Comments on: Compare/contrast

By: Expatriation business is good, thanks in part to dumb tax policy

Expatriation business is good, thanks in part to dumb tax policy — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:03:52 +0000

[...] Wall Street Journal (link to the article is here, Rupert Murdoch, and be damned) there is non-tax verification of what I am seeing [...]

By: Seth Goldstein

Seth Goldstein — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:36:52 +0000

Jeff,

You are a visionary and for that you will survive where other newspapers and newsmen will fail. News is not dead it’s just evolving and changing.

People like Murdoch are old stuffy men who try desperately to cling on to a dying concept. And because of him and other like him, they are trying to take down the very thing that might save them from extinction.

By: Gerard Brandon

Gerard Brandon — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:05:54 +0000

Murdoch is acting in exactly the same way that music executives did when their lucrative album and singles sales were disappearing into the digital ether.

News happens, it is free. Reporting it is a discretionary act on the part of commercial media. Murdoch has more to fear from the stars of his media empire establishing their own blog, twitter and facebook reporting platform and going solo.

It used to be that we had to buy an Album to hear a small number of good songs. Why is it necessary to gain access to a full newspaper or through a digital website paywall to find a good report?

Newspapers are in trouble because they forgot to build a scalable, profitable online model for commerce on news that is free and going back to the old ways is the same as driving your car in a rear view mirror. Murdoch and any legacy media moguls need to get to grips with the reality of access to news which is no longer a monopoly empire.

By: Andy Freeman

Andy Freeman — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 18:06:33 +0000

> >However, most companies seem to lose money with paywalls.

> Specifics please…

Times Select. Slate.

Paywalls are not new. Many companies have tried them and failed.

> I think the point is everything is for the most part free on the internet. So far it seems the internet has been mostly for marketing and a few people have struck it rich in some slightly unusual way.

That paragraph doesn’t make any sense if you substitute “TV” for internet.

A lot of content is free to consumers but content isn’t “everything”. And no, I’m not referring to on-line selling. (Hint – the audience is not free.)

BTW – Anyone who thinks “mostly for marketing” hasn’t been paying attention.

By: Eric Gauvin

Eric Gauvin — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 02:21:50 +0000

Andy Freeman says:

>However, most companies seem to lose money with paywalls.

Specifics please…

I think the point is everything is for the most part free on the internet. So far it seems the internet has been mostly for marketing and a few people have struck it rich in some slightly unusual way.

By: Andy Freeman

Andy Freeman — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:40:16 +0000

> I think what the “information-must-not-be-charged-for” crowd

There is no such crowd. There are, however, folks who point out that readers have choices.

> are most scared of is that Murdoch may just turn out to be correct

If we’re scared, why are many of us hoping that Murdoch does put his content behind a paywall?

Yes, some companies do make more money with a paywall. Who, exactly, has argued that they shouldn’t? (No, you don’t get to say “I’ve heard” – specifics only.)

However, most companies seem to lose money with paywalls.

If your goal is to make money, figuring out which category you fit in seems important.

I want Murdoch to go paywall so that everyone can see how much readers actually value his content.

By: FT.com | John Gapper's Business Blog | Nasty Rupert Murdoch takes over from nice Rupert

Thu, 03 Dec 2009 02:00:02 +0000

[...] by Les Hinton, publisher of Wall Street Journal, this week for advocating free access to news, disclosed this week that he had helped with a draft of Mr Murdoch’s 2005 speech on how the internet was changing [...]

By: Dermitt

Dermitt — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:58:08 +0000

Free is still a day late and dollar short which is fine. A good journalist considers what can be seen and most importantly what should be forseen. That pays off down the road. Abu Dhabi lost 89% on Citigroup which has not paid off and now what? We still have our ports to report.

By: Eric Gauvin

Eric Gauvin — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:57:38 +0000

I agree. We can see through “Professor Marvel’s” act.

“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! The Great and Powerful Wizard has spoken!”

By: Josh

Josh — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 04:22:14 +0000

I think Phil Hodgen has connected the hammer and the nail.

Why all the flapping and panty knotting? If people are so certain that Murdoch’s strategy is a failed one then go ahead and let him fail. It will be one less “legacy” player crowding the democratic internet.

I think what the “information-must-not-be-charged-for” crowd are most scared of is that Murdoch may just turn out to be correct – that people will pay for online content (no, not all of them, but that doesn’t matter as long as enough do). If he does succeed, watch as every single major publisher does likewise.

