From Yahoo.tech:
Washington Post scrapping 'hyperlocal' Web site
Posted on - Tue Aug 18, 2009 6:59PM EDT
WASHINGTON - In its latest cost-cutting move, The Washington Post's owner is scrapping an experimental Web site that provided more news coverage about events happening around the neighborhoods of a Virginia suburb.
LoudounExtra.com will be shut down as an independent Web site this Friday, with some features moving to WashingtonPost.com. The site was focused on Loudoun County, Va. — an area located about 25 miles from Washington, D.C.
The decision announced Tuesday comes as Washington Post Co. is trying to cut losses in its slumping newspaper division. Although the company remains profitable as whole, its newspaper operations lost $143 million through the first half of this year.
Like most newspaper publishers, the Post has been hard hit by a sharp drop in advertising as more readers and marketing budgets shift to the Internet.
With the Internet turning news into a free commodity, the Post and other publishers have been trying to serve up more content that can't be easily found anywhere else. The push has spawned so-called sites like LoudounExtra that provided information traditionally considered too parochial for daily newspapers in major metropolitan areas.
It's still unclear whether this so-called "hyperlocal" approach can generate enough revenue to justify the additional overhead.
Instead of operating a separate Web site, the Post has decided it makes more sense to blend LoudounExtra with the rest of the newspaper's county-specific coverage.
"We are still dedicated to maintaining a high level of coverage of the counties surrounding Washington, D.C.," Post spokeswoman Kris Coratti wrote in a Tuesday e-mail.
Financial pressures led to the closure of another hyperlocal news service called BackFence in 2007.
Meanwhile, other media outlets are upping the hyperlocal ante.
The joint venture that runs MSNBC.com said Monday that it will pay an undisclosed amount to acquire EveryBlock, a Chicago-based news service that zeros in on 15 U.S. communities. In June, AOL bought two hyperlocal startups, Patch Media Corp. and Going Inc., for undisclosed amounts.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
Only 8 Cities Left With Two Daily Papers
According to paidContent, there were fewer than 10 cities with two daily newspapers as of December 2008. These include Boston, Chicago, Washington, DC, New York, Philadelphia, Miami, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and San Francisco. (A January post on Reflections of a Newsosaur ponders which papers in those towns might be the ones to eventually bite the dust.)
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Chas. Overby -- 12 Commandments for the Future
Twelve Commandments for a Better News and Newspaper Future from Charles Overby, Chairman and CEO of the Freedom Forum
August 9, 2009
The last decade in the history of American newspapers is in fact the lost decade, so says Charles Overby, Chairman and CEO of the Freedom Forum and CEO of the Newseum. Mr. Overby, a journalist, editor and publisher was the recipient of The 2009 Gerald M. Sass Award for Distinguished Service to Journalism and Mass Communication at the Association for Educators in Journalism and Mass Communication annual convention this past week in Boston.
Mr. Overby, in his acceptance speech, outlined the problems facing newsrooms and newspapers in today’s market place, and offered his views on how to reverse the declining trend facing the industry today.
Here are Mr. Overby’s “great dozen” ideas for the problems and solutions of today’s newsrooms and newspapers:
1. Free is not a business model:
Free is not a business model, certainly not for newspapers and news is and always has been a business. A free press does not mean free news. The survival of the free press, as we know it, depends on the public paying for it. If we want newspaper-size newsrooms, people have to pay for it. If we don’t, then forget it. It does not matter. But the idea that profits for newspapers are designed for greedy newspaper owners, I think, is missing the point. We need a revenue base that will support robust newsrooms and robust journalism.
2. Internet cannot replace the newspaper-sized newsroom:
We must resist the notion that the Internet, social networking and twitter can adequately replace newspaper-sized newsrooms. This doesn’t mean that you have to be against those new media. That is not the case at all. They are nice add-ons, but they are not a substitute for newspaper-sized newsrooms.
3. Preservation of the newsroom:
The issue is not narrowly the preservation of newspapers; it is the preservation of the adequately funded newsrooms.
4. Charging for content does not make you technically illiterate:
Rupert Murdoch announced this week that News Corp. plans to start charging for news content on the Internet at all his properties worldwide. Immediately Murdoch was labeled as technically illiterate. It is interesting to me that when cable companies charge fifty dollars or more a month to consumers they are not seen as technically illiterate.
