Rupert Murdoch's plans for charging for news content

You see how quickly the wheels will start to fall off once his son keeps up this crap:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10594168

Freedom of the press? WTF?

To translate what he's saying: Our family has unsuccessfully operated in the UK market and it's hindering our ability to print money so we want everyone else to change.

Every new development in this plan of theirs is a huge flashing light for anyone in the online news business to ramp up their efforts and take a few more chunks out of the News Corp pie.

file under throwback with no vision throwing his toys out of the cot

I for one will enjoy watching his empire fall apart

Most chilling about that? The Conservatives feel like they have to agree with Murdoch because they want positive political coverage from his media outlets in the run up to the election. Unbelievable

sad that, but one only has to cast ones eyes at the US to see how that plays out in the media

not well for truth lovers

*shudders*

quite agree.

craven bastards

wait a while and he won't be a power to reckon with but maybe they want him to be

I already made my view on this clear in one of the lounge threads. Talk about throwing your toys though.

Google is quickly becoming one of the most powerful companies in the world by providing 'free content' yet they can't find a way to make a buck of their crappy news? Please...

Also lolz at blaming the BBC for giving away free news.

This is the corporate equivalent of a three year olds temper tantrum.

Exactly. I really think they fail to see that news 'consumption' has changed rapidly in recent years.

Being online with it fast is a major key to success - often moreso even than being completely accurate with details (you can always edit them later unlike print) - so news is being written differently to serve this and cater for absence of initial details knowing full well they can just add more later.

Speed is the essence and exactly why the people who want to move charge for their content will get stung in one key way: whenever something is really newsworthy every news agency will be on it so putting the 'pay' hurdle in front of people will only force more of them to chose the next free alternative. The more newsworthy the more universally available the story becomes elsewhere..

The only paid news subscription system I can see working is for longer, detailed pieces or exclusive profiles/interviews with key people. (NBR aim to do this I imagine)

the herald used to have a paid content online portal you may remember but dropped it some years ago

Speed is key.

I was watching something recently abouw how Google did some research and found people were far more likely to use their search engine or google maps if it was even just a few seconds faster at serving up the data.

hmmm where did I see that...might have been TED...

Problem with google is that they're now just taking stuff from people with or without permission and giving it away for the good of people. I mean, I'm all for more content and the like, I take few films here, buy a few there. But they took like, every damn book ever and are putting them up there for free. It's fucked up.

The only thing I swear by buying. Poor authors.

Some media see it like that because google aggregators can package the news off the original site... but they can only do that if they allow it. They could simply make it difficult to do.

The other side of the coin is that most of them owe their success in part or more to google's search listings and the way it indexes certain high volume sites almost by the minute. If they didn't and said OK, we're not going to index your website or show it in the search listings I struggle to fathom how that site could get new viewers to replace ones who move on through better alternative or plain 'customer' churn.

The day will come when people will say that Google has quite enough power thanks but it isn't just yet. Many of these news outlets simply dropped the ball in getting their online operations up to speed and keeping them there. They have only themselves to blame but some prefer to skew the issue and make it look like the naturally growing/morphing trend of media consumption - which simply cannot be controlled by force - is somehow not giving them the respect they think they're owed for their previous clout over the news world.

Well... stiff bikkies.

but it must affect the quality of journalism if there is no money to be made from news. no?

In theory, yes. But there is no direct link between, for example, having 10% more revenue and the quality of reporting being 10% better as Murdoch etc are trying to argue.

Also - their issue with revenue isn't a quality of journalism one. It's a they got left behind or didn't implement as good a website as others and hence have lost out in revenue there. In some cases it is as simple as changing your website and revenue starts to climb.. but only a few people really grasp and can truly pursue the factors which make the difference. And the top of that list is definitely not quality of writing.

Well, one of the arguments against tax payer funded new outlets such as the BBC and the ABC is that this leads to opportunities for political interference with those organisations.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Fear-for-the-free-press-pd20090901-VFTR6?OpenDocument&src=kgb

I’m slightly hesitant in participating in this topic, only because I’m so close to the subject matter that I may end up spewing on about it infinitely.

