Comments on: Rupert Murdoch is wrong

By: Pay For News? No Thanks. I’ll Make My Own. | Another Advertising Wanker

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 04:36:43 +0000

[...] good chance you won’t be able to get to it in the near future). But there’s been plenty of smart folk doubting the viability of the move to a paid format and I agree with most of them. So [...]

By: Andy Hayes

Andy Hayes — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 01:14:35 +0000

Perhaps the agencies who prove to offer superior jouranalistic content could prompt such claims? As of now there isn’t anybody who seems to be in such a position.

But do agree – there is a tipping point rapidly approaching. If all the mainstream, authoritative publications lose their revenue models to crowdsourced/non-authoritative venues, we’ll definitely have a different problem on our hands.

So.. the question is… how will the scenario play out. Everyone shuts the doors and we pay for the content we want? Or the doors stay open and the players figure out the new revenue model?

I’m not making predictions but guarantee it will be a good show.

By: Jon

Jon — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:58:08 +0000

This article sums it up quite nicely, http://www.inquisitr.com/21237/murdoch-targets-google-over-google-news-lawsuit-to-follow/ especially the last para “The stupidity though, as always, is that this conspiracy about Google and others stealing from the likes of News Corp is absurd when all it takes it one line in a robots.txt file to take that content out of Google and the rest within hours, if that’s what News Corp. really wanted.”

what makes it more laughable is this is from the owner of the Sun, that bastion of taste and moral fibre in the UK – quality? I think not

By: Royce Michael Lee

Royce Michael Lee — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:37:24 +0000

I saw an interesting talk a few weeks back by Mark Scott, CEO of the ABC, and former editor-in-chief of the SMH. He was discussing the problems facing most newspapers: papers derive 40% of their revenues from advertising, 40% from classifieds, and only 20% from purchasers/subscribers. That means we pay $2 an issue for something that costs roughly $10 to make. Because the internet does classifieds (think eBay, Craigslist) and advertising (think Domain, MyCareer etc) heaps better than print, there’s clearly going to be a massive shortfall.

Because most of us won’t pay $10 per issue for the paper, the newspapers will either have to slash costs (and journalistic content), or as Hannah suggests explore new revenue streams and business plans. It’s a difficult problem and I’d imagine no simple answers, but it will definitely be interesting to watch the different approaches that get used.

By: Hannah

Hannah — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:10:14 +0000

By the way, whether or not Murdoch is even going to be delivering that, time will tell as well!

By: Hannah

Hannah — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:08:44 +0000

I don’t want journalism to die – we need people in this profession to report the news to us, people who devote their lives and mental abilities in Journalism.
I think that the system of delivering content will need to change (and also the business plans). I have nothing against this move if it means charging for good and worthwhile content from good and worthwhile professionals who chose to make a living out of delivering this content to us.
My instinct is saying that Murdoch will be making sure that News Corp will still exist in this era – now whether or not this move will ensure that, only time will tell.