Days of free internet will soon be over says Rupert Murdoch

[Joanne98]

News Corp will charge for newspaper websites, says Rupert Murdoch Current days of free internet will soon be over, says media mogul

Rupert ­Murdoch expects to start charging for access to News Corporation's newspaper websites within a year as he strives to fix a ­"malfunctioning" business model.

Encouraged by booming online subscription revenues at the Wall Street Journal, the billionaire media mogul last night said that papers were going through an "epochal" debate over whether to charge. "That it is possible to charge for content on the web is obvious from the Wall Street Journal's experience," he said.

Asked whether he envisaged fees at his British papers such as the Times, the Sunday Times, the Sun and the News of the World, he replied: "We're absolutely looking at that." Taking questions on a conference call with reporters and analysts, he said that moves could begin "within the next 12 months‚" adding: "The current days of the internet will soon be over."

Plunging earnings from newspapers led the way downwards as News Corporation's quarterly operating profits slumped by 47% to $755m, although exceptional gains on sale of assets boosted bottom-line pretax profits to $1.7bn, in line with last year's figure.

Dwindling advertising revenue across print and television divisions depressed the News Corp numbers despite box office receipts from Twentieth Century Fox movies such as Slumdog Millionaire and Marley and Me. But Murdoch said he believed signs of hope were appearing.

"I'm not an economist and we all know economists were created to make weather forecasters look good," he quipped. "But it is increasingly clear the worst is over."

He continued: "There are encouraging signs in some of our businesses that the days of precipitous declines are done, and things are beginning to look healthier."

News Corp's newspaper division barely broke even, with quarterly profits collapsing from $216m to $7m year-on-year. Advertising revenue in Britain fell by 21% and Murdoch revealed the Sunday Times is struggling: "It's still in profit, but only just so." The tabloids had fared better, aided by price battles at supermarkets which spend heavily on print promotions.

Television profits also shrank dramatically, falling from $419m to $4m due to a loss of Superbowl revenue and weaker advertising at the group's Fox channels in the US and its Star network in Asia.

News Corp has cut 3,000 jobs over the last year, although Murdoch said very few affected journalists or "creative" personnel. Its filmed entertainment division enjoyed an 8% rise in profits to $282m, while Fox News Channel in the US helped push profits from cable subscription networks up by 30% to $429m.

But News Corp revealed that its interactive media division, which includes the social networking site MySpace, had turned in a lower contribution. MySpace's management was recently replaced as News Corp struggles to build sustainable profitability but Murdoch dismissed competition from its larger rival, Facebook.

"We're not going for the Facebook model of getting hundreds and hundreds of million of people who don't bring any advertising with them at all," he said.

Continued>>>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/may/07/rupert-murdoch-charging-websites/print

[Posteritatis]

1. And nothing of value was lost. (nt)

[Seldona]

12. Well said. In fact a large portion of his audience will be cut off.

Hilarious. It's bad enough he takes himself seriously when it comes to his 'news' channel, but expecting people to pay for his right-wing rhetoric is insane.

If I owned stock in any of this man's companies, not that I would if I could, I would divest myself quickly. This guy is a moran.

[BOSSHOG]

2. The internet is free now?

I'll be damned, I've been writing a check every month for years for "internet service." Gosh I feel so violated now that I know it was free.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

13. Really.... has the internet ever been really free?

I've never heard of it around here.

[BattyDem]

3. Murdoch, I don't pay for your shitty newspapers now ...

what the hell makes you think I'd being willing to pay for them online? :rofl:

[bemildred]

4. Days of Murdoch will soon be over, says free internet. nt

[BattyDem]

5. LOL!

:toast:

[Tutankhamun]

6. That's a misleading title, since Murdoch's only talking about people paying for access to newspapers

He's not talking about the internet as a whole. Who cares what he charges for the POS he's putting out? Fuck Rupert Murdoch.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. If he is successful you will thank him

The current dead tree journals are a dying breed. LAT, NYT, Boston Globe, Reuters etc are all in serious decline. Here on DU people bemoan the loss of "real journalist". Only a group as large as Murdoch's has a chance of convincing the user base to pay for online news access. If he is successful in remaking the market, LAT, NYT and others can follow suit and recover financially.

