Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ChezGiven

21st Century Business model

Recommended Posts

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/may/0...arging-websites

 

Rupert ­Murdoch expects to start charging for access to News Corporation's newspaper websites within a year as he strives to fix a ­"malfunctioning" business model.

 

Encouraged by booming online subscription revenues at the Wall Street Journal, the billionaire media mogul last night said that papers were going through an "epochal" debate over whether to charge. "That it is possible to charge for content on the web is obvious from the Wall Street Journal's experience," he said.

 

Asked whether he envisaged fees at his British papers such as the Times, the Sunday Times, the Sun and the News of the World, he replied: "We're absolutely looking at that." Taking questions on a conference call with reporters and analysts, he said that moves could begin "within the next 12 months‚" adding: "The current days of the internet will soon be over."

 

Plunging earnings from newspapers led the way downwards as News Corporation's quarterly operating profits slumped by 47% to $755m, although exceptional gains on sale of assets boosted bottom-line pretax profits to $1.7bn, in line with last year's figure.

 

Dwindling advertising revenue across print and television divisions depressed the News Corp numbers despite box office receipts from Twentieth Century Fox movies such as Slumdog Millionaire and Marley and Me. But Murdoch said he believed signs of hope were appearing.

 

"I'm not an economist and we all know economists were created to make weather forecasters look good," he quipped. "But it is increasingly clear the worst is over."

 

He continued: "There are encouraging signs in some of our businesses that the days of precipitous declines are done, and things are beginning to look healthier."

 

News Corp's newspaper division barely broke even, with quarterly profits collapsing from $216m to $7m year-on-year. Advertising revenue in Britain fell by 21% and Murdoch revealed the Sunday Times is struggling: "It's still in profit, but only just so." The tabloids had fared better, aided by price battles at supermarkets which spend heavily on print promotions.

 

Television profits also shrank dramatically, falling from $419m to $4m due to a loss of Superbowl revenue and weaker advertising at the group's Fox channels in the US and its Star network in Asia.

 

News Corp has cut 3,000 jobs over the last year, although Murdoch said very few affected journalists or "creative" personnel. Its filmed entertainment division enjoyed an 8% rise in profits to $282m, while Fox News Channel in the US helped push profits from cable subscription networks up by 30% to $429m.

 

But News Corp revealed that its interactive media division, which includes the social networking site MySpace, had turned in a lower contribution. MySpace's management was recently replaced as News Corp struggles to build sustainable profitability but Murdoch dismissed competition from its larger rival, Facebook.

 

"We're not going for the Facebook model of getting hundreds and hundreds of million of people who don't bring any advertising with them at all," he said.

 

Meanwhile a threat to close the Boston Globe was averted today as its owner, the New York Times Company, struck a deal with the daily's largest union after a week of talks; the 137-year-old publication is the the 14th biggest-selling US paper.

 

I think i mentioned this in one of the more in depth threads on here but it is the next logical step for the media industry.

 

I think it will work too, people are now used to gaining access to the stories and features and in the event of major news stories, more and more people log on, rather than switch on 24 hour rolling news.

 

The time has come. Get yer wallets oot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm honest enough to admit that my aniti-BBC licence stance is tempered by how much I use their website (as opposed to their TV output).

 

I read something a while ago which suggested that the way forward might be via the ISPs who could offer either different packages akin to Sky TV ones which include access to all sites or various subsets, or they could charge by page access on a pay as you go basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a huge untapped well of 'willingness to pay'.

 

Its also a signal for the higher quality writers to work for the higher payers, as some of the additional revenues will be used to attract in the talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex
Pay for access to the Sun website?

 

Is he having a laugh?

Might not be that though. Could be a case of The Sun is free and has more adverts than nufc.com and you pay for access to The Times / Sunday Times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only 11% have said 'yes' to the poll asking whether they would pay to read a newspaper online.

 

Of course, that ignores the fact that people dont know what they are prepared to pay for before they have to pay for it.

 

I once paid 20 notes for an hours internet access at an airport. A fucking hour!

Edited by ChezGiven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read something a while ago which suggested that the way forward might be via the ISPs who could offer either different packages akin to Sky TV ones which include access to all sites or various subsets, or they could charge by page access on a pay as you go basis.

 

I might go for that as long as the service providers merge with the content providers.

 

Can you imagine paying your monthly subscription to Sky.....and then having to pay again to subscribe to individual shows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read something a while ago which suggested that the way forward might be via the ISPs who could offer either different packages akin to Sky TV ones which include access to all sites or various subsets, or they could charge by page access on a pay as you go basis.

 

I might go for that as long as the service providers merge with the content providers.

 

Can you imagine paying your monthly subscription to Sky.....and then having to pay again to subscribe to individual shows?

 

ISPs merging with content providers? I think you're onto something there.

 

The Sky analogy is interesting though, since they provide the broadcast / recpetion service and some of the content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read something a while ago which suggested that the way forward might be via the ISPs who could offer either different packages akin to Sky TV ones which include access to all sites or various subsets, or they could charge by page access on a pay as you go basis.

 

I might go for that as long as the service providers merge with the content providers.

 

Can you imagine paying your monthly subscription to Sky.....and then having to pay again to subscribe to individual shows?

