Rupert Murdoch's Paywall

[ICantSpellDawg]

Anybody else think he is going to run into major problems and lose market share from this boondoggle?

[naut]

Fail miserably. Especially when better news sites like the BBC are still free.

[Furunculus]

yes, and good. nasty republican chap, don't like him.

[Beskar]

What is this on about?

[Furunculus]

making you have a pay account to access The Times Online website, among others.

[Subotan]

We can only hope.

[bobbin]

I think its a brilliant idea and he has my full support!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The less I see of his dross ,the better.

[drone]

Does this mean we won't have links to Fox News in Backroom discussions?

[Meneldil]

Well, as a student in journalism, and despite being a leftist hippie, I think this is a good move.

Informations isn't made for free, journalists aren't voluntary workers. Since it's quite obvious by now that advertising can't and won't be enough to fund a free press, going back to paying content is an option. I'm not saying it's the only possible economic model for online journalism, but so far, the "free for the customer + advertising" model is a complete fail. No single website is living off it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Sites like Gamespot and IGN live off of a hybrid system. They are very popular and offer most features for free HOWEVER the really neat features are charged for through premium accounts. I believe fully in a "free to customer + advertisement model" coupled with a rather excessively pricey "patron + added benefit model" and maybe somethign in between. When you make all content "for pay" you cut off your best writers from their base, and most writers don't jsut write for pay, but to spread their ideals and opinions. Who would want to be limited to a small group of like minded individuals when you were already reaching massive global audiences.

I have always believed that most everything should be free plus ads. I have also always believed that a system should exist for those who wish to support the business in question to pay a large amopunt of money to get special treatment for it, such as members only discussions with the writers or special raffles. Don't ever be afraid to ask for way more than it is worth, true fans would pay much, much more to support what they beleive in and be treated liek patricians.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It's good to know that peoples opinions change when it's their pocketbooks in question. I wish all leftist hippies would make similar connections when it was someone elses pocketbook.

[Lemur]

I think TuffStuff has it just right; a hybrid paywall/free content system can work. But a Great Wall of Murdoch? No. Epic fail.

[Beskar]

I prefer the BBC's model.

However, I hope Murdouch does wall off his content to customers, to protect us from it.

[Subotan]

Well, the BBC isn't out to make a profit. Hence the lack of adverts.

[gaelic cowboy]

But the BBC is not free you pay for it even if you never visit the site through UK taxes but I can read it and pay no tax and watch all there programmes on freeview in Ireland and not a shilling to the foriegn queen.

[Meneldil]

It's good to know that peoples opinions change when it's their pocketbooks in question. I wish all leftist hippies would make similar connections when it was someone elses pocketbook.

Well, to be honest, I don't intend to stay in the journalism branch. It's way too much work if you care about doing a correct job (which most journalists don't), and I didn't study my arse off for 6 years to go from one placement to another placement or get ridiculous wages (a journalist newbie is paid around 1100€ in France, if he's ever lucky enough to find a real job. A waitress working in a decent restaurant usually makes around 1300€). I'm merely sharing my opinion because I've studied the economics of journalism and the effects of the crisis, not because I want to protect my pocketbook.

I've done placements in newspapers, online ones or printed ones. Though it is a very demanding job in any case, being an online journalist nowadays is the crappiest job a well educated person can get. You work 12 hours a day and you're usually paid with stones. What's worse, in most traditional newspapers (as opposed to pure players, ie. newspapers that only exist on the web), you only get to rewrite printed articles and put them on teh intraweb. Crap job if there's one.

Then, there's the whole question of the quality of the information. Free information = low wages = people who don't care about their job or who can't do the job properly = poor information. There's a reason why most free newspapers are not even worthy to be used as toilet paper. Here goes the leftist hippie argument for you ;)

Obviously, many journalists do this job because they want to write about their ideals, educate the public, save the world or whatever. But if you want to do it correctly (which requires a lot of time) then you'd rightfully expect to make a living out of it. If I didn't, I'd just write a blog about whatever comes to my mind and link it on my facebook wall, right?

I think TuffStuff has it just right; a hybrid paywall/free content system can work. But a Great Wall of Murdoch? No. Epic fail.