That is their great fear and the reason for the flapping and knotting.

I have no problem with people seeing free as the way forward for journalism. What I do have a problem are the ones who see it as the only way. They are zealots, unbending in their beliefs as they shout down anyone with a contrary opinion and champion anyone who thinks as they do.

By: Ambrose

Ambrose — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:46:42 +0000

Wow, first we see Rupert Murdoch gushing about his young daughters, then we get Hinton saying News has been behaving “Like an over-eager middle-aged dad”.

Oh, *snap*.

By: Murdoch? « Loriscosta’s Weblog

Murdoch? « Loriscosta’s Weblog — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:17:31 +0000

[...] si contraddice sempre su internet. Come si diceva. E lo fa notare Jeff con una bella lettura comparata di Murdoch 2005 e Murdoch [...]

By: Dermitt

Dermitt — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:30:38 +0000

Most of the news is so bad you cannot charge more. Now papers want to be like GM and on the dole to keep rolling. Do not be creative just limit the next person so all can fail and ration information. All reporters can work as regulators for state news agency.

By: michael

michael — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:32:56 +0000

Ms. A. Huffington lays it down…beautifully….

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/journalism-2009-desperate_b_374642.html

By: Planetwebfoot

Planetwebfoot — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:04:28 +0000

I absolutely agree with you. Murdoch wants money, power, fame… and will do anything to get it, including changing his approach or “values” to achieve it.

By: Dermitt

Dermitt — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:41:21 +0000

Selling more of less. WebTV failed and now we have digital TV. The customer is king and queen. We do not want cable TV internet. Wireless will lower cost to the point of free. It is free although rationed. A rationed internet would not work. It seems soviet wall thinking endures. Analog can deliver content so we could use old TV spectrum as CB radio subnet using cheap wifi gear.

By: Phil Hodgen

Phil Hodgen — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:18:08 +0000

As a non-news, non-journalist, normal person, I’ve been watching the flapdoodle about Mr. Murdoch (mostly flapping and doodling from the interweb).

If you’re so right, why are your collective panties in a knot? Ignore him and move on. You’ll be proved right. Or he will. In either event, the next iteration of reality will ensue.

Geez. It’s like junior high.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvitur_ambulando

By: Stu

Stu — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:41:39 +0000

Doesn’t it look too strange that exactly Murdoch and his empire are lashing at the aggregators really intensively.

I can understand Murdoch and Co’s anger at the aggregators – after all his empire owns Factiva (factiva.com).

That’s a company that does exactly the following – it organizes the world’s newspaper content and gains money thanks to this.

Now I may be wrong but I can see far plans for Factiva’s model to become a viable model (if sufficiently backed) for distributing content digitally and making lots of money from it.

It’s hard to underestimate this digital model for making money from newspaper content on the Internet.

By: Miles Box

Miles Box — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:17:20 +0000

spot on Matt. Newspapers make the mistake of believeing they exist online amongst the same peer group as offline. But content is freely available everywhere, and that cannot be controlled JP erected a paywall this week around the Worksop Guardian – so now you must pay to read the report of Worksop Town vs Witby…unless you go to Google and ask for a match report, where you will find plenty. How much do i want a journo to write the review vs just knowing what happened? The problem is not that newspapers didnt start behind payment, its that the medium has changed how content is avaiable. Old media may drown if they don’t stop clinging to the wreckage of an outdated model but just hoping the water will recede is not a strategy either.

By: Matt Terenzio

Matt Terenzio — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:51:42 +0000

Getting tired of hearing the new defense, “We tried it that way and it didn’t work.”
Neither did subscription when you tried that.
You want to learn how to swim, at some point you must risk drowning. This is where Newspapers have failed. Cut the tether to find what new projects will float on their own. Many won’t, same as the many Google projects that fail. The few that do float are you new business models for when your core business has fully deflated.

By: Roy F. Tottie

Roy F. Tottie — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:05:36 +0000

Mr. Jarvis,

You see that is the difference between someone like you and someone like Rupert Murdoch.

You are coming from a place of vision.And you strive to stay true to that vision as best you are able to understand and articulate it.

Murdoch is coming from a place of acquisitiveness. He wants, money, power, fame, what have you. So he will say whatever he believes will get him that. He tried one way back then. It didn’t work, or didn’t work well enough so now he’s trying this way.

If (when I suspect in truth) this approach doesn’t work, he’ll try something else.