[digidigido]

16. Utter Horse Shit. Murdoch's news is biased and I wouldn't trust it, let alone pay for it

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. You clearly missed the point, let me try again and speak slowly for you

1) The print news media is dying due to lack of income and with it any semblance quality journalism
2) Murdoch has the largest media empire, and may be the only one capable of forcing a change in the market
3) *IF* he is able to make that change the public will then consider paying for news acceptable (again)
4) Then the rest of the media can hop on that train and quality journalism will again have funding

I never said we should pay Murdoch for anything, just that he could be the trailblazer that makes paying for journalism a viable business model again.

[AdHocSolver]

21. The print media is dying because the quality has deteriorated dramatically in the past several years

The conglomerates bought out newspaper publishers, merged them, and fired their best reporters and commentators to increase profits. People who read, stopped buying the crap.

Advertising revenue is down because the economy is tanking. Why advertise if your potential customers are cutting back purchases.

Considering these conditions, Murdoch isn't going to "force" any changes in the newspaper market. Guys like him have shown that they enjoy making profit by selling crap, and that is why people aren't buying it any more.

[IntravenousDemilo]

7. Rupert Murdoch has more than enough money now. He should be content with that. n/m

[Tutankhamun]

8. He won't rest until he controls the entire media and destroys the whole planet.

[old mark]

9. Rupert reminds me of a bad guy in a Batman movie....

except I suppose he's real...
I stopped watching any Fox network programming except football games. I sometimes email Fox and let them know that, too, and tell them why.

Nice to know I'm not alone.

mark

[kaygore]

11. By being merely propagandists, they screwed the pooch

Why these idiots can't see the end game is beyond me.

Newspapers and "news shows" stop informing the people and sooner or later people will start getting their information elsewhere.

Same with churches pushing their RW agenda. In the end, people would see the manipulation and turn away.

At one time, radio, TV, newspapers served the local community. They had real reporters. They informed as well as entertained.

Not any more. FM stations are dedicated usually to one form of music while AM stations carry rants. The best you can do is find an FM station with music you like or find your public radio station and accept it.

Well, given choices, people have no allegiance for the pablum they have been being served. A Vanity Fair article notes that the demographic for Rush and most of the RW ranters on radio is 67 year old. As they grow deaf and feeble and die off, guess what...no more audience.

Good riddance to the likes of Rupert Murdock. Go ahead and charge for your lies and see who will bother to buy.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. The New York Times tried to charge readers for "premium content"

and gave it up after a while, mainly because nobody subscribed.

Stranger still, when Internet shopping was new, some Japanese merchants required customers to register and pay a fee before they could buy anything. They soon gave that up, too.

[BobTheSubgenius]

15. And what would that (alleged) content be worth? n/t

[irislake]

17. I have never read any of Murdoch's garbage anyway

and I do not watch FOX ever.
I occasionally get to read (free) articles from WSJ. But I disagree politically with WSJ so who the hell cares? Besides since very fat cats love the WSJ naturally they will pay. But remember what happened to the NYT? When NYT started to charge I started reading it free through New York Public Library site. It took less than a year for NYT to go free. Same thing happened to Canada's Globe and Mail. There is such a cornucopia available. Screw 'em!

WHAT A GREEDY BASTARD!

[bertman]

18. Ha ha ha Ha Ha ha ha haaaa!!! Rupert kills.

[Jim Sagle]

19. I wouldn't pay 2 shits much less 2 cents to read ANY online site, much less Merde-ox swill.

And I suspect I'm in the vast majority.

[santamargarita]

22. I thought right-wing assholes want their propaganda free of charge?

They're the only ones stupid enough to pay for it!

[Recursion]

23. TV could be paid for by advertising

Why can't Internet news? There are much lower infrastructure costs. Online ads are more effective than TV ads. What online news organizations need is to beat advertisers over the head until they realize their current low advertising rates are unsustainable.