5. Publishers are waking up:
I believe newspapers publishers are waking up to this reality and I think you will see many other legacy media outlets charging for their content. It is about time they did so. Not everybody will choose to pay for content. That’s OK, ten, twenty years ago not every body chose to subscribe to a newspaper. But many people who value substantive serious news will pay.
6. Publishers are to blame for their papers’ demise:
If people in the future asked the question who lost the news people, if traditional media disappeared as we knew it, whose fault will it be? I think the answer will be it was the fault of those who worried more about extending their brand for free on the Internet, than those who focused on preserving the value of their brand. Let us hope it will not come to that.
7. The underline principle of news has not changed:
The changes for the most part have involved the delivery of the news from drawing on cave walls, to smoke signals, to the pony express to satellites. But the underline principle of news has not changed; seek the truth, tell the story as fully and fairly as possible. There has been one other constant until recently. Over the years people have understood that you pay for news. That was true in the days of the colonial press; it was true even in the days of the penny press. But now it seems to be a debatable concept. For those who think that people should pay for the news, now incredibly, are often characterized as luddite, hopelessly out of touch. The dilemma has brought newspapers to the edge of a cliff. The future of newspapers, and I would say journalism as we know it, hangs in the balance. I recognize that some people have already written off newspapers and some of you may have already compared newspapers to dinosaurs. I believe that is a mistake.
8. The last decade is the lost decade
It is difficult for me to comprehend how steep the decline of newspapers has been in the last decade. I consider the last decade as the lost decade for newspapers. Virtually every thing about newspapers has gone down in the last decade. Circulation is down, advertising is down, profits are down and in some cases gone, news hole or the amount of space available for news stories is down, the number of editors and reporters is down.
9. Negative trends are the result of publishers’ disastrous decisions:
These negative trends are largely the result of the disastrous decision about ten years ago of newspaper publishers to put virtually all the newspapers’ content on the Internet for free. The thinking ten years ago went like this; we have to be on the Internet. We can’t miss this opportunity. We will figure out the business plan as we go along. The optimist thought the move to the Internet might ultimately allow newspapers to eliminate the two biggest expenses printing and distribution. The optimist also thought the Internet will bring in many new readers that will result in major profitable advertising.
10. Free is a trendy thing:
This move to free content is a very trendy thing, very seductive particularly with young people…there is even a book called Free. I point out that the book is not free it cost me $26.99.
11. Newspapers can’t survive if they continue to give their content for free:
Newspapers publishers are only now beginning to recognize that can’t survive if they continue to give their content free. If the free content trend continues you can bet the size of the newsrooms will decrease even more. That is bad for local communities, it is bad for journalism and I think it is bad for our democracy.
12. Reversing the trend:
The question is can this trend be reversed or stopped? Will people now pay for news content after growing accustomed for decade for getting this for free? I believe the trend can be reversed and that people will pay for news, perhaps in combination with print and the Internet. Readers have to see and understand substantive value for what they are paying for. They will not pay for a newspaper, or its equivalent, that continues to shrink in size and resources.
August 9, 2009
The last decade in the history of American newspapers is in fact the lost decade, so says Charles Overby, Chairman and CEO of the Freedom Forum and CEO of the Newseum. Mr. Overby, a journalist, editor and publisher was the recipient of The 2009 Gerald M. Sass Award for Distinguished Service to Journalism and Mass Communication at the Association for Educators in Journalism and Mass Communication annual convention this past week in Boston.
Mr. Overby, in his acceptance speech, outlined the problems facing newsrooms and newspapers in today’s market place, and offered his views on how to reverse the declining trend facing the industry today.
Here are Mr. Overby’s “great dozen” ideas for the problems and solutions of today’s newsrooms and newspapers:
1. Free is not a business model:
Free is not a business model, certainly not for newspapers and news is and always has been a business. A free press does not mean free news. The survival of the free press, as we know it, depends on the public paying for it. If we want newspaper-size newsrooms, people have to pay for it. If we don’t, then forget it. It does not matter. But the idea that profits for newspapers are designed for greedy newspaper owners, I think, is missing the point. We need a revenue base that will support robust newsrooms and robust journalism.
