Taking news away from Internet users
Where do you get your news? Chances are, you get it online -- and moreover, that you get it from an online portal, or a search engine. Whether you use Google, Microsoft's Bing, or Ask.com, you're probably finding news headlines on a summary newspage, or by searching for a particular subject. How would you feel if large portions of the news didn't turn up in those search engines or portals at all? Because if media mogul Rupert Murdoch has his way, that's exactly what will happen.
In an interview this week with an Australian TV network, Murdoch said (again) that he would shortly begin charging for news articles in some of the biggest online properties that he owns. He is angry at search engines for what he says is content theft, and says that he will make sure that his outlets' news articles don't show up in the search engines. That means that if you want to read them, you have to go to the website directly in search of them. Will you do that?
Murdoch describes the search engines as "the people who just pick up our stuff and run with it. They take our stories without asking." The counterargument to this is that the search engines drive more content to his site, and enable him to pick up more advertising revenue. But he is not convinced.
"There's not enough advertising going around in the world to make all of the web sites profitable. We'd rather have fewer people visiting our web sites, but paying," he says.
This approach seems to take Murdoch in the opposite direction to the rest of the Internet. As the number of sites with free content (including this one) proliferates, he is relying on what he perceives as the extremely high quality of his reporting to make people pay for content. But payment mechanisms could be a problem. His Wall Street Journal site requires a weekly subscription, so I went there -- purely in the interests of research -- to sign up. The site advertised a weekly subscription fee of $1.99 - not a bad deal, all in all. However, I guess I didn't read the fine print, because I thought there'd be an option to play by the week. When I clicked the Subscribe button after entering my details, I got dinged for a 52-week subscription costing just over 100 bucks. So I guess I'm a WSJ reader now. Can anyone say 'vendor lock-in'?
The Internet is supposed to be about choice. People like to cherry pick their information based on what they see on a daily basis -- ideally during web searches. Being locked into a particular publication (and let's be honest, which of us can afford more than one?) ties you down, and makes search engines less relevant, which is exactly what Murdoch wants.
A display advertising model makes much more sense for Internet users. And while Murdoch may be right that there is not enough display advertising to go around, not all news sites are equal, are they? The chances are that a publication with the kudos of the Wall Street Journal will get enough eyeballs to justify inflated rates for online display advertisers. But in order to retain those eyeballs, it needs to fight for its brand in an increasingly crowded and innovative landscape, where many other legitimate voices are emerging, with a strong nose for a story, and an astute knowledge of the subject matter.
So, the final question goes to you, the reader: are you likely to pay for your news, in the way that Murdoch wants, or will you ignore his publications online, and continue using search engines and online portals as your main entry point for online news?
Danny Bradbury, MSN Tech and Gadgets
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Posted by: Marie | Nov 12, 2009 8:37:16 PM
So Mr. Murdoch doesn't want us to have access to free information from his publications. Bohoo. I'll remember his plight the next time one of his newspapers calls in the middle of dinner to ask if I want to buy a subscription. My listing was probably bought from someone who is making money selling my info - and Mr. Murdoch I don't get a dime. Welcome to the real world - one that you help propagate.
Posted by: just an observer | Nov 12, 2009 9:36:42 PM
hmm... well thats fantastic. im sorry, but any knowledge worth taking in isnt worth paying for. the second someone starts profiting from intelectual discussion is the same second a journalist gets the idea he can oil it for every penny the world has to offer... and the real value of shared knowledge becomes skewed and reliant on profit. corruption breeds corruption.
so yes, lets take a step back from human intellegence as a whole and put a price on it... im sure that will promote a a more intellectually alert species. c'mon people, lets be realistic. most people wont do anything if its not convenient... so putting a price on news is just going to make everyone ignorant... which in turn causes unnecessary prejudices and miss-information to spead like a half assed fast food franchise over the U.S.A.
lets think long term hm?
Posted by: MJ | Nov 12, 2009 10:09:33 PM
I am just so sick and tired of these people that think "more money". I would like to see the "Little Guy" fight back and boycott these business "people". Take back our right to free access to news. There should be a little notice that the places we go to when we click on a link, provides the names of the owners and give us an alternate site to visit.
What people like Murdoch don't care about is that the low income people are the ones that suffer. Pretty easy to ignore that fact when you are living in multi-million dollar homes, eating fancy $1,000.00 plates of food, and living it up. I would LOVE to trade them places for 6 months to 1 year. I bet they wouldn't last a week without dipping into a private stash of money somewhere.
Posted by: dal | Nov 14, 2009 7:51:59 AM
Come on Mr.Murdoch, while I can appreciate that journalists deserve to earn salaries and profit from their astute knowledge of subject, research and objective reporting of facts, you have to realize that information always wants to be found. Take away your 'content' from search engines and people will get their news from BBC online, New York Times or some guys blog.
Posted by: digitrunner | Nov 20, 2009 1:10:49 AM
So Murdoch wants us to pay for the news that he says portals are stealing from him? The news is the news there is no intellectual or copyright licences on dynamic world events,maybe Murdoch can make up some news and copyright his own fairy tales along with his illusions of grandeur.
Posted by: Kenneth T. Tellis | Nov 20, 2009 6:15:15 PM
Some folks are greedy, and some folks like Rupert Murdock are very, very greedy for more money. It's not that Murdock really works for his money, but if ha can get a buck from anyone for free why would he complain?
I guess the people still have a choice, they can boycott any outlet that Rupert Murdock owns and that could cost him millions.