Murdoch's The Times Accused Of Blatant Copying, Just As It Tells The World You Should Pay For News

from the oooops dept

Just this week, James Harding, the editor of The Times (of London), a paper owned by Rupert Murdoch, tried to explain why the news is worth paying for, as the paper starts to put up a new business model to get consumers to pay for news. Unfortunately, Harding apparently didn't get the message himself. As pointed out by Mathew Ingram, just days after making the case for paying for news, The Times has been accused of publishing an article that it copied without permission from a blog.

You can't make this stuff up.

Yes, just as Rupert Murdoch is calling aggregators (sites that simply summarize and link to stories) parasites (even as he owns a bunch of aggregators himself), one of his papers didn't aggregate, it flat out copied, without permission, a blog post that was written by Edgar Wright as a tribute to Edward Woodward, who recently passed away. The Times eventually put up a "clarification" online that had a link to the original site, but that hardly explains the original copying -- especially during the very week that they're trying to convince the world that news should be paid for....

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Will Murdoch Kill The One Smart Part Of The WSJ's Paywall?

from the sounds-like-it dept

With Rupert Murdoch's recent talk about removing his sites from Google, some said that if you understood his comments in context, he was really talking more about copying the WSJ's "leaky" paywall strategy -- which lets users see full articles if they visit via Google. Of course, in that very interview, he appeared to not know how that leaky paywall works, claiming that it took people to a landing page with a couple of paragraphs rather than the full story. That's not true. It does that if you're linked from most other sites. But people who come via Google (or, I believe, Digg) get the full story automatically. The idea, from SEO experts, was to actually help Google drive more traffic.

Of course, that was before Murdoch suddenly decided that all this free promotion was "parasiting" his works (despite the fact that many of his own properties do the same thing. However, it looks like News Corp. may actually be considering ending the "leaky" part of its paywall, with the company's COO, Chase Carey, saying that the idea makes no sense:

"I don't think it makes sense... We don't want people going though a backdoor, or other channels..."

And now we learn how little the folks at News Corp. seem to understand the internet and the fundamental way that people want to interact with news these days. It's not just about sitting and receiving the end product. It's about being a part of the process -- and that includes sharing and spreading the news -- for free -- to others. Mark Cuban thinks (incorrectly, in my opinion) that Murdoch understands the value of people passing around links, which is why he says he wants to opt-out of Google (because search traffic isn't as valuable as traffic from Twitter or Facebook). But locking up all that content actually harms that viral-link value. People aren't going to share or spread a link if they know others can't use it. For years, for example, we've used those "backdoors" (i.e., Google News) which Carey bemoans to read stories in the WSJ that we post here. If they stop allowing that, then I won't read the WSJ any more, and the community of readers and commenters here will never hear from the WSJ again. It's difficult to see how that's a better option.

Amusingly, the first time that we ever wrote about this growing concept that people today want to "spread the news" and "share the news" more than they just want to receive the news was about five years ago -- before the WSJ had put up its leaky paywall. The point of that post was to note just how far the WSJ had fallen out of the conversation on news media -- since no one could send around a link to discuss things. Putting those "backdoors" into the paywall, at the very least, brought the WSJ somewhat back into the conversation. Blocking it now would make the Journal irrelevant again. It's difficult to see how that's a smart strategy at all.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

A Look At All The Sites Owned By Rupert Murdoch That 'Steal' Content

from the who-ya-gonna-block-now,-rupert? dept

As Rupert Murdoch talks about how he wants to cut off Google, while claiming that aggregator sites are "parasites" and "stealing" from him -- and that fair use would likely be barred by the courts, it seemed like a good time to examine at least some of the sites that are owned by Rupert Murdoch that appear to aggregate content from other sites and which rely on the very same fair use argument. We've mentioned a few in the past, but figured it wouldn't hurt to explore them more thoroughly.

Well, let's start with the flagship Wall Street Journal itself. It integrates its own "aggregator" with headlines and links to other stories. For example, on the WSJ's tech news page if you scroll down, you'll find a bunch of headlines and links to other sources -- without permission:

Oops. Looks like the WSJ is "parasiting" and "stealing" according to Murdoch. Perhaps he should cut them of too.