2. Internet cannot replace the newspaper-sized newsroom:
We must resist the notion that the Internet, social networking and twitter can adequately replace newspaper-sized newsrooms. This doesn’t mean that you have to be against those new media. That is not the case at all. They are nice add-ons, but they are not a substitute for newspaper-sized newsrooms.
3. Preservation of the newsroom:
The issue is not narrowly the preservation of newspapers; it is the preservation of the adequately funded newsrooms.
4. Charging for content does not make you technically illiterate:
Rupert Murdoch announced this week that News Corp. plans to start charging for news content on the Internet at all his properties worldwide. Immediately Murdoch was labeled as technically illiterate. It is interesting to me that when cable companies charge fifty dollars or more a month to consumers they are not seen as technically illiterate.
5. Publishers are waking up:
I believe newspapers publishers are waking up to this reality and I think you will see many other legacy media outlets charging for their content. It is about time they did so. Not everybody will choose to pay for content. That’s OK, ten, twenty years ago not every body chose to subscribe to a newspaper. But many people who value substantive serious news will pay.
6. Publishers are to blame for their papers’ demise:
If people in the future asked the question who lost the news people, if traditional media disappeared as we knew it, whose fault will it be? I think the answer will be it was the fault of those who worried more about extending their brand for free on the Internet, than those who focused on preserving the value of their brand. Let us hope it will not come to that.
7. The underline principle of news has not changed:
The changes for the most part have involved the delivery of the news from drawing on cave walls, to smoke signals, to the pony express to satellites. But the underline principle of news has not changed; seek the truth, tell the story as fully and fairly as possible. There has been one other constant until recently. Over the years people have understood that you pay for news. That was true in the days of the colonial press; it was true even in the days of the penny press. But now it seems to be a debatable concept. For those who think that people should pay for the news, now incredibly, are often characterized as luddite, hopelessly out of touch. The dilemma has brought newspapers to the edge of a cliff. The future of newspapers, and I would say journalism as we know it, hangs in the balance. I recognize that some people have already written off newspapers and some of you may have already compared newspapers to dinosaurs. I believe that is a mistake.
8. The last decade is the lost decade
It is difficult for me to comprehend how steep the decline of newspapers has been in the last decade. I consider the last decade as the lost decade for newspapers. Virtually every thing about newspapers has gone down in the last decade. Circulation is down, advertising is down, profits are down and in some cases gone, news hole or the amount of space available for news stories is down, the number of editors and reporters is down.
9. Negative trends are the result of publishers’ disastrous decisions:
These negative trends are largely the result of the disastrous decision about ten years ago of newspaper publishers to put virtually all the newspapers’ content on the Internet for free. The thinking ten years ago went like this; we have to be on the Internet. We can’t miss this opportunity. We will figure out the business plan as we go along. The optimist thought the move to the Internet might ultimately allow newspapers to eliminate the two biggest expenses printing and distribution. The optimist also thought the Internet will bring in many new readers that will result in major profitable advertising.
10. Free is a trendy thing:
This move to free content is a very trendy thing, very seductive particularly with young people…there is even a book called Free. I point out that the book is not free it cost me $26.99.
11. Newspapers can’t survive if they continue to give their content for free:
Newspapers publishers are only now beginning to recognize that can’t survive if they continue to give their content free. If the free content trend continues you can bet the size of the newsrooms will decrease even more. That is bad for local communities, it is bad for journalism and I think it is bad for our democracy.
12. Reversing the trend:
The question is can this trend be reversed or stopped? Will people now pay for news content after growing accustomed for decade for getting this for free? I believe the trend can be reversed and that people will pay for news, perhaps in combination with print and the Internet. Readers have to see and understand substantive value for what they are paying for. They will not pay for a newspaper, or its equivalent, that continues to shrink in size and resources.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Launching a Magazine From Your Dorm Room
From Journalism 2.0:
Print magazine puts company on fast track
As far as entrepreneurial opportunities go, launching a new print magazine seems a few years behind the times. Launching it from a dorm room while you’re still in college makes the odds of success even longer. Which is why I love stories like this so much.
Last weekend at Digital Journalism Camp Portland, I had the pleasure of meeting Bryan Sims, CEO of Brass Media, a Corvallis-based company that is in its 6th year of operation and is succeeding with an interesting and innovation revenue model.