I think what’s important to keep in mind is that while a lot of the focus in the media on the debate revolves around the whole notion of “paying for what used to be free content” – the issues are actually far more complex.

For one, the economics of producing news is usually grossly underestimated by the general public, and is far from being suitably compensated for in terms of online advertising expenditure. If you looked at the total advertising expenditure that the internet generates every year, you’ll find that the numbers are a pale shadow in comparison to those of what print advertising ‘used’ to bring in (and yes, such revenue will include those generated by Google, social networking sites, In-game advertising etc etc).

Online is a very different landscape from that of print or broadcast media, where the control of ad real estate was retained within the realm of content producers. In traditional media, content creators necessarily retained control of both content as well as the distribution. That was where the value was – they controlled the path between a business looking to communicate and an audience willing to listen.

To argue that news publishers should have saw it coming and adapted, is saying that content creators should’ve figured out a way to control the internet?

To argue that they should’ve adapted their advertising models (which they have), is really not recognising that in fact, the internet provides and unlimited supply of advertising real estate that has driven margins down to the point where aggregation sites (like Google) – make money from not having to cover the cost of content creation, but only aggregation (which is minimal in comparison)

Yet, these are all only small parts of the bigger debate.


As a side note and if you’re interested, I’d really suggest keeping on eye on developments by the likes of the Associated Press (and other news syndicates), who’re planning to implement a new generation of DRM system on all of their content in the near future. This will essentially give them the ability to, for eg, lock out their content from appearing on blogs, or any sites which aren’t AP members.

Also, note that the Newspaper Assoc of America is currently in front of Congress, seeking some form ‘legal holiday’ to reorganise their industry and also, as an extension, allow them to act as a bloc when dealing with the likes of Google.

Lastly, Google is currently subject to scrutiny from the US Justice Dept over some anti-trust allegations – and in recent months Google have taken it upon themselves to embark on a PR campaign to portray themselves as very ‘small’ and inconsequential players on the internet.

I should probably also say that I’m not specifically in favour or against any of the points that I’ve raised, and that I’ve only raised them as factors to consider.

But not by many who've seen, year after year, the culling of staff for no reason other than pressure from the board - while advertising spend was actually still on the rise. Moreso, the nature of internet advertising is generally based on a pay per productivity notion (such as pay per click) which quickly finds the true value of advertising in a given market, geographical etc - completely showing the old newspaper advertising rate system for the utter rort it was in many cases.

So the ad revenue hasn't actually been chopped to hell by online, it's just been outed for being inappropriately expensive without the level of direct accountability (ROI) that most online can offer. (sure, if you average it out across all advertisers you can make the case it is effective, but for half or more advertisers it is not. The reason they do it is as much about being sold into it by commission steered ad-agencies as it is about value for money). Online is just showing print ads up in many cases as being hard to justify.


No, it's saying that when the time came to go online, they didn't do it as well as they could have - turning themselves from industry leaders in print to another me too in digital.

Likewise, the world changes - anyone who tries to keep it the same as it used to be for such obvious self-interest reasons like maintaining revenue is fighting a battle they can never win. The music and movie know this all too well and are slowly coming around.

On the content creation issue I'm with you though. Surely there is no reason why the likes of News Corp can't just say no to having any of their content aggregated or syndicated... They themselves already use a significant amount of content from other sources anyway so they aren't in control of a hell of a lot which can't be sourced, within minutes if not seconds, on many other websites.

The amount of news created daily is simply astounding - but the amount of (basically) replicated news items makes up a large chunk of this. And it increases every day. News Corp is looking at the daily flow of information as if they are a dam which can manage the flow. Only they don't seem to realise fully that every time they plug a small hold somewhere to manage the flow according to their plan another hole leaks at twice the rate. The business model is too different now. They can be writers of news or news 'skin' websites, but to control the actual flow of news as they once did is a dying game imo and a key reason why I think a subscription model wont work as they hope/ They may make a bit more money, but they wont really improve the speed or quality of their news.

