Murdoch's web policy

[Inspector Sands]

Murdoch is certainly very clever but he doesn't give the impression that he 'gets' the internet.

Indeed, he seems to have this idea that a site like Google is 'stealing' his content when actually Google is to his websites what WH Smiths is to his newspapers.

I do wonder what his website backroom staff think of his plans, especially the 'leaving Google' idea. I know the journos aren't keen on the sudden loss of audience the paywall will bring but someone at News Corp can see how many hits are coming via Google

[cdd]

The points made by Sands, Timgraham et al. are all very valid: he will lose readers and lots of them.

But large readership is only one part of the business, profit is another (larger) part.

And people feel like they're getting value when they pay for something. If readership is less of an issue than collecting subscriptions, that might also lead to more trust in the paper itself. I don't agree with what Chie says about the BBC site being 'basic' and free being bad necessarily - but I do believe charging for a product makes it seem premium, and people might be enticed by that.

As long as Murdoch charges a reasonable price (a tenner a month, say - tenners all round!) - and serves the news in a compelling format - people will buy it. The homeless guy by the cash machine would even be able to afford it on one of his days. (OK, bad link...) Other pricing options could exist - one day access for people who buy a paper for example.

Think who this change will affect: his loyal readers of the (physical) versions will be undeterred: they'll go on buying their physical papers. That leaves the people who "freeload" the news off his site. All those peple contribute are advertising revenue, plus readership figures. I don't know how much he makes from site ad clickthroughs but it can hardly be the world's greatest fortune. So, monetarily, he has little to lose and everything to gain from this move.

For those who think he's too late, I'd say he's just at the right moment. He still has loyal readers - but that won't last. It's best to capitalise on that market while it still exists. I'd say the bigger problem is with younger generations who "don't care" where they get their news from.

I would definitely say that this applies more to his broadsheet than his tabloid 'produce', though.

As a sidenote: I for the last few years have enjoyed access to the Times Digital Archive, containing every newspaper from 1785 to 1985. It's great fun to search through and you can find out all sorts of old tidbits that are simply not available for free access on the Internet. You can see how 'old' inventions and ideas were reported when they first came into existence - the start of commercial air travel for example. When I leave University and no longer get free access, I will almost certainly subscribe because I find it a valuable resource.

[timgraham]

It would be clever if you could sign up to have the paper delivered on the weekend, and then get access to the website whenever you wanted it.

Even though it's there, I don't always look at the paper for news, but I'd much prefer hard-copy versions of the paper on a Saturday and Sunday just because it's nicer to read.

The opportunities for News Corp lie in the specialist content they produce. Our local tabloid the Herald Sun, for instance, probably has some of the best AFL coverage in the country - and I'm sure there would be a pretty large group of people willing to pay for that, alongside live coverage and various other online features.

Likewise News Limited's extensive collection of conservative columnists like Andrew Bolt and so on, whose blogs attract a huge following. Or politics coverage from the Australian, the Times, etc. I'm only really using local examples here but I think you get the picture.

It's when you block everything off that you'll drive people away.

[Chie]

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.

The current advertising revenue is around £2 million. That's not exactly a sustainable business plan either! I don't think the revenue can go any higher since internet advertising appears to have reached saturation point and there just isn't enough money to go round.

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.

Oh I know, I much prefer that approach to companies who obsessively carry out quantitative studies and spend weeks on end analysing the figures into meaninglessness in order to let the numbers decide what on earth they're supposed to do next with *their* business. I like a company or brand that simply takes a decision and sticks to it. It's great.

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.

It doesn't matter, though. The majority of internet users probably won't want to pay a subscription, and that's fine. But Murdoch only needs about 10 or 20 thousand subscribers (less than 0.1% of internet users) in order to make it worthwhile, and I really think that number of subscribers would be easily achievable.

You could say the same about any product really. Why buy a £39 hand cream from House of Fraser when you can buy one from Tesco for £2.50? But some people do buy the more expensive product out of choice.

Perhaps a more relevant analogy would be: why buy a Radio Times when you can look at Teletext or use the TV guide that comes free with your newspaper? Again, people do buy a Radio Times even though they can get the basic information they need for free elsewhere.

It's also worth remembering that a small minority of people use Ask Jeeves, even though *we* all know Google provides a superior service - but ask.com isn't complaining. You wouldn't think they'd get enough users to make a profit but they obviously do.

I hope I'm not clouding the discussion with these analogies They make sense to me, anyway.

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.