In 2007, Businessweek named Sims to its “Best Entrepreneurs Under 25″ list. Sims’ hometown of Corvallis presented him with the 2006 “Entrepreneur of the Year” award, making him the award’s youngest recipient, at age 22.
Sims told me he started Brass Media while a student at Oregon State, using his dorm room and his parents’ garage for an office, but dropped out to drive the business forward. He has kept his foot on the gas pedal ever since. Brass is one of the fastest growing companies in Oregon and found a place on the Inc. 500 fastest growing companies last year, too.
What’s the secret? How does a 20-something launch and grow a magazine publishing business during this period of decline for print media and an overall economic downturn?
By opening up to new ideas and expanding into new markets. A financial planning resource for young people (18-25) written by young people, Brass made its way into the classroom when a teacher in New York state requested some copies to use in a class. This led Sims to a new sales and distribution channel, and new revenue. Now the quarterly magazine circulates 350,000-400,000 copies (down from a high of 500,000) and is popular with financial institutions who want to reach this highly desirable target market.
Now Sims is diversifying again, growing a suite of multimedia and digital tools that engage his audience and build brand awareness for advertisers. He has more than two dozen employees and a national network of contributors. Leveraging that distributed resource with more digital offerings is a smart play, and one that will likely keep Brass Media on the fast track of profitable publishing.
Print magazine puts company on fast track
As far as entrepreneurial opportunities go, launching a new print magazine seems a few years behind the times. Launching it from a dorm room while you’re still in college makes the odds of success even longer. Which is why I love stories like this so much.
Last weekend at Digital Journalism Camp Portland, I had the pleasure of meeting Bryan Sims, CEO of Brass Media, a Corvallis-based company that is in its 6th year of operation and is succeeding with an interesting and innovation revenue model.
In 2007, Businessweek named Sims to its “Best Entrepreneurs Under 25″ list. Sims’ hometown of Corvallis presented him with the 2006 “Entrepreneur of the Year” award, making him the award’s youngest recipient, at age 22.
Sims told me he started Brass Media while a student at Oregon State, using his dorm room and his parents’ garage for an office, but dropped out to drive the business forward. He has kept his foot on the gas pedal ever since. Brass is one of the fastest growing companies in Oregon and found a place on the Inc. 500 fastest growing companies last year, too.
What’s the secret? How does a 20-something launch and grow a magazine publishing business during this period of decline for print media and an overall economic downturn?
By opening up to new ideas and expanding into new markets. A financial planning resource for young people (18-25) written by young people, Brass made its way into the classroom when a teacher in New York state requested some copies to use in a class. This led Sims to a new sales and distribution channel, and new revenue. Now the quarterly magazine circulates 350,000-400,000 copies (down from a high of 500,000) and is popular with financial institutions who want to reach this highly desirable target market.
Now Sims is diversifying again, growing a suite of multimedia and digital tools that engage his audience and build brand awareness for advertisers. He has more than two dozen employees and a national network of contributors. Leveraging that distributed resource with more digital offerings is a smart play, and one that will likely keep Brass Media on the fast track of profitable publishing.
Ann Arbor Kills Its Newspaper--To Save It
From Time magazine. This is an excerpt. To read the entire article, click here.
Ann Arbor Kills Its Newspaper — To Save It
By Belinda Luscombe
When Larry Kestenbaum, clerk of Washtenaw County, Michigan, was in Lansing for a meeting recently, he saw something unfamiliar on the faces of the other clerks: pity. Colleagues from hard-pressed towns like Flint, Jackson and Kalamazoo were offering sympathy because, despite everything, they still had a local newspaper, while Ann Arbor, his county seat, did not.
At first blush, Ann Arbor is an unlikely place to earn the dubious distinction of being the first good-size municipality in the U.S. to give up on its only daily newspaper. A2, as the town is known, is more or less the beauty queen of Michigan: pretty, confident and seemingly immune to the problems of her peers. It still has a downtown with sidewalk cafés and quirky local stores. Its biggest employers are two universities and two hospitals, and it has weathered the recession better than most of the rest of the state. Nearly half its residents have graduate degrees. How could the paper die in a place like this? (See 10 ways your job will change.)
