News Corp to Charge for All News Websites

[RainMaker]

Business Spectator - News - News Corp to charge for all news websites

Wondering what people think of this and whether it will work?

I personally think it's too late to the game. News is now too easy to come across and most news outlets don't really differentiate themselves from the others. There was a time when you had to read the paper because the writing and reporting was so much better, but that has changed dramatically as papers have cut back on reporters and budgets. Most news outlets simply run AP-esque stories with little more to offer.

The other problem is blogs and sites like Huffington Post. They link to the article but at the same time recap what it says. You don't need to read the hottest piece in the Wall Street Journal if some financial blog is going to recap it for you on his site and allow you to comment. The blog is thus earning the ad revenue for someone else's hard work. Interesting story on that here:

Ian Shapira -- How Gawker Ripped Off My Newspaper Story - washingtonpost.com

[SirFozzie]

Dying Business can't adjust to the new reality, wants special laws to protect it.

Are we talking about the RIAA or the Washington Post?

Oh, here's a fun bit, about the AP, and their licensing demands:

http://laboratorium.net/archive/2009...ords_it_doesnt

[molson]

I hope they can pull it off, because news is 'friggen important.

I think people are willing to pay for content. It makes them feel like they're getting something better. People pay for stuff on ESPN and the WSJ that they could probably find on the internet, but there's a convenience factor.

[RainMaker]

I hope they pull it off too. I do think the way ESPN is setup is a great model to copy. They give you the basic news and info for free. But they have a lot of great content in the premium section. I'm a premium subscriber because I love reading the in-depth breakdowns and the rumors page. It would be interesting to see if a news site could leave most of their basic news out for free but offer up editorials and special pieces in the premium section.

The one thing that people don't mention about newspapers is that their fall isn't necessarily because people aren't going to them for news. They still do read them a lot online. The problem is that they lost a huge advertising vehicle to Craigslist. Online classifieds were a huge revenue stream for them that has essentially disappeared. I really believe that they should have been the ones to buy out Craigslist early on.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Online classifieds were a huge revenue stream for them that has essentially disappeared. I really believe that they should have been the ones to buy out Craigslist early on.

Actually, the shift to online from print in the first place is what killed them on that deal.

The decline in revenue from classifieds began there & there was only a relatively short period where they were enjoying a double dip from upcharging the online ads as part of a print placement. Then it was a free add-on again, and then options emerged at least in larger markets well before Craig's List had any real penetration (such as specialized auto classified sites and job sites) the decline really started hitting them then.

edit to add: All this move will accomplish is rendering the News Corp sites as largely irrelevant as the majority of users will find replacements. And when they do, so will the existing advertisers.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Dying Business can't adjust to the new reality, wants special laws to protect it.

Are we talking about the RIAA or the Washington Post?

Oh, here's a fun bit, about the AP, and their licensing demands:

The Laboratorium: The AP Will Sell You a "License" to Words It Doesn't Own

Well, they are dying in part because others are giving away their product for free. There is a legitimate beef there.

Do you believe at all in people owning their own work and being able to charge what they want for it?

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Everyone always says they don't need to pay for a newspaper because they can get their news from blogs, etc. But, most of those do rely heavily on the original, professional work of others - they do very little original information gathering. But, by operating the way they do, many of them are threatening to put their free sources of information out of business.

[RomaGoth]

I will probably never pay for a new site and news content online. I don't pay enough attention to everyday news in the first place to make it worthwhile, and I can spend my money on more useful things (such as sports text sim games ). The little news I care to see I can watch on tv.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Wondering what people think of this and whether it will work?

I'd be very surprised if it works. People will just go to other (free) sites for the same information. NewsCorp may argue that their articles/columns/whatever are so much better writing that people will want to pay, but I doubt that as well as there's plenty of good writing out there on the news that is free to view (NYT, Vanity Fair, lots of blogs, etc...).

If there's a model that's going to survive, it's probably the ad-supported model the NYT uses (and plenty of blogs use). But I don't think that model supports as many formal news organizations as once existed.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

All this move will accomplish is rendering the News Corp sites as largely irrelevant as the majority of users will find replacements. And when they do, so will the existing advertisers.

Agreed. Rarely has that not been the case.