Murdoch vows to charge for all online content
 

He seriously thinks this is a sound buisness model? :o

Good luck with that Rupert.

I actually don't blame him. Realistically, if only a tiny fraction of the people who currently visit his sites (foxnew.com being one of them) subscribe, that's still way more revenue than ad dollars alone. If it doesn't work, then it's just lesson learned.

This is probably the cheapest marketing test he could have thought of.

Pay for what you now get for free?

I don't think so ... I've been surfing the web since 1998 and I have seen many web pages go from charging for all kinds of things (mostly downloads) to being free.

People will go else where ...

Hey! How about a national internet card that everyone has to sign up for and then they could just take it right out of your bank account in case you owe them something?

Naugh no one would go for that ... :salute:

Well if you have a bunch of muppets that are willing to pay for Fox news or the Tmes then fair play to murdoch

But hold on , isnt he the bugger that every time the banks try to call his debts says FU I owe too much.

Isn't it ironic that when the banks are screwed some people repeat the propoganda of the fella that left you holding part of the bill.

Whilst this is a great thiong for a specialist publication to do (Financial Times, New Scientist, Nat. Geo., etc.), I doubt it will work with more generic journalism.

How is it a great thing?
The whole idea with Murdock is that all the real competition becomes himself.

Howard Stern was a big name on radio when listening to him was free. Ever since he went to paid satellite radio he's pretty much become Howard Who? People aren't gonna pay for what they can get free elsewhere, especially at this late date. That train has left the station.

Actually, he was always Howard Who? to me. :D

Have at it! Anything to drive viewers away from your extremely biased network. GTFO of here! Nobody wants to pay for your crap!

He'll come crawling back in 6 months!:D

Well, good. (not specifically Murdoch stuff, but the idea in general)

I'd like to pay more to keep newspapers in business. Like The Observer, which could be closing soon.

The New York Times tried this. I'm not sure if it worked but I haven't been back there for quite some time......years and years even.

Bad idea.

Newspapers are perishing because they failed to adapt. More and more people are getting news from the net.

And with 150 dollar "smartbooks" soon to come out there will be more people using them to catch the news in the morning rather than a big bulky paper.

:har::har::har:

There is no way enough people will pay for general news. Specialist reporting I can understand but for daily headline stuff not a chance.

That old fool can go the way of the Dodo.

He had his day. Let HIM become yesterdays news. :haha:

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Think about it ... there are literally gigs upon gigs of free porn available online, but people still pay to subscribe (just one example, but was the most obvious...).

Fox News regulars are some of the most loyal viewers there are. I won't be shocked when a major percentage (10%) of them decide to access the online content for a small fee.

And that's just one network.

Ultimately, my prediction is that the networks will partner up and offer subscriptions to ALL of their content in a sort of monthly package deal. This will probably be a few years down the road but it is a far better business model than online ad revenue alone.