The answer is that it didn't die. It was killed by its owners in a high-stakes gamble to try to create a new and more profitable enterprise. (In the past nine years, the paper lost more than half its classified-ad pages.) The Ann Arbor News ceased to exist on July 23. On July 24, AnnArbor.com was launched. The new website has a paper version — also called, oddly, AnnArbor.com — that comes out on Thursdays and Sundays. The News's owner, Advance Publications, is betting it can rebrand the 175-year-old News as a Web publication, turn a profit and still satisfy its readers' craving for local news. A lot of U.S. newspapers, and their readers, have a stake in whether the experiment in Ann Arbor succeeds.
A local newspaper is more than an organ for delivering news and information. It's a habit, a watering hole, a local landmark. It's a unifying force, even if that's just because, like a loud uncle, it gives everyone something to complain about. It's the hub that connects many people to their community. "The News was like an old friend. You weren't sure why you spent time with it, but you did, because it was such an old friend," says Charles Eisendrath, who runs the Knight-Wallace Foundation at the University of Michigan. How does a city deal with that loss? What, if anything, is irreplaceable in the transition from print to Web?
Death's paperboy has been tossing a lot of venerable titles onto the porch of history recently. The 146-year-old Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the 149-year-old Rocky Mountain News are gone. Dozens more are shadows of their former selves, their revenues and resources gutted by the flight of classifieds, the gasping economy and the hordes of websites competing for readers' attention. The best that most print publishers can do is try to slow the drain-circling while frantically figuring out how to make money on the Web. This means cutbacks, layoffs, misery. (See the 10 most endangered newspapers in America.)
Ann Arbor Kills Its Newspaper — To Save It
By Belinda Luscombe
When Larry Kestenbaum, clerk of Washtenaw County, Michigan, was in Lansing for a meeting recently, he saw something unfamiliar on the faces of the other clerks: pity. Colleagues from hard-pressed towns like Flint, Jackson and Kalamazoo were offering sympathy because, despite everything, they still had a local newspaper, while Ann Arbor, his county seat, did not.
At first blush, Ann Arbor is an unlikely place to earn the dubious distinction of being the first good-size municipality in the U.S. to give up on its only daily newspaper. A2, as the town is known, is more or less the beauty queen of Michigan: pretty, confident and seemingly immune to the problems of her peers. It still has a downtown with sidewalk cafés and quirky local stores. Its biggest employers are two universities and two hospitals, and it has weathered the recession better than most of the rest of the state. Nearly half its residents have graduate degrees. How could the paper die in a place like this? (See 10 ways your job will change.)
The answer is that it didn't die. It was killed by its owners in a high-stakes gamble to try to create a new and more profitable enterprise. (In the past nine years, the paper lost more than half its classified-ad pages.) The Ann Arbor News ceased to exist on July 23. On July 24, AnnArbor.com was launched. The new website has a paper version — also called, oddly, AnnArbor.com — that comes out on Thursdays and Sundays. The News's owner, Advance Publications, is betting it can rebrand the 175-year-old News as a Web publication, turn a profit and still satisfy its readers' craving for local news. A lot of U.S. newspapers, and their readers, have a stake in whether the experiment in Ann Arbor succeeds.
A local newspaper is more than an organ for delivering news and information. It's a habit, a watering hole, a local landmark. It's a unifying force, even if that's just because, like a loud uncle, it gives everyone something to complain about. It's the hub that connects many people to their community. "The News was like an old friend. You weren't sure why you spent time with it, but you did, because it was such an old friend," says Charles Eisendrath, who runs the Knight-Wallace Foundation at the University of Michigan. How does a city deal with that loss? What, if anything, is irreplaceable in the transition from print to Web?
Death's paperboy has been tossing a lot of venerable titles onto the porch of history recently. The 146-year-old Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the 149-year-old Rocky Mountain News are gone. Dozens more are shadows of their former selves, their revenues and resources gutted by the flight of classifieds, the gasping economy and the hordes of websites competing for readers' attention. The best that most print publishers can do is try to slow the drain-circling while frantically figuring out how to make money on the Web. This means cutbacks, layoffs, misery. (See the 10 most endangered newspapers in America.)
The End of Free News?
From WalletPop:
The end of free news?
Jo Robinson
I'll admit that I'm a bit of a snob when it comes to news. I enjoy a good read of the paper at the weekend with a big mug of tea - but I'm picky about which paper. When I was studying for my journalism course I had to read The Sun for research purposes. I was so ashamed that I hid it behind my copy of the Guardian on the tube.