Okay, how about Fox News itself? Yup. It's got an aggregator as well. Here's its Politics Buzztracker that aggregates and links to stories from a variety of different publications, including the NY Times, the Washington Post, MSNBC and others: Murdoch can't be too happy about all that thieving.

Then we've got the folks over at AllThingsD, who I actually think do excellent work, and who have built up a nice part of their site called "Voices." I actually quite like this and find it useful (and yes, every so often, they are kind enough to "parasite" one of my posts). In fact, it helps keep AllThingsD in my RSS reader because it's so useful. But, damn, if that doesn't look just like what Murdoch is complaining about. Not only does it have headlines, but also a fair bit of intro text (no summary, no commentary) and even the links are hidden at the bottom, rather than using the headlines as links: Of course, it's not just with news either. The folks at AlarmClock remind us that Murdoch's News Corp. owns IGN, which has a variety of properties, including the ever popular RottenTomatoes movie review aggregation site. Yes, the entire site is based on "parasiting" (according to Murdoch) movie reviews off of every other site, and pulling them all together: Good thing Murdoch is planning on working on ways to get the court to ban that sort of "fair use."

Some other IGN sites don't quite have aggregators, but I do find it interesting that they've integrated in Google search, such that you could do searches for things across the web and have them remain in a totally News Corp./IGN-branded experience. Effectively, on these pages, Murdoch's own properties are able to "parasite" back Google's own "parasite" engine. Here are two examples:

I'm sure there are probably more examples of various News Corp. properties regularly doing exactly what Murdoch and other News Corp. execs are now decrying as illegal and which must be stopped. So, it has to be asked, Mr. Murdoch, will you pull down all of these sites?

61 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is Murdoch's Move Against Google Really About Twitter And Facebook?

from the no,-not-even-close dept

I'm a big believer in the idea that "earned media" or "earned links" are increasingly important online. That's the idea that growing numbers of people are relying on news links that are being passed to them via friends on social networks like Twitter and Facebook. It's about recognizing that more and more often news stories "find people" rather than the other way around. That is, people are increasingly getting links from friends, acquaintances and colleagues, rather than going searching for the news. And those "earned" links or "passed links" are quite valuable because friends are more likely to trust and pay attention to what is personally sent to them, rather than what's just on the front page of a news site.

However, even given all of that, I'm not sure I buy Mark Cuban's explanation for Rupert Murdoch and his plan to stop Google from indexing his sites. Cuban says that it's all about this recognition that such earned links are becoming so important these days, and Murdoch realizes that links from Twitter and Facebook are growing in value, whereas links from Google have little value. To be honest, I'd be surprised if Murdoch had thought through it that carefully, but more to the point, I'm not sure I believe the full premise. Yes, those links are valuable, but they need to start somewhere, and one of the ways they start is from news junkies using aggregators like Google News to find the news and start passing them around. Blocking that starting process makes little sense. On top of that, even when I'm passed a link, I'll often use Google News or other sites to dig deeper. Taking News Corp. sites out of the picture doesn't help at all. And, finally, while I keep hearing about sites getting so much more traffic from such passed links these days, I can say with authority that on Techdirt, they're still a tiny fraction of the traffic we get from Google.

So, yes, directly passed links from friends or colleagues are valuable and important, but it's a part of a wider ecosystem of news sharing that Google News and other aggregators are most certainly a large part of. Saying that blocking Google News makes sense because of things like Twitter and Facebook ignores how Google News plays into those links even being on Twitter and Facebook.

41 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Murdoch Says Fair Use Can Be Barred By Courts; Will Probably Remove Sites From Google

from the suicide-squeeze dept

And we thought that perhaps -- just perhaps -- Rupert Murdoch was coming to his senses with the plan to delay putting up a paywall. Turns out that may have been wishful thinking. Mathew Ingram alerts us to the news that Murodch has suggested that News Corp. might actually remove its sites from Google. Of course, I won't actually believe it until it happens, but he has had his minions going around slamming Google even as News Corp. offers its own aggregators. But actually following through and removing News Corp's sites from Google would be a huge step to take -- though one right off the side of a big cliff. Still, I'm sure it would make for a fun case study.

