Would you pay to read online news? Get ready, it's coming

[HURAKAN]

Murdoch signals end of free news

News Corp is set to start charging online customers for news content across all its websites.

The media giant is looking for additional revenue streams after announcing big losses.

The company lost $3.4bn (£2bn) in the year to the end of June, which chief executive Rupert Murdoch said had been "the most difficult in recent history".

News Corp owns the Times and Sun newspapers in the UK and the New York Post and Wall Street Journal in the US.

'Revolution'

“ We intend to charge for all our news websites. I believe that if we are successful, we will be followed by other media ”
Rupert Murdoch, chief executive, News Corp

Mr Murdoch said he was "satisfied" that the company could produce "significant revenues from the sale of digital delivery of newspaper content".

"The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive methods of distribution," he added.

"But it has not made content free. Accordingly, we intend to charge for all our news websites. I believe that if we are successful, we will be followed by other media.

"Quality journalism is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalising its ability to produce good reporting," he said.

In order to stop readers from moving to the huge number of free news websites, Mr Murdoch said News Corp would simply make its content "better and differentiate it from other people".

HAVE YOUR SAY What a ridiculous idea. Why would anyone pay for news from the web? Paul, Lichfield

Charging options

Newspapers across the world are considering the best way to make money from the internet, particularly in a time of falling advertising revenues.

The risk is that charges may alienate readers who have become used to free content and deter advertisers.

When the New York Times abandoned its subscription model - visits to its website jumped from about 12 million per day to almost 20 million per day, said the former general manager of NYTimes.com, Vivian Schiller.

Ms Schiller, now chief executive at National Public Radio (NPR) in the US, told the BBC's PM programme that the higher audience had "more value than the limited number of people who were prepared to pay for content".

However last month the paper said it was studying different ways to charge for access to its website. The Financial Times and Wall Street Journal already charge readers.

Different news organisations have tried alternative charging structures - either pay-per-article or a monthly subscription fee.

“ In its recent earnings report, the Financial Times said it was seeking to rely less on advertising revenue and more on subscriptions ”

The FT allows users to access a certain number of stories for nothing each month; if they want to access more than that, they need to subscribe.

'Well-differentiated content'

Some analysts say that financial newspapers are better placed to charge readers for online content, because of the specialist nature of the information they provide.

Alfonso Marone, analyst and partner at Value Partners Group, told the BBC that the model could work "for well-known publications - for must-read, must-know content. The Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times are already charging for content, for example," he said.

He believes that a micro-charging structure, where readers pay just 5p or 10p to access an article, might work. "This is less than the price of an SMS [text message]," he argued.

"This is definitely the way the [newspaper] industry is going," he concluded.

Sly Bailey, the chief executive of Trinity Mirror, said that while a "paid online model already exists for unique, high value and well-differentiated content", she doubted "that it is possible for publishers to charge for general news content when the same content is given away for free by the BBC, Google News and others".

"I don't think this is about what Rupert Murdoch wants. It's about what the consumer is prepared to pay for. And why would you pay when you can get the same thing somewhere else for free?" she said.

Recovery

News Corp has suffered from falling advertising revenues.

"Our financial performance clearly reflects the weak economic environment that we confronted throughout the year," Mr Murdoch said.

He did, however, say that there were signs of life in the advertising market.

"I think the worst may be behind us, but there are no clear signs yet of a fast economic recovery."

He added that News Corp was "particularly well-placed for the coming recovery".

New Corp's $3.4bn loss was due to $8.9bn in write-downs already announced, compared with a $5.4bn profit a year earlier.

Revenues at the media giant, which owns BSkyB and 20th Century Fox, fell 7.8%.

In the fourth quarter of its financial year, News Corp lost $203m compared with a net profit of $1.1bn in the same period a year ago.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/b ... 186701.stm

[Night Tide]

I've been expecting them to do this for at least 9 years now. I wasn't willing to pay one red cent for it then, and I'm not willing to pay one red cent for it today.

But then again, I don't really need to. I'm old fashioned, and I love receiving a freshly printed newspaper at my front door every morning.

[SETXWXLADY]

I've been hearing about this for awhile also. Me personally, I wouldnt pay for it either. But I don't watch or read the news anyway so its a non-issue to me. Every now and then I peruse the headlines mainly on yahoo. Then choose which story I want to read. I also go to my local TV sites for content because I hate commercials. An advertisers worst nightmare. I just love my DVR. Anyway, I'm wondering how long it will take before these sites that charge for content start suing anyone who repeats there stories for free, such as this article on this blog. But then again, if you repeat the story but in your own words, what could they do about it? I don't think it will last very long. Unless, like they mentioned, it is specialized content. But who knows. I think the whole world is experiencing growing pains. And the internet has changed everything in a relatively short amount of time. The Gutenberg Press of the 20/21st century in over-drive! I just love the internet. It's a great place to study ANYTHING you want to. Meet people. Have fun. And I'm sure there are people who have been trying from day 1 to find a way to charge us for it's use in every way. But I hope they don't succeed. I would miss it.

[Category 5]

I'll stick with the Onion, its just as good if not better.

[tropicana]

won't pay either, but there are just so so many sources of news on the internet, you are bound to find free news agencies, so they will just lose out in the end when they realise that online readership will plummett.

[DanKellFla]

The New York Times had a premium service for a few years. That failed. There are too many sites on-line for a pay system to work. If one site costs me money, I will just switch to the others that are free.

[lurkey]

The New York Times had a premium service for a few years. That failed. There are too many sites on-line for a pay system to work. If one site costs me money, I will just switch to the others that are free.

nd yet, they are going to try again. . .

good luck to Mr Murdoch, NY Times and AP with their attempt at this business model. .. as long as CNN and Reuters are free . .. who cares

[DaylilyDawn]

I read my local paper, The Ledger.com online now for over three years now. They do not charge for online access but do limit some items like comics.

[Cyclenall]

I read about this months ago, and it is just plain stupid all around. It's not going to work and it will backfire on them all. Since people are not flocking to their news, they now want to charge for it?

[Dionne]

We're already paying for the news. All of us.

First you purchase the puter, then plug it in to electricity, then pay your isp. Then you go out and get a combo fax/printer/scanner. Which requires a telephone upgrade. Next you decide to make your home wireless. Then you get a laptop to carry around the house and outside. You get tired of slow speeds and upgrade to DSL.

Then you sit down and log on to any of the various media websites.....for FREE.

[Dr. Strangelove]

"quality" "journalism"


Talk about delusional.

[lurkey]

I read about this months ago, and it is just plain stupid all around. It's not going to work and it will backfire on them all. Since people are not flocking to their news, they now want to charge for it?

what they say about the internet and censorship is applicable to internet and paywalls on sites: The 'net will interpret it as damage and route around it. . ..

Part of the problem is the reduction of ad revenue, plus it doesn't help that people like me aggressively use ad-block. ..

[Jack8631]

I'll stick with the Onion, its just as good if not better.