Reading the papers does seem like an old-fashioned luxury these days though and plenty of people just aren't prepared to pay for the privilege. Many of us will just catch up on the news online in our lunch breaks at work. Plus with all the freesheets available now, you can get your news fix for nothing.
Trouble is, with advertising revenue falling fast, newspapers are looking to make money elsewhere. Rupert Murdoch's News Corp which owns The Sun, The Times, the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal has announced plans to start charging surfers to view its online news pages. It certainly sounds like a desperate measure.
Frankly it's going to reduce the number of readers, because people just won't be prepared to pay. And what can these publications really offer online to justify the charge?
The Financial Times charges people to view articles online, and has set up monthly subscriptions. I'd argue that this works because of the specialist nature of that publication. Surely for more general papers, people are just going to go elsewhere for their news. Plus, if you have to pay for the stuff online, I'd much rather spend the money on a paper and enjoy the good old-fashioned feel of print between my fingers.
So what do you think? Would you pay to read the news online, or just find a free version elsewhere? How much better would the paid for websites have to be for you to pay?
The end of free news?
Jo Robinson
I'll admit that I'm a bit of a snob when it comes to news. I enjoy a good read of the paper at the weekend with a big mug of tea - but I'm picky about which paper. When I was studying for my journalism course I had to read The Sun for research purposes. I was so ashamed that I hid it behind my copy of the Guardian on the tube.
Reading the papers does seem like an old-fashioned luxury these days though and plenty of people just aren't prepared to pay for the privilege. Many of us will just catch up on the news online in our lunch breaks at work. Plus with all the freesheets available now, you can get your news fix for nothing.
Trouble is, with advertising revenue falling fast, newspapers are looking to make money elsewhere. Rupert Murdoch's News Corp which owns The Sun, The Times, the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal has announced plans to start charging surfers to view its online news pages. It certainly sounds like a desperate measure.
Frankly it's going to reduce the number of readers, because people just won't be prepared to pay. And what can these publications really offer online to justify the charge?
The Financial Times charges people to view articles online, and has set up monthly subscriptions. I'd argue that this works because of the specialist nature of that publication. Surely for more general papers, people are just going to go elsewhere for their news. Plus, if you have to pay for the stuff online, I'd much rather spend the money on a paper and enjoy the good old-fashioned feel of print between my fingers.
So what do you think? Would you pay to read the news online, or just find a free version elsewhere? How much better would the paid for websites have to be for you to pay?
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Is Murdoch's Plan to Charge for Online News Doomed?
From The Atlantic:
Is Murdoch's Plan to Charge for Online News Doomed?
Rupert Murdoch announced plans to charge for all online content of his newspaper and TV empire, in what is possibly the boldest move of any media mogul to boost revenue from online news. Since Murdoch's News Corp empire spans the globe, including the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Fox News and basically anything ever published in Australia ever, this would send shock waves through a barren online media landscape that is gasping for revenue streams. But will it work?
Gawker says the move has "fail written all over it." Andrew Sullivan (who gets a check from Murdoch's News Corp for a Sunday column) gives it more of a chance. Me, I have the feeling that asking readers to pay for FoxNews.com is like charging $10 for an after-dinner mint. That's not just my liberal commie instincts talking up: I'd say the same about CNN.com or any site subsisting on the lifeblood of AP wire stories. If the bulk of your site is expendable, borrowed, or fungible with Google News, there's no reason to pay a dime for it.
All sorts of details remain unclear, but here are three questions I would want answers to before I deliver a prediction.
1) Is This Happening in Stages?
Presumably, Rupert won't throw a big fat switch that suddenly makes every piece of News Corp online paid content -- from Aussie surf channels to Indian entertainment sites to Glenn Beck. He'll do this in stages. WSJ.com is already a free/paid hybrid site. Perhaps he'll try to expand the paid section and gauge reader response and revenue. Or maybe he'll start tinkering with paid models on Australian sites before unveiling a comprehensive plan in the States. It will be interesting to see how inches toward an empire of all paid content.
2) Will There Be Bundling?