In the meantime, his explanation is really quite stunning. He claims that he believes fair use is a concept that the courts will reject:

"There's a doctrine called fair use, which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether..."

Wow. Of course, if that's true, then (again) we need to point out that News Corp. has been making use of fair use for years with its own aggregators. In fact, most news organizations regularly make use of fair use. Perhaps News Corps' lawyers who work in their news divisions might want to sit Murdoch down and explain the importance of fair use from a reporting perspective. They might also want to point him to the history of fair use within copyright law, in case he thinks it's something that was just made up yesterday.

74 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Murdoch Reconsidering Paywalls? Delaying Implementation

from the so-much-for-that-plan dept

Is Rupert Murdoch flip-flopping on paywalls again? Way back when (i.e., two years ago) Murdoch was a big believer in the idea that news should be free online, and that he could more than make it up with other business models. But, then, earlier this year, he did a complete flip-flop, declaring that all his publications would put up paywalls, saying that free content is bad, and accusing aggregators and search engines of "stealing" content. Some speculated that it was all a ploy to get others to put up paywalls. Though, others just think Murdoch's getting a little senile. Either way, it looks like he's stalling a bit. Jay Rosen points us to the news that Murdoch is "postponing" the date for when he wants his papers to have paywalls. It's not clear if the delay is due to technical difficulties in implementing a paywall, or if he's actually reconsidering. Either way, it doesn't look like the great big paywall is going up any time soon.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Australian ABC Promises To Stay Free; Mocks Murdoch And Paywalls As 'Old Empire' Thinking

from the take-that,-rupert dept

One of the key points we've raised in the past about the futility of newspapers putting up paywalls is that doing so would only open up a huge opportunity for other, smarter journalism organizations to take their market share by remaining free. And, indeed, more and more organizations are starting to point out that's exactly what they would do. Reader Jamie writes in to let us know about a speech by the managing director of ABC in Australia (not the Disney owned ABC in America), Mark Scott, taking on the "old media" thinking around such things as paywalls:

Scott's most virulent words were saved for News Corporation (owner of The Australian) chairman Rupert Murdoch and CEO Europe and Asia, James Murdoch.

He called Rupert Murdoch's recent call for content providers to charge online distributors for content as "a classic play of old empire, of empire in decline. Believing that because you once controlled the world you can continue to do so."

"When you have been so powerful and dominant for so long, it is hard to believe that empire is slipping away," he said.

Scott argued traditional media companies had been out-thought by technology companies in strategy.

And... oh yeah, if Murdoch goes paywall, Scott promises to do the opposite:

He reiterated the ABC would continue to provide free online news content and said the ABC must remain audience-focused

Not just that, but he seems to be recognizing that the way people interact with news has changed, and they want to be much more involved:

... he noted the only media organisations to survive will be those that: know and accept that all the rules have changed; are endlessly inquisitive about the new; empower their audiences to contribute, to create and share media....

Nice to see some news business execs who seem to recognize what's happening.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

News Corp Lawyer: Aggregators Steal From Us! News Corp: Hey Check Out Our Aggregator!

from the hypocrisy-in-action dept

We've already covered how Rupert Murdoch has flip flopped his position on free online news, but his recent foray into blaming search engines and aggregators is really reaching the height of hypocrisy. We've already looked into the issue of aggregators and found there's no problem there at all. Most aggregators either direct traffic to the original sites or are too small to matter. There's no evidence they actually siphon any traffic away at all... but it seems that the old newspaper guys need an enemy, and these days it's those evil "aggregators."

Following on the lead of his boss, News Corp. General Counsel Lawrence Jacobs made some interesting statements, claiming that aggregators are a big problem:

"Aggregators and Google News are, to us, the worst offenders," general counsel Lawrence Jacobs said today at a luncheon talk at Brooklyn Law School. "They make money by living off the sweat of our brow."

