Murdoch vows to charge for all online content

Zachstar · 08-07-09, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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.

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.

TarJak · 08-07-09, 08:11 PM

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

FIREWALL · 08-07-09, 08:17 PM

That old fool can go the way of the Dodo.

He had his day. Let HIM become yesterdays news.

SUBMAN1 · 08-08-09, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

That old fool can go the way of the Dodo.

He had his day. Let HIM become yesterdays news.

People don't like paying for something they perceive to be free. I can only agree with your comment. I find it very likely that the Wall Street Journal will make the switch. Fox news though? Not a chance.

-S

Aramike · 08-08-09, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TarJak

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

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.

Platapus · 08-08-09, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

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...).

Only if they are really really dumb. Which may be a tie-in to Murdoch

XabbaRus · 08-09-09, 06:51 AM

Wll the FT is about the only paper I'll read now, or the Times, better than the Guardian or the Windependent....

I wish someone would but a bullet in Murdoch however.

08-07-09, 08:17 PM	#3
FIREWALL Eternal Patrol Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: CATALINA IS. SO . CAL USA Posts: 10,108 Downloads: 511 Uploads: 0	That old fool can go the way of the Dodo. He had his day. Let HIM become yesterdays news. __________________ RIP FIREWALL I Play GWX. Silent Hunter Who ???

08-09-09, 06:51 AM	#7
XabbaRus Navy Seal Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,330 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	Wll the FT is about the only paper I'll read now, or the Times, better than the Guardian or the Windependent.... I wish someone would but a bullet in Murdoch however. __________________

08-07-09, 08:11 PM	#2
TarJak Fleet Admiral Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 17,052 Downloads: 150 Uploads: 8	There is no way enough people will pay for general news. Specialist reporting I can understand but for daily headline stuff not a chance.