In June, News Corp's chief digital officer Jonathan Miller suggested he might like to charge for Hulu. And lo, a great national wailing was heard. But wait, Miller said, it wouldn't be so bad if we bundled, or asked consumers to pay a low price for access to a number of shows:
"I think what works for consumers most likely -- and this has to be tested, frankly -- is bundles. I think you have to figure out what are the right bundles that people buy and what's contained in that bundle."
On Hulu, I guess that would mean you could "buy" NBC access, or maybe sitcom access. Across News Corp, bundling could work too. Murdoch could create national bundles (ie pay a monthly fee to access all his American-based media) or topical bundles (ie a monthly fee for MarketWatch, Barrons, SmartMoney and the WSJ Business and Markets tab). Or it could be like buying discounted shirts at Target. If I buy two website access passes (say, WSJ and Sunday Times) can I get a third of equal or lesser value (Fox News) for free?
3) Will He Close the Google Loopholes?
Pssst, I've got a secret! Technically, much of WSJ.com is already paid content. But there's an easy way around the pay wall. Some articles show the first few paragraphs interrupted by a banner asking you to subscribe to read the rest. But! If you copy the headline and paste it into your Google search, the first item under "News Results" will be the full article...free! That means WSJ's subscriber-only content is, well, not subscriber-only at all. Presumably, Murdoch allows this to optimize traffic from web searches, but it's a pretty obvious loophole and one that he'll have to close if he expects enterprising news readers to actually pony up cash for content.
Is Murdoch's Plan to Charge for Online News Doomed?
Rupert Murdoch announced plans to charge for all online content of his newspaper and TV empire, in what is possibly the boldest move of any media mogul to boost revenue from online news. Since Murdoch's News Corp empire spans the globe, including the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Fox News and basically anything ever published in Australia ever, this would send shock waves through a barren online media landscape that is gasping for revenue streams. But will it work?
Gawker says the move has "fail written all over it." Andrew Sullivan (who gets a check from Murdoch's News Corp for a Sunday column) gives it more of a chance. Me, I have the feeling that asking readers to pay for FoxNews.com is like charging $10 for an after-dinner mint. That's not just my liberal commie instincts talking up: I'd say the same about CNN.com or any site subsisting on the lifeblood of AP wire stories. If the bulk of your site is expendable, borrowed, or fungible with Google News, there's no reason to pay a dime for it.
All sorts of details remain unclear, but here are three questions I would want answers to before I deliver a prediction.
1) Is This Happening in Stages?
Presumably, Rupert won't throw a big fat switch that suddenly makes every piece of News Corp online paid content -- from Aussie surf channels to Indian entertainment sites to Glenn Beck. He'll do this in stages. WSJ.com is already a free/paid hybrid site. Perhaps he'll try to expand the paid section and gauge reader response and revenue. Or maybe he'll start tinkering with paid models on Australian sites before unveiling a comprehensive plan in the States. It will be interesting to see how inches toward an empire of all paid content.
2) Will There Be Bundling?
In June, News Corp's chief digital officer Jonathan Miller suggested he might like to charge for Hulu. And lo, a great national wailing was heard. But wait, Miller said, it wouldn't be so bad if we bundled, or asked consumers to pay a low price for access to a number of shows:
"I think what works for consumers most likely -- and this has to be tested, frankly -- is bundles. I think you have to figure out what are the right bundles that people buy and what's contained in that bundle."
On Hulu, I guess that would mean you could "buy" NBC access, or maybe sitcom access. Across News Corp, bundling could work too. Murdoch could create national bundles (ie pay a monthly fee to access all his American-based media) or topical bundles (ie a monthly fee for MarketWatch, Barrons, SmartMoney and the WSJ Business and Markets tab). Or it could be like buying discounted shirts at Target. If I buy two website access passes (say, WSJ and Sunday Times) can I get a third of equal or lesser value (Fox News) for free?
3) Will He Close the Google Loopholes?
Pssst, I've got a secret! Technically, much of WSJ.com is already paid content. But there's an easy way around the pay wall. Some articles show the first few paragraphs interrupted by a banner asking you to subscribe to read the rest. But! If you copy the headline and paste it into your Google search, the first item under "News Results" will be the full article...free! That means WSJ's subscriber-only content is, well, not subscriber-only at all. Presumably, Murdoch allows this to optimize traffic from web searches, but it's a pretty obvious loophole and one that he'll have to close if he expects enterprising news readers to actually pony up cash for content.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