This isn't just ridiculous and wrong, it's hypocrisy of the worst kind. As Gabe Rivera points out, just a few years ago, News Corp was happily hyping up its own aggregator, and even today it appears to run a number of different aggregators, with a Wall Street Journal editor proudly talking about how useful the aggregator is. Fox News has its own news aggregator, the WSJ's tech page has Popular Technology Stories from Around the Web and AllThingsD has its "Voices" section -- all of which aggregate content from elsewhere with no payment.

So, according to News Corp., News Corp., is one of the worst offenders, right?

And, of course, things get even worse, the more you look at what Jacobs has to say. As one of our readers pointed out earlier this week, not only doesn't Fox News use robots.txt to block Google and other aggregators, it specifically tells Google News where to find its news. So as its execs and lawyers are whining about how evil Google News is to index its site, its tech people are putting up a big glowing sign that says "Hey! Google News! Over here! Come and get it!" Hypocrites. By the way, Weston Kosova, over at Newsweek even wrote up a nice little column based on our reader's comment. According to News Corp. and Jacobs, Newsweek just made money "off the sweat of our brow" (or technically, our readers). But, frankly, I think it's pretty awesome that someone from Newsweek isn't just reading Techdirt, but getting value out of our community as well.

Oh, and why stop there? Seeing as Lawrence Jacobs is general counsel of News Corp., one has to assume that he's a lawyer with a real law degree and such. And thus, you would think that he was familiar with copyright doctrines in the US, and would choose his language carefully. It's then especially odd that he chose the phrase "sweat of our brow" in describing his complaint, given that in Feist, the US explicitly rejected "sweat of the brow" as a reason to grant copyright. Since Jacobs appears unfamiliar with the ruling in Feist, here's a quote for him:

It may seem unfair that much of the fruit of the compiler's labor may be used by others without compensation. As Justice Brennan has correctly observed, however, this is not "some unforeseen byproduct of a statutory scheme." Harper & Row, 471 U.S., at 589 (dissenting opinion). It is, rather, "the essence of copyright," ibid., and a constitutional requirement. The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.... The "sweat of the brow" doctrine had numerous flaws....

So, let's sum up. While Murdoch and Jacobs are out trashing aggregators for making money based on the sweat of their brow, News. Corp. itself gleefully offers up at least three aggregators itself, which its writers and editors happily promote. The tech staff uses its robots.txt file to point aggregators to exactly where they should go, explicitly calling out some aggregators (the "worst" according to Jacobs) by name. And, oh yeah, the Supreme Court has already ruled that the "sweat of the brow" argument is meaningless when it comes to copyright law.

Time for a rethink, perhaps?

40 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The AP and News Corp DEMAND To Be Paid For Their Content

from the taking-aim-at-your-own-foot dept

At a media summit in Beijing this week, Associated Press CEO Tom Curley and News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch declared that "It's time to demand payment for online use of content." This combative language rings ironic, considering the fact that without its content being published on "kleptomaniac" sites like Google News, not many people would even hear about this very article. As Weston Kosova at Newsweek astutely points out, if Rupert Murdoch truly wanted Google to stop "stealing" content, they could very easily stop that today with a simple robots.txt exclusion.

News organizations that are contemplating charging for access to their content might also want to stop calling their potential customers criminals -- that's really not great customer service. And after all, many sites, including Google, are already paying to license some of their content. So, instead of accusing customers of not paying enough, offering better reasons to buy would probably get more sites to pay up. But, that's hard, so jumping up and down and demanding payment in a juvenile manner is much easier.

However, perhaps this is all merely negotiation brinksmanship -- threatening to charge for access to their free content to see if anyone cares enough to pay. The problem is, if the search engines call their bluff and remove their content from their services, then the news organizations actually risk losing much more. As we've pointed out time and time again, news organizations like the AP have been continuing down this road of implosion, where they clearly don't seem to understand the nature of their own business. For example, the AP's obsession with creating a "news registry" that would enable the AP to track down "unlicensed" uses of its content hints at this fundamental misunderstanding. In his speech to the summit, Tom Curley said:

"Crowd-sourcing web services such as Wikipedia, YouTube and Facebook have become preferred consumer destinations for breaking news, displacing Web sites of traditional news publishers.