 

ISPs merging with content providers? I think you're onto something there.

 

The Sky analogy is interesting though, since they provide the broadcast / recpetion service and some of the content.

 

Don't they buy in 99% of their shows from production companies to air on their channels....which they can sell to other providers (Virgin).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read something a while ago which suggested that the way forward might be via the ISPs who could offer either different packages akin to Sky TV ones which include access to all sites or various subsets, or they could charge by page access on a pay as you go basis.

 

I might go for that as long as the service providers merge with the content providers.

 

Can you imagine paying your monthly subscription to Sky.....and then having to pay again to subscribe to individual shows?

 

ISPs merging with content providers? I think you're onto something there.

 

The Sky analogy is interesting though, since they provide the broadcast / recpetion service and some of the content.

 

Don't they buy in 99% of their shows from production companies to air on their channels....which they can sell to other providers (Virgin).

I was thinking more about the football and the movies, which makes up most of their revenue and is their content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISPs merging with content providers? I think you're onto something there.

 

The Sky analogy is interesting though, since they provide the broadcast / recpetion service and some of the content.

 

I occasionally go to the virgin media site (to check problem status etc) and they seem to be pushing an almost old AOL type idea where people access everything via the ISP "portal".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always like it when somebody like Rupert Murdoch tells someone how to do things. It's like taking modelling advice from Cindy Crawford-

 

Step 1: Be extremely hot.

Step 2: Profit!

 

In Murdoch's case,

Step 1: Get a shit ton of money

Step 2: Profit!

 

The problem with this idea is all media outlets will have to adopt this policy or no one will pay- it'll just drive traffic to other sites.

 

I don't know how it is over there, but if these news outlets want me to start paying for content, they better start doing a helluva lot better job. I see more typos and grammatical mistakes in news articles (both in print and online) now that I ever have in the past. I realize they're probably like everyone else and they're trying to do more with less, but for fuck's sake...

Edited by Cid_MCDP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure that many people would sign up. It's not just the delivery medium of news that's moved on, but the content itself. Keeping yourself informed is a doddle, while discussion and debate are permanent occurances over the internet.

 

Comparing it to the WSJ is daft- I suspect their site also contains a lot of market information and company reports (as FT.com does).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure that many people would sign up. It's not just the delivery medium of news that's moved on, but the content itself. Keeping yourself informed is a doddle, while discussion and debate are permanent occurances over the internet.

 

Comparing it to the WSJ is daft- I suspect their site also contains a lot of market information and company reports (as FT.com does).

 

WSJ subscribers pay on their expenses anyway.

 

Still think the media industry has to get a return from its output. The issue is that if print media outlets cant, they will go out of business. Which means consolidation and mergers, which returns greater power to the remaining giants. Like Murdoch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure that many people would sign up. It's not just the delivery medium of news that's moved on, but the content itself. Keeping yourself informed is a doddle, while discussion and debate are permanent occurances over the internet.

 

Comparing it to the WSJ is daft- I suspect their site also contains a lot of market information and company reports (as FT.com does).

 

WSJ subscribers pay on their expenses anyway.

 

Still think the media industry has to get a return from its output. The issue is that if print media outlets cant, they will go out of business. Which means consolidation and mergers, which returns greater power to the remaining giants. Like Murdoch.

 

 

Come the News Revolution. salute-1.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't believe the majority will be happy carrying a laptop or whatever reading device they come up with onto the underground with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only 11% have said 'yes' to the poll asking whether they would pay to read a newspaper online.

 

Of course, that ignores the fact that people dont know what they are prepared to pay for before they have to pay for it.

 

I once paid 20 notes for an hours internet access at an airport. A fucking hour!

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who will pay for the SUn on line??

 

There is a lot of evidence that poeple will pay for specialised content for their job or hobbies or wnatever but never for news

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still don't believe the majority will be happy carrying a laptop or whatever reading device they come up with onto the underground with them.

 

If you access the internet on your iPhone on the way to work, I guess the idea is you would just now have to pay, rather than carry a specific device.

 

50p a week would revolutionise the market.

 

How long can the Guardian afford to make a loss of their online services? Indefinitely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
who will pay for the SUn on line??

 

There is a lot of evidence that poeple will pay for specialised content for their job or hobbies or wnatever but never for news

The trick is understanding what people 'will' do, not just what they do now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has this got anything to do with micropayment? There was an article in the Times on that last week which was interesting. I looked up a bit more about it on wiki and it doesn't look possible in practice. People would be overwhelmed by the amount of 'minidecisions' they'd have to make. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
who will pay for the SUn on line??

 

There is a lot of evidence that poeple will pay for specialised content for their job or hobbies or wnatever but never for news

The trick is understanding what people 'will' do, not just what they do now.

 

The trick is not allowing them to realise what they don't need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
who will pay for the SUn on line??

 

There is a lot of evidence that poeple will pay for specialised content for their job or hobbies or wnatever but never for news

The trick is understanding what people 'will' do, not just what they do now.

 

The trick is not allowing them to realise what they don't need.

 

Passive aggressive shopping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

Recent tweets

Toontastic Facebook

Donate to Toontastic

Keeping the lights on since... well ages ago
TT-Staff


×