Saddly, so far, no online press has found an effective way to financially sustain itself and make signifant benefits. The "free for most customers + premium accounts" (also called freemium) isn't working either at the moment. Maybe it will improve if we get through the broader economical crisis, but at the moment, it's not very effective (though quite ahead the "everything free" model).
Things are quite dire for journalism. Everyone jumped onto the free content bandwagon, thinking advertising would be enough to pull it off. Well, advertising wasn't enough, and things got even worse with the crisis. And once the population is used to browse news websites for free, it's quite difficult to suddenly say "Hey dudes, you're going to pay for it now".

[HoreTore]

Another reason why I love my state owned and funded NRK.

[Viking]

Another reason why I love my state owned and funded NRK.

I think their website has opened up for loopholes, though. I don't have a TV, so I have no obligation to pay the license; yet I get full access to all their net-TV stuff.

[Centurion1]

rupert murdoch is a bloody business genius. he deserves every dollar he makes. His idea was so incredibly revolutionary............ creating ba-dah-dah-dum a conservative news network i mean really what kind of competition does that have.

[Furunculus]

I prefer the BBC's model.

However, I hope Murdouch does wall off his content to customers, to protect us from it.

i however, from the other side of the political divide, will be delighted when i don't have taxpayer funded propaganda shoved down my throat courtesy of the bbc.

[Centurion1]

you cant compare the bbc as a business to any private american media company. they have to make money, the bbc is governemnt sponsored. two incredibly different models. as a result Americans get more variety (meaning: trash and trashier), brits get cheaper (is it free?) telly.

[Furunculus]

you cant compare the bbc as a business to any private american media company. they have to make money, the bbc is governemnt sponsored. two incredibly different models. as a result Americans get more variety (meaning: trash and trashier), brits get cheaper (is it free?) telly.

if you are left-liberal then you are well served by the BBC.

*still awaiting the release of that report on BBC bias*

[Beskar]

if you are left-liberal then you are well served by the BBC.

*still awaiting the release of that report on BBC bias*

BBC is pretty neutral. Unfortunately, being neutral often means liberal. It is a paradox.

[Furunculus]

BBC is pretty neutral. Unfortunately, being neutral often means liberal. It is a paradox.

never spotted that one, try me?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Another reason why I love my state owned and funded NRK.

The state does not fund it, YOU do.

[Aemilius Paulus]

The state does not fund it, YOU do.

Tell us something new...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

you cant compare the bbc as a business to any private american media company. they have to make money, the bbc is governemnt sponsored. two incredibly different models. as a result Americans get more variety (meaning: trash and trashier), brits get cheaper (is it free?) telly.

No, it's payed for by the (wireless) License fee, not the government.

[Subotan]

you cant compare the bbc as a business to any private american media company. they have to make money, the bbc is governemnt sponsored. two incredibly different models. as a result Americans get more variety (meaning: trash and trashier), brits get cheaper (is it free?) telly.

It's not free, no. You have to pay what amounts to a tax on your telly every year, of about £130.

That said, it's great value for money. No adverts, quality news reporting, free websites, a mandate to provide for every person in Britain; broadcasting is seen as a public service, and it is the right of all Britons to be able to both expect something they will enjoy from their television, and also experience balanced journalism.

[tibilicus]

It's not free, no. You have to pay what amounts to a tax on your telly every year, of about £130.

That said, it's great value for money. No adverts, quality news reporting, free websites, a mandate to provide for every person in Britain; broadcasting is seen as a public service, and it is the right of all Britons to be able to both expect something they will enjoy from their television, and also experience balanced journalism.

Agreed.

The BBC is the king of British broadcasting. Plus I would actually say paying the money is worth it just because of the fact I don't have to change over while the adverts come on.

The BBC also uses it's money wisely; producing some of the best documentaries and educational programmes around. The other channels on the other hand are happy to produce there continuously poor soaps and talent shows. I really wish that ITV would go bust, why anyone would even think to watch it is beyond me.

[HoreTore]

The state does not fund it, YOU do.

Just what did you think I meant when I said "the state funds it"?

L'Etat c'est moi!