To turn the tide, AP is creating a News Registry -- a rights management and tracking system."

Really? The AP's response to people linking to and discussing AP articles is to go after sites for money? I am waiting to see which news organization will be the first to go after Twitter for payment for news tweets. Instead of focusing on how to demand payment for the distribution of an infinite good, news organizations should recognize the new opportunities afforded by the free distribution of their content and focus on how to build a business off their scarce goods.

49 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Rupert Murdoch's Latest Foray Into Online News Business Models... Not So Ridiculous

from the hold-on-here... dept

We've chronicled Rupert Murdoch's flip-flopping on charging for news online (he originally claimed that free news made sense, and he wanted to free up the WSJ, but now says all of his news sites should have paywalls). And a bunch of folks have sent in Michael Wolff's Vanity Fair profile of Murdoch as a clueless luddite on the internet, and someone who doesn't seem to care about the important nuances of why or how charging for news might not make much sense. Wolff paints Murdoch as the type of guy who just thinks he can bully the entire market into agreeing that people should pay for news online. In that article, Wolff discusses the tension between the Times of London and The Sunday Times, which are separate operations owned by Murdoch, but share a web site. However, apparently that's changing, and Wolff presents it as an opportunity to start charging for The Sunday Times online, since it won't be "losing" anyone via putting up a paywall (the question remains if it would gain anyone).

And yet... the recent revelation of a new business model experiment by the two papers suggests an approach that is a bit more nuanced -- even if the (competing) Guardian's explanation of it isn't particularly enlightening. The plan appears to be not to charge for news but to charge for some kind of membership club which provides additional benefits, along with the paper. So, becoming a member gives you the ability to add certain "packs" of information to your paper. I'm not sure how compelling that is. However, it's also going to involve access to events and discounts on other goods and services (including Murdoch-owned satellite TV service, Sky+).

While it may depend on what's really included in this offer, initially it makes quite a bit of sense. It's not based on locking up the web content or limiting how it can be used, but in providing additional scarce value that people will buy. Who knows if this is an indicator of what Murdoch is planning -- but it's significantly different than a paywall, and a lot more reasonable, economically speaking.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Murdoch Now Demanding Names Of Kindle Subscribers

from the this-will-end-poorly dept

Fresh off vague and undefined plans to put up a paywall on various news sites, it seems that Murdoch's latest misguided target for digital angst is Amazon. ikonoclasm alerts us to the news that Murdoch is angry and threatening to remove all News Corp. material from the kindle unless Amazon is willing to hand over subscriber names and info to News Corp., despite having just negotiated a larger share of revenue. Of course, the subscribers themselves might actually like the fact that Amazon isn't handing out their user info. Either way, it seems like Murdoch is suddenly hellbent on making it more difficult to read any of his content digitally.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Rupert Murdoch vs. Rupert Murdoch On Free vs. Paid News Websites

from the which-rupert-is-rupert dept

Rupert Murdoch continues to shift his position on the value of "free content" but he seems to be going in the wrong direction, and not giving anyone much confidence that he knows what he's doing. You may recall that right before he completed buying the Wall Street Journal, he claimed that the WSJ would be better off going entirely free:

"We are studying it and we expect to make that free, and instead of having 1 million [subscribers], having at least 10 million to 15 million in every corner of the earth.... Will you lose $50 million to $100 million in revenue? I don't think so. If the site is good, you'll get much more."

That was just under two years ago, and his reasoning is actually quite sensible. However, after he took it over, there was apparently some back-and-forth and the Journal convinced Rupert to keep it behind a (somewhat porous) paywall. Of course, as many note, the WSJ is able to charge because of the reputation of its content (far above most other publications) and the fact that it's reporting financial info, where the direct value can be quite high to many readers.