Oh Gavin, please tell me you don't really think his companies would disappear into thin air. He'd either reverse the decision and open the websites back up again or, failing all else, sell them.

[marksi]

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.

Everyone could not. That's a London-centric view. Most of the country doesn't have free newspapers. And "the majority" does not buy a newspaper.

[Chie]

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.

Everyone could not. That's a London-centric view. Most of the country doesn't have free newspapers. And "the majority" does not buy a newspaper.

Let's not get bogged down in semantics, shall we :roll:

The majority of people who read a newspaper actually buy one.

Are we all happy now??

Oh, what's the fucking use. :roll:

Edit: And by the way, The Metro is available at every major train station, on every bus, and in any shopping centre you care to mention all over the UK. If you want to read a proper newspaper but can't afford to buy one then you can pop into your local library, where you'll find a selection of the day's newspapers - everything from the Daily Star to the Financial Times - which you can read at your leisure absolutely free of charge.

:roll:

[Sput]

Of course if the Metro is your only source of news then you'll probably wind up a very stupid and uninformed person, WITH a london-centric view! Changing the subject somewhat, I don't get why murdoch wants his material off Google. I wouldn't normally go near the times or telegraph but google news is a great way of flagging up stories that I wouldn't otherwise see. I'd say google news is a fantastic cheerleader for your product, even if it has to flag everything with "Subscription required"

[Gavin Scott]

Oh Gavin, please tell me you don't really think his companies would disappear into thin air. He'd either reverse the decision and open the websites back up again or, failing all else, sell them.

I'm suggesting that if he attempts to swim against the tide of open information on the net, then he won't succeed. Given the crippled state of print news, and the massive overheads of retaining journalists, presses and offices, his decision could ultimately bring down the business. No companies (apart perhaps from the BBC as things stand) are protected against the basic principle of not bringing in enough money to cover their costs.

Applying the "spam ratio" - as in, he only needs 0.1% of the browsing audience to pay to make it work is flawed. A very small premium paying audience is not what he wants. That would marginalise his titles. That might be acceptable for the Times online - but the Sun is all about mass-market appeal. The Sun like to think that they are instrumental in the electing of Prime Ministers for heavens sake - and if he's only got 40,000 fee paying online readers then "the Sun says..." columns will lose whatever credibility they have.

I think a reasonable compromise would be, as has been mentioned, to allow google to gather the stories (headlines and opening paragraphs at least), and then flag them as subscription required. Then his material will be there for people to elect to pay extra for it, or not.

But his plan to deny google from displaying stories will leave him nowhere. How would an average internet user have the first clue about what was available though his online titles if they don't appear in searches?

He wants mass distribution and subscription.

I think he can have one or the other, not both. There are ways to monetise their websites without subscription, but his avarice is clouding his decision.

[Charlie Wells]

I think a reasonable compromise would be, as has been mentioned, to allow google to gather the stories (headlines and opening paragraphs at least), and then flag them as subscription required. Then his material will be there for people to elect to pay extra for it, or not.

But his plan to deny google from displaying stories will leave him nowhere. How would an average internet user have the first clue about what was available though his online titles if they don't appear in searches?

He wants mass distribution and subscription.

I think he can have one or the other, not both. There are ways to monetise their websites without subscription, but his avarice is clouding his decision.

Another option along these lines would be to keep the 'basic' news articles free and containing adverts, whilst offering a subscription/premium service which provided access to features (eg. interviews and in-depth articles). Blocking search engines from crawling their websites is rather ill-thought out, and if significantly fewer are viewing the websites then the less money advertisers (on the site) will be willing to pay.

[marksi]

Edit: And by the way, The Metro is available at every major train station, on every bus, and in any shopping centre you care to mention all over the UK.

No it isn't.

It is not available anywhere in Northern Ireland.

That makes you wrong, Chie.

[Gavin Scott]

Edit: And by the way, The Metro is available at every major train station, on every bus, and in any shopping centre you care to mention all over the UK.

No it isn't.

It is not available anywhere in Northern Ireland.

That makes you wrong, Chie.

You're not missing much. Its more a comic than anything else.

And I've stopped picking it up after they published a letter from someone saying, "Gay people make me sick to my stomach - deal with it".

I had been a correspondent to their letters page for several years (under several pen names), but wrote to tell them I wouldn't bother to pick up their rag in the morning any more. They wouldn't have printed such a letter had it been addressing any other minority group, but they obviously think gay readers are either fair game when it comes to such hate-speak - or worse, it was a cynical attempt to muster some letters of condemnation (which of course they received the following day).

As "news" papers go its a joke.