Moreso, I also think the way people consume news is increasingly become varied and from numerous sources - moreso than ever. You only have to look at the Herald to see that speed is often a priority over completeness - sometimes even accuracy. As I said above - beating the others (even with syndicated content) is the goal. Within reason you can clean up the accuracy later as more confirmed details come to light.

(This possibly doesn't apply to speciality media in many cases - I'm talking about general news)

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say with this. I’m not disagreeing about the merits of the online media channel (although I would contest many of the claims in another forum, as this isn’t the one for it). My point is simply that the revenue that is currently being generated by online advertising is far from enough to cover the daily news operations of any major mainstream media business.

In reality, most ‘news websites’ today are being subsidised by their print counterparts. The reason why some of them seem profitable is because the expenditure incurred in running and maintaining newsroom operations are often, still captured within the P&Ls of the print business rather than it being attributed to the digital side of the business.

But this isn’t sustainable. Most projections I’ve seen so far argue that online advertising will struggle to fill the void of advertising dollars before newspaper advertising reaches ‘0’. Don’t forget that in the world of television and print, revenues are more usually reinvested into the content pipeline (be it creation or distribution). This is different when it comes to online, aggregation sites for example have no interest in reinvesting into content. Neither do ISPs etc.

Don’t forget also that this isn’t just an argument about newspapers vs internet. This is a debate about the news production industry as a whole, versus the internet. Currently, global news production is mostly funded by print and television revenues – the contribution of online to this pie is glaringly tiny… and it will continue to be as players within the internet continue to argue that their game is distribution, not creation.



The original sin of news publishers was that they gave their content to the internet for free. (quoting someone else here). To be perfectly honest, the news publishing industry as a whole are looking at renegotiating the terms of trade to which search engines and aggregation networks utilise their content. The AP’s move, for eg, is a step in this direction.



What you say here is true. A lot of people don’t realise that anywhere between 50-80% of the content you find in your local publications, or your TV networks, are syndicated from larger news outlets such as the AP, Reuters or the NZPA (in New Zealand). The remaining 20-50% (depending) is content that is exclusive to the host publisher.

However, don’t forget that major news syndicates are also funded by media organisations. It’s a question of economics. It’s simply impossible for every paper or TV Network to have their own news bureaus in every country around the world. It makes much more sense to group up and fund industry NPOs to provide mass newswires for ‘raw news’, which each publisher then edits for their local audience.

You might argue that aggregation sites are the new ‘news publishers’ in this sense. But again, with the exception of a few aggregation sites, most do not actually pay for content (because they link headlines, they don’t republish) – nor do they create it themselves. Yet, a high proportion of ad spend is being captured on such sites at the expense of the host publisher (say for eg. the AP doesn’t get paid for its content appearing on Fark or Digg). So the reinvestment cycle suffers in this respect.

Furthermore, where the argument used to be that aggregation sites drove traffic to a site that would otherwise not be there, it is now more a case of aggregation sites costing the host publisher traffic as they continue to edit, summarise and re-post content from news publishers (rather than headlines), hence removing any need for their audience to exit their environment.

Search engines are similar, in this respect. So often I hear people say “but if it wasn’t for search engines, websites will have no traffic”. They say it as if such traffic is free… it isn’t. Major sites, whether news or otherwise, spend a lot of money in SEO and SEM. In a world where organic search rankings are reaching parity between the major sites – the differentiating factor is which site is willing to pay the search engine more? CNN or BBC? NYTimes or Guardian? Arguably, the amount of money spent in search each year by publishers alone can negate the revenue they get in return as part of any ad sharing agreements.


As a final point, why is it that when a major news publisher says it’s going to start charging for content, most people assume that the publisher is just going to charge for content that is currently there? These businesses turnover billions in revenue every year, you can be sure that at some point, they have considered what a customer will or will not pay for. To simply assume that all they’re going to do is just put a price tag on its current offerings while expecting people to cave in and pay, is perhaps just underestimating them a little.