Still, it was a bit of a surprise earlier this year when he started complaining about free content, saying:

"People reading news for free on the web, that's got to change."

And then he complained about Yahoo/Google "stealing" (he later changed it to "taking") content. Of course, that's not true. Both Yahoo and Google either link to content or have license deals. There is no "taking" of anything.

Either way, given those statements, perhaps it's no surprise at all that Murdoch is now planning to put paywalls across all his online news properties in the relatively near future. Apparently the plan will be based on the WSJ model, meaning that some stories were be available for free, but there will be severe limits. Given how many old school newspaper guys have talked about putting up a paywall, this isn't much of a surprise (though, it is still odd given his comments from two years ago).

That said, if newspapers are going to charge for online content, then let's see them go and charge. I think it will fail (miserably), but let's see him try to prove us wrong. Here's why I think it will fail:

1. Those other sites don't have the qualities that make some people willing to pay for the WSJ. The quality isn't as good and the direct monetary benefit is not nearly as clear.
2. Most of those other sites have much clearer (free) competition.
3. Nowhere at all does Murdoch talk about actually giving people a reason to buy. All he's saying is that if they put up a paywall, people will pay. Sure, a few might, but it's a small number, and doing so will stagnate any sort of growth, piss off advertisers, and allow competitors to take a giant leap forward -- all in one shot.

But... if he wants to charge and thinks that these points are incorrect, we're eager to see how Murdoch gets around these issues. In the meantime, if you work for a publication that competes with a Murdoch news site, start revving up a marketing/promotional campaign about how you don't charge, and see how much market share you can build. Unless, of course, Rafat Ali is correct in his thinking, suggesting that this is all a big bluff to get others to put up a paywall. I don't believe it though... because if I'm a competitor the fact that Murdoch is going paywall, gives me even more reasons not to do so.

39 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Notice That Murdoch Is Only Talking About Charging For Content... Not Giving People A Reason To Buy

from the good-luck-with-that dept

Yesterday, The Daily Beast "leaked" the news that Rupert Murdoch had a "secret plan" to start charging for content, and today the news is all over the mainstream press, as Murdoch officially announced the plan. Of course, I'm not sure why people think this is a surprise. Murdoch basically made it clear this was his plan a month ago (oddly totally contradicting his own statements from a year and a half ago, where he talked about how much more money you could make from free content).

Still, if you want to know why this (like pretty much ever other plan to charge for news) will fail, just look at the language Murdoch (and others who insist on charging) are saying. They talk about the fundamental "value" of content. But they never talk about actually increasing the value or giving the community a reason to pay. Instead, they seem to think that the content, by itself, is somehow reason enough. However, you can bet that the management at competing news publications around the globe are suddenly gleeful over the idea that Murdoch is about to take his publications out of competition for a large amount of advertising dollars. As soon as Murdoch puts up a pay wall, and traffic drops, that'll make it just that much easier for competitors offering free content to build up both audience and advertising revenue. Meanwhile, Murdoch will discover that some people certainly will pay, but that it'll be tough to grow that revenue stream at any significant rate.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Rupert Murdoch Switching Sides On Free Content?

from the say-what-now? dept

At one point, it seemed like Rupert Murdoch was all on board with moving away from newsprint and towards an online world where content was free. After all, way back in 2005 he declared that newsprint was on the way out, and then, prior to taking over the Wall Street Journal, he hinted that he thought the WSJ could do even better by making its content entirely free. However, after taking over Dow Jones, folks who run WSJ.com convinced him otherwise -- and now it sounds like he's gone entirely over to the other side. In a talk at a cable industry event, he reportedly said: "The question is, should we be allowing Google to steal all our copyright ... not steal, but take. Not just them, but Yahoo."

Well, at least he corrected himself (sort of) on calling it "stealing" -- though, even then it's not right. First off, it would be the content, not the copyright that's being used. And it wouldn't be either "taken" or "stolen." But, even more to the point, if Murdoch doesn't want Google or Yahoo linking to his properties, that's easy. He can just ask them to stop and they will. So, to claim that it's somehow unfair that Google and Yahoo are "taking" that content is flat-out wrong. News Corp. hasn't blocked the crawlers, so obviously the company feels it gets some benefit from Google and Yahoo.

