Murdoch vows to charge for all online content

[savafan]

Here we go...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7f6edc2c-8...44feabdc0.html

By Kenneth Li and Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson in New York

Published: August 6 2009 03:00 | Last updated: August 6 2009 03:00

Rupert Murdoch has vowed to charge for all the online content of his newspapers and television news channels, going well beyond his prediction in May that the company would test pay models on one of its stronger papers within the year.

The comments by News Corp's chairman came as he predicted a "high single digit" rebound in the group's operating profits next year. The worst of the media sector slump might be behind the company, he said, as he reported "some good signs of life" in advertising.

Newspaper and television revenues would be down "very low double digits" next year, but growth in cable properties such as Fox News would leave advertising revenues flat and total revenue up 4 per cent.

News Corp put the seal on a brutal fiscal year with a fourth- quarter net loss of $203m (£119m), dragged down by $680m in impairment and restructuring charges at Fox Interactive Media, whose MySpace social networking site cut more than 700 jobs in the period.

The latest writedown to boom-era acquisitions masked a 30 per cent fall in quarterly adjusted operating profit to $948m, in line with lowered projections, and adjusted earnings of 19 cents per share, narrowly ahead of Wall Street forecasts of 18 cents.

However, they resulted in a $3.4bn net loss for the full year, down from net income of $5.4bn a year earlier, reflecting $8.9bn in impairment charges.

The sweeping decision by the owner of titles including The News of the World and The Australian to abandon the practice of giving away news in exchange for attracting a large audience for advertisers could embolden other publishers warily examining paid content models.

"We intend to charge for all our news websites," Mr Murdoch said.

"If we're successful, we'll be followed by all media," he added, predicting "significant revenues" from charging for differentiated news online.

He warned that "the big competition will be coming from the BBC," which offers online news for free, but said: "Our policy is to win."

Mr Murdoch said News Corp was highly unlikely to develop its own electronic reader, but took aim at Amazon's Kindle device by praising the rival Sony Reader.

He insisted that News Corp would retain a direct relationship with its subscribers to its content via e-readers, information that Amazon has refused to hand over.

Chase Carey, who recently returned to News Corp as chief operating officer, said the online charging policy would extend to cable networks such as Fox News.

However, he criticised TV Everywhere, the cable industry strategy championed by Time Warner to offer shows online to paying subscribers, as a "defensive" response and said News Corp aimed instead to develop "offensive" models.

Declines in revenue and profit across television and newspaper assets offset strong gains from cable networks businesses in the quarter, in which News Corp's cash pile grew to $6.5bn.

[Unassisted]

This'll be like airline fares. If they don't ALL start charging as a cartel, it won't work.

[TRF]

Eventually they will. Here is what I see in the future. No one will care about whether a computer is a mac, PC or Linux box. Why should they? More everyday programs will go the way of opensource. Why should the end user have to use Word to read a document?

No the real money is and always has been information. People will pay for it if they have to, and sooner or later every information outlet will realize that if there is a demand for their info, they can make money off that, one way or the other. It might be direct sale, or via a new form of advertising. Who knows.

[durl]

I believe most media outlets will eventually charge for the bulk of their content. A web presence is no longer a novelty, but it's becoming the primary outlet for their information. That means it will have to generate revenue.

We've become spoiled by all the free online content but there's really no reason why we should expect that to continue.

[reds1869]

Eventually they will. Here is what I see in the future. No one will care about whether a computer is a mac, PC or Linux box. Why should they? More everyday programs will go the way of opensource. Why should the end user have to use Word to read a document?

No the real money is and always has been information. People will pay for it if they have to, and sooner or later every information outlet will realize that if there is a demand for their info, they can make money off that, one way or the other. It might be direct sale, or via a new form of advertising. Who knows.

I agree and so does Google.

[BCubb2003]

I can't wait to see his blackout rules. The difference is MLB has a monopoly.

[GIDP]

What a fail idea.

[Will M]

the wall street journal online is part free and part pay. this model has worked well for them and is likely the model Murdoch will use elsewhere. a lot of information is free online but it is just fun information - sports, movies, music, hobbies,etc. there is a monetray value to real journalism & real information regarding finances (investments, insurance, retirement, etc)

[WVRed]

Just means we have to pay to watch Family Guy episodes instead of going to Hulu.

[savafan]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Bus...o_Google_Users

5:29pm UK, Monday November 09, 2009

Adam Arnold, Sky News Online
News Corp chairman Rupert Murdoch has suggested the company's online newspaper pages will be invisible to Google users when it launches its new paid content strategy.

He claimed that readers who randomly reach a page via an internet search hold little value to advertisers.

When asked by Sky News Australia's political editor David Speers why News Corp has not stopped Google from finding its content, Mr Murdoch replied: "I think we will."

He cited the Wall Street Journal as an example of where only the first paragraph comes up on search engines and is free. Anything after that is subscription-based.

He is planning to make newspapers like The Times and Sunday Times chargeable online.

Using the robots.txt protocol on a site indicates to automated web spiders such as Google's not to index that particular page or to serve up links to it in users' search results.

As well as Google, he criticised other sites like Microsoft and Ask.com for also taking a free ride on its content - "the people who just simply pick up everything and run with it - steal our stories ... without payment", he claimed.

He said: "There's not enough advertising in the world to make all the websites profitable. We'd rather have fewer people coming to our websites but paying.

"There are no news websites or blog websites anywhere in the world making any serious money, some may be breaking even or making a couple of million."

Referring to people finding News Corp stories via search engine websites, he said: "When they click it, they get the page with the story that's in our paper.

"Who knows who they are or where they are. They don't suddenly become loyal readers of our content."

He then turned his attention to the BBC, saying it was a "scandal" that everyone with a TV was "compelled" to pay a licence fee.

He said although the BBC did not charge for its own online content, it was the taxpayer who was ultimately paying for it.

[Yachtzee]

I think the problem Murdoch will find, at least with the news, is that FOX hardly has a monopoly on the news. Therefore, if his websites are no longer accessible through a Google search, people will just find alternative sources for the news. The only way such a model is profitable, in my mind, is if the website is the exclusive channel for the content. For example, ESPN provides most of its content for free, but then requires Insider access to view certain portions of its web content, mainly articles by certain columnists and fantasy sports news that people might be willing to pay extra to access. The Wall Street Journal likewise has exclusive content created by its writers and editors that isn't available elsewhere. I'm sure if Murdoch wants to charge people to watch the O'Reilly Factor online some would pony up, but for run of the mill news, there are just too many options out there.

The other problem he has is that he assumes the purpose of all websites is to make money. I'd say that many, if not most, websites are intended to supplement other streams of business as a sort of online advertising in and of itself.

[BCubb2003]

He doesn't understand how this works, or maybe he's bluffing. You can read the Wall Street Journal's premium content by going through Google News. And the WSJ specifically allows this. He might be angling to get Google to pay for all of his company's content, like it does for MySpace and like Bing does for some things.

[Spring~Fields]

A lot of the stuff out there, they should pay us to read or view.

[flyer85]

if the content that is being produced is good and you can't get it elsewhere then people will be willing to pay for it. There is a lot of pay content out there, especially related to sports. If you are selling a good product then some people will likely be willing to pay for it.

The problem the MSM has is that they are producing almost the same stuff. The WSJ is unique.

[Sea Ray]

This'll be like airline fares. If they don't ALL start charging as a cartel, it won't work.

That's the thing. There's no way all of them can charge because not all sites will sell enough to make it worthwhile. Some will do better off getting lots of hits on its free site and making money off advertising. Us consumers aren't going to pay for very many sites. We might pay for one or two.