You can be sure that if Murdoch or anyone else thinks they’ve come upon a winning business model, to create/distribute content in a specific pay that warrants paid value, they are NOT going to be telling the rest of the world before they do it. Press releases and media statements can sometimes just be more industry manoeuvring, designed to provoke response while being scarce on details.

See, I don't think it is. That's what some media companies think it is. It is actually: how news media want people to consume news versus how people's ways of consuming news has and is quickly changing.


You know that aside from SEO costs there is no way to pay for a top ranking in natural search listings? It is a meritocracy by specific keywords. This right here is a factor news orgs have failed to manage well - they could be much better at capitalising on the signalled intent in the keywords entered (through relevant marketing. This is where the waste of print gets shown up as I mentioned in my above post). Moreso, I can't think of a practical way where current news would be marketed via PPC-type campaigns. People just don't search like that. (I guess this is a problem for media orgs too)


Why can't this be fixed by splitting search listings into normal listings and new listings? It has sort of already. Google something current and see the "News Results for...". Why not expand that idea.


I agree. But also know that Murdock is known for his broad strokes business vision but also for his lack of knowledge on the Internet. He may have tons of advisers but it may be that he said, I want this to happen - make it so. He's had some monumental stumbles in his businesses before despite his success. Maybe he's thinking his huge clout will just have people accepting his idea as good.

I don’t know how you, or myself, can be convinced on who’s right. Sure, there are some media companies who may think as you suggest. But I’m fairly certain that some media agencies realise that the media consumption landscape has changed and are actively focusing their resources into getting their content to their audience as effectively and quickly as possible.

There will always be stragglers - but I'd disagree with the statement that the news media industry has failed to comprehend online dynamics as whole (note that this is different from saying that they didn't see it coming..)




SEO isn’t cheap, especially for a site with dynamic content where the homepage changes every 5 minutes, and the site IA may sometimes need to be flexible in order to cope with shifting categorisations of news and entertainment content.

Natural search listings are important, we all know that. But don’t underestimate the impact of paid listings, when used correctly as well. It wouldn’t be same way as say, marketing an online retail site via PPC as it would be with a current news site, you’re right with that. But, again, if you understand the dynamics of online consumption, user behaviour and of course, the subtleties of search characteristics, you can really leverage the use of PPC for a current news site.

In any case, there is also another side of the argument for a search audience to news sites. They may represent a high source of traffic, but they’re also often the biggest portion of ‘churned’ audience. A news site’s core audience is probably within a 20-40% range of its total visitors.. everyone else are 1-hit wonders. They come for a specific story and they leave. Search marketing doesn’t build brand loyalty – in fact, search intent is often preceded by brand knowledge. The problem with this high churn audience then is what value they represent to the site and as a consequence, the advertiser.

As advertisers move on from simple audience reach metrics to that of engagement metrics, the pressure for news sites to focus on their core rather than the ‘fly bys’ will increase. As a result, the need for search driven traffic may reduce, while media sites build strategies to retain and increase their core audience. Retention of any core audience necessarily means introducing reasons for them to stay, for them to be loyal and for them to utilise the site’s content… as an extension, it becomes but one possible avenue to explore in terms of a paid model.

But I digress.

TLDR: I’d agree with you that SEO/SEM may not necessarily be understood by many media companies. However, I think that’s more a generalisation and I would be surprised if at least the larger players didn’t actively manage their search strategies, both internally and externally.



Why can't this be fixed by splitting search listings into normal listings and new listings? It has sort of already. Google something current and see the "News Results for...". Why not expand that idea.

Do you mean “NEW” listings or “NEWS” listings?

I assume it’s the latter, in which case that’s actually what I was relating to as well – although I think you may be coming from a different angle?

Google News works on a very different model to normal search. It requires a partnership between Google and the host publisher. I won’t go into the commercial details – but suffice to say, as Google start to display more ads via their content network (which expands to their RSS reader and who knows, maybe the News platform itself in future), there is a real need for publisher to consider if the previous aggregation model they had with Google will still work in the near future. That is, essentially, what the industry blocs in the US are saying – and is what Murdoch touched on also.