Then he moved on to the question of free content:

"People reading news for free on the web, that's got to change."

That's about 180 degrees from what he said just a year and a half ago, when he noted:

"We are studying it and we expect to make that free, and instead of having 1 million [subscribers], having at least 10 million to 15 million in every corner of the earth.... Will you lose $50 million to $100 million in revenue? I don't think so. If the site is good, you'll get much more."

Perhaps Murdoch of today should go talk to Murdoch of 2007.

Or, he should go talk with Martin Langeveld who actually tried to do the math on subscriptions vs. the loss in advertising from a much smaller base, and has a lot of trouble finding any model of paid content that would offset the loss in advertising. In fact, the more he looked, the worse it seemed, as the loss in advertising revenue from putting most content behind a paywall is significantly more than any subscriber revenue.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Dow Jones Execs Talk Murdoch Out Of Dropping The Paywall

from the short-term-revenue-vs.-long-term-relevance dept

For months there had been a lot of buzz about how Rupert Murdoch was interested in dropping the WSJ's paywall. However, as we noted, execs at Dow Jones were quick to hit back, and said they would convince Murdoch otherwise after the acquisition was completed. It appears that's exactly what's happened. Murdoch today admitted that he's going to keep the WSJ subscription offering and maybe even increase the price. Amusingly, this news is available for free on the WSJ's site. The truth is, it's still not entirely clear what's going to happen to the Journal's website. While Murdoch said there will always be a subscription offering, he also said that more content will be free. It sounds like he's trying to straddle both solutions here, picking the "most valuable" content to remain locked up. Of course, that was the NY Times' strategy -- which failed.

The simple fact is that news reporting content is incredibly difficult to monetize directly anymore -- due to a variety of factors, mostly having to do with the nature of trying to sell content. There are models (even subscription models) that work, but they will be not for the content directly, but for advanced services, such as personalization or analysis. The risk in locking up your best content is that the WSJ will continue to lose relevance, as the next generation of readers won't even bother to sign up, as they won't be able to understand why it's worth paying for this content, no matter how good WSJ execs claim it is.

The next generation of content users have learned something important: it's no longer reasonable to take it on faith that content they don't have access to is good and worth paying for. They need to have access to the content itself, and will figure out for themselves if it's valuable -- and if it is, they'll want to do more with it than just read it. They want to share it, vote on it, discuss it, analyze it and many other things. Locking up the content makes it a lot more difficult and takes away much of the value. Taking away value from consumers isn't exactly a strategy for success these days.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Dow Jones Pours Cold Water On Murdoch's Free Journal Plans

from the he-said,-he-said dept

For months, we've been reporting on rumors that Rupert Murdoch is thinking about dropping the Wall Street Journal's paywall in the hopes of dramatically expanding the paper's readership. This week we've had the first direct confirmation of Murdoch's plans when he predicted at a shareholder meeting that dropping the Journal's paywall would expand the paper's online readership from a million readers to 10 or 15 million. But Dow Jones executive Michael Rooney rushed to pour cold water on Murdoch's comments, insisting that they would need to wait until after the sale closed before any decisions were made. He said he wanted to figure out how much revenue Dow Jones would lose before deciding whether to drop the paywall. Frankly, I think it's a good thing Murdoch will soon be in charge of the paper. Short-term revenues are far less important than the paper's long-term influence and visibility. Murdoch understands that continuing the paywall would virtually guarantee continued readership stagnation by keeping the Journal out of the online conversation. That would leave a huge opening for one of the Journal's competitors to establish itself as the leading online business news outlet. That's a far bigger threat to the paper's financial health than a short-term loss of subscription revenue. Murdoch has a long history of being willing to take temporary financial hits to build up successful and ultimately profitable media properties, and that shrewd business sense looks set to continue with his acquisition of Dow Jones.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..