bottle. A younger man might realise this - but he doesn't.

Bear in mind he'll be surrounded by men who wouldn't dream of saying, "you're wrong, boss".

If indeed he pursues this tactic, I imagine there will be millions fewer eyeballs viewing his product... and then its just a matter of time before its game over for him.

That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

[Inspector Sands]

If you can afford to pay 90p every day for a newspaper then you can afford to pay for a £27 p/m subscription to a news website instead. No?

I don't know why some people find this so surprising. If, as has been predicted for a few years now, newspaper sales keep dwindling away because people are getting their news from the internet instead, then of course we're going to have to start paying for it. You're only transfering your spend away from one format to another - I don't see what the big deal is? Why does it pain a lot of people so much to think they might actually have to *pay* for a service they use on the internet?

The problem with that is that fewer and fewer people are buying newspapers. There is a whole generation of people who aren't in the habit of paying a 90p for a newspaper every day. The idea of paying for internet content is just as alien to them.

For those who buy papers they buy it because it's in that format, a paper is tangible, you can carry it around, read it on the bus, do the crossword etc. It feels worth the 90p. You just don't get that sort of percieved value when you're just getting access to a site. It's similar to buying a CD - £10 on a CD seems like better value than £10 of MP3s

Sure, if you want the basics then go to the BBC, but that's all you'll get. Murdoch isn't stupid, he knows you can't compete with free -- if the quality is the same. But if there's an alternative which is better (in their perception) than the free one, people will be willing to pay for it.

I'd hardly call BBC News Online 'basic' - it's one of the best news websites.

What Murdoch doesn't grasp is that those who use the internet for news don't just go to one site, they use news aggregators and search engines to browse several providers. If the site isn't free (or if he removes it from Google) this won't happen and potential new readers won't have any reason to subscribe as they don't know what it has to offer

Everyone could get their news from free newspapers like The Metro or London Lite if they wanted to, but they don't. The majority buy a paper.

Do you mean the majority of the population buy a paper? If so I don't think they do. Of course more people read a paper than buy it but even the majority of the population reading a paper daily seems a bit unlikely.