I’m going to steal an example here used in submissions to the US Justice Dept - if you Google any ‘current event’, music video or trailer – note that the Google News links or YouTube links will always appear before the host publisher, or content creator, for no apparent reason other than that it’s a Google based link.

2 points from this example:

When aggregation sites start to appear on top of the host publisher for 1 link/article/content piece – the value in the supply chain shifts from that of the publisher, to the aggregation network.

However, this only happens with Google based links. Should, for example, Google choose to exercise its influence of rankings more liberally (can I state for the record that I’m not insinuating it will, just that the possibility exists), I don’t think any publisher will have any clout whatsoever to oppose such a move, which is exactly what the news media industry is trying to prevent now.

How is so the so called 'free content' we get online any different to the 'free content' content we get from 'free to air' television.

Doesn't the 6 o'clock news simply aggregate much of their news from other news services? What do they pay for this if anything?

There must have been a similar adjustment in the industry when every Tom Dick and Harry got a television dumped in their lounge.

In the end they found way to make money from it, a lot of money it seems.

I'm sure people will find ways to make money from the internet too eventually, its just a lot of hoopla if you ask me.

This might throw cold water on all those in the “you can’t charge for news because there’s always Google” camp

http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/09/google-developing-a-micropayment-platform-and-pitching-newspapers-open-need-not-mean-free/#more-8304

Here’s an excerpt from its Vision Statement:



Perhaps one of the most important points from a strategic perspective is this:

We’re Google. We know that people will pay for certain kinds of content. But we don’t create content, so lets wait until these publishers get their game up while we amass a large audience using their own ‘free’ content. When they come around to seriously talking about raising pay walls, lets go in a provide a simple, easy to use and scalable payment system; Google Checkout via Google News. Let’s make money out of the transactions.

In Melbourne here there is a free news paper that gets distributed around the train stations for people to read on the way home called MX.

Its pretty low quality and to be honest it boarders on a trashy tabloid at times but its only intended to be some mindless reading for people to relax with on the way home.

Anyway I much prefer The Age which is your standard paid for news paper like The Press. I definitley appreciate the more professional level of reporting you get from this paid publication.

And I would pay for it except I never have to because the dam things are everywhere. lol...like they are just lieing all over the trains and work and in cafes....I've read it hudreds of times and never paid a thing, the businesses do I assume but not me personally.

I guess what matters is not who's paying but who's reading.

I wouldn't rush into that... Google know that a publication charging say $100/year and having 1000 subscribers would immediately allow Google to do this with their content because the audience and search reach will no doubt be greater.. Sure they'll recoup less per view in subscriptions

Worst thing is it'll make paid-up subscribers wonder what they paid their money for when they can get bundles packages of ten or more publication via Google for the same amount - if not less.

Basically again putting the money channels through Google's system - leaving them with ultimate control.

Smart move from Google. What would you rather pay for? A subscription to a single news-site or a bundle which you can pick and chose from?

If Murdy wants to charge for it why not? Go for it. I personally wouldnt subscribe to foxnews.com even though Im a right winger and avid lefty despiser. Im sure many would though. The Economist charges to view the majority of its content online but I subscribe to their magazine anyway. I like reading it in bed and folding it so I can hold it in one hand and drink Laphroig with the other.

Mind you he's left it a tad late to be making a stand now..still old grandma she aint what she used to be.

I do firmly believe he has a point philosophically. Its all well and good for Google to say "well they can make money by adjusting their business model to one just like ours" while the whole time they plagiarize terrabites of data every second to complete the offer of their business model.
Ruperts argument is in line with the argument of those who finance entertainment at great risk, time and cost. If everyone takes it for free, it will degrade then cease altogether if you run the argument to its natural conclusion. Not that I believe complete cessation of News and Enetertainment would actually happen in reality but it could certainly become very shitty.

"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore.