Pay Per View news sites and charging for online content

[big eejit]

Charlie Brooker suggests the way to go is to make it fun to pay:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/10/charlie-brooker-iphone

That makes sense to me. Rely on the inherent addictiveness of video games to gather payments. Make the game so addictive, people aren't even bothered about the content they unlock!

 

[Shevek]

I was in touch with a local magazine/newspaper today. They are quite left-wing, fiercely independent, critics of the local council and developers. They can't get any funding and have lost a lot of their advertisers due to fear of association by local businesses. They have lost the printed magazine (which was delivered door to door) for the time being. They are still going online though. These guys do LOADS of investigative stuff and in my opinion are pretty good.

www.salfordstar.com/

These guys seem to be editorially a good model of local, investigative reporting. The question is how do you make it pay? The public relations industry is stuffed with people paid handsomely to spout a corporate line and present an immaculate public image. Yet good, genuine operations like this can barely pay their journalists. It seems inherently unfair that big companies can easily afford PR schmaltzers but that true independent journalism is going bust.

When I worked for a traffic news company PR people from the big car manufacturers would complain if we named their make of car in a negative way; if we said an Audi or a Range Rover had broken down in the road. We had to use generic term like saloon car (or just car) or 4x4. The point I am making is that big corporations have time to be THAT petty ffs.

Does anyone know the history of the working class press? In year 501 Chomsky talks about a working class press in the UK/USA in the 1890's and 1930's and how in contrast there is nothing like it at the time he is writing (early 1990's). He mentions the Herald in the UK as an example of a paper (with a high circulation) that was forced out of operation by market 'forces', lack of advertising (pressure from corporate interests).

What would have been the heyday of a working class press and how did the economics allow it to flourish? Did unions provide some of the funding for example. What is different now that means it can't be emulated? Surely with the rise of the internet diseminating information should be easier/cheaper in some ways? You would still have to pay journos.

 

[derf]

If I'm going to pay for newspaper content I might as well have an actual paper.

It won't work and the Australian senile nazi will fail

Probably best not to call him a nazi. (unless he is but I'm naot aware of it.)
Sort of takes away the power of the word when it's used against real nazi bastards like Griffin and his cunt mates.

Back to topic.
I can't see it as a working idea. There is so much choice of news media around hey would all have to adopt PAYG or a prepay system at the same time to make it viable. That's just not going to happen so I believe his idea is a dead duck that will last about as long as the next editor in his group that allows a monkey cartoon to be printed.

 

[Corax]

Sort of takes away the power of the word when it's used against real nazi bastards like Griffin and his cunt mates.

Who also isn't a Nazi. It's not interchangable with fash FFS.

I'm also pretty damn sure dotc know that full well and consciously chose hyperbole. What are you, his literary critic?

 

[London_Calling]

I don't think news has ever been 'free'.

How much do you pay for your broadband, for example? To some extent, the problem for Murdoch is he's not in the telecom game. Contrast profits, for example, between media groups and the telecom industry - the latter is making part of its profits on the back of free content provided by organisations like Murdoch's.

The news industry has let this absurd online model develop assuming it will all make sense in the end. And it's now killing them slowly but very surely. This is a pretty fundamental issue for informed democracy so we should be concerned.

 

[newbie]

indeed, the history of the internet has been to shift profit from content provider to distribution provider. Doesn't matter whether it's Warner Brothers or EMI or the Times or Urban75, they're simply hooks to enable the likes of BT or Be to sell distribution deals. And Google, of course, to sift it for us.

 

[marty21]

I don't think news has ever been 'free'.

How much do you pay for your broadband, for example? To some extent, the problem for Murdoch is he's not in the telecom game. Contrast profits, for example, between media groups and the telecom industry - the latter is making part of its profits on the back of free content provided by organisations like Murdoch's.

The news industry has let this absurd online model develop assuming it will all make sense in the end. And it's now killing them slowly but very surely. This is a pretty fundamental issue for informed democracy so we should be concerned.

yes, I pay for broadband, but when I click on a news site, they aren't getting any money from BT are they?

 

[London_Calling]

That's my point, Marty. We pay for news though the broadband contract in the same way we pay for it through the License Fee or pay for ITV advertising revenues at the supermarket checkout i.e. it's part of what we get, part of what makes the deal attractive.

Put simply, Branson/BT makes a packet from Murdoch providing content which makes Branson/BT's service more attractive, and Murdoch gets nothing - and he's got the hump about that.

 

[marty21]

That's my point, Marty. We pay for news though the broadband contract in the same way we pay for it through the License Fee or pay for ITV advertising revenues at the supermarket checkout i.e. it's part of what we get, part of what makes the deal attractive.

Put simply, Branson/BT makes a packet from Murdoch providing content which makes Branson/BT's service more attractive, and Murdoch gets nothing - and he's got the hump about that.

Sky make money from broadband as well though

 

[London_Calling]

Sure, a little.

 

[teuchter]

This comes round to something like that suggestion a while back that all music downloads could be "free" but the music providers would get a sort of tax revenue taken out of what people pay for their internet contracts.

 

[derf]

Who also isn't a Nazi. It's not interchangable with fash FFS.

I'm also pretty damn sure dotc know that full well and consciously chose hyperbole. What are you, his literary critic?

Nazi
.1. a member of the fascist National Socialist German Workers' Party, which was founded in 1919 and seized political control in Germany in 1933 under Adolf Hitler.
2. Derogatory.anyone who thinks or acts like a Nazi, esp. showing racism, brutality, etc.

That looks after griffin but fails to cover our publisher friend.

 

[marty21]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2009/oct/20/uk-survey-paid-content

9/10 say they won't pay to view news web sites

murduch seems to still be ploughing ahead with his plans to charge, surely charging will just drive traffic to free sites, presumably the BBC can't charge anyway, the other newspaper groups will wait to see if murduch is successful, which looks unlikely

 

[Rod Sleeves]

This won't save them though. They're trying to shoehorn the same content into a website and charge people for it, like a news site is basically a paper but on a screen. Nope, doesn't work like that.

This.

They can introduce charges, either subs or ppc and neither will save the newspaper industry.

Not that I think it is completely doomed, but they haven't worked out a way of saving it and transforming it into something new...

 

[kenny g]

well he does have to pay for that hair

 

[Zabo]

He's pissing in the wind on this one. Maybe highly specialised information will get some revenue - as noted above - but there is such a plethora of blogs and news sites from all around the world that people will get the information one way or another. Fortunately he doesn't own AP or Reuters and even if he did another would spring up and disseminate information and knowledge.

I tend to think of it in terms of Apple/Microsoft versus Open Source e.g. Linux. There will always be enough creative people who detest corporatism.

Anyhow the old fucker will soon be dead and his son's already brain dead.

 

[mincepie]

I think it will come - just it's a culture change -the web will 'grow up' and less things will be free. It's very early days yet.

The newspapers have to make the effort too. News and 'journalism' are different. Just re-printing AP news feeds as seems to be the trend these days - that's not worth paying for,

 

[TrippyLondoner]

If some went pay per view I would just get my news from a free news site, like the bbc or something, the tv news channels, or the paper, or even on urban! Wouldn't bother with paying for news sites though. Pointless!

 

[newbie]

He's pissing in the wind on this one.

we'll see, there's a good chance his track record is better than yours.

At the time he launched Sky almost no-one in this country paid for TV other than through the licence fee. Not so long after he was being paid by a third of the households in the country, and he still is 20 years later, despite Freeview.

ps

 

[maldwyn]

I'm looking forward to pay news sites - I get lots of free time back!

 

[paolo]

we'll see, there's a good chance his track record is better than yours.

At the time he launched Sky almost no-one in this country paid for TV other than through the licence fee. Not so long after he was being paid by a third of the households in the country, and he still is 20 years later, despite Freeview.

ps

Not comparable though. Sky TV has some exclusive content. Won't be the same with news.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Sky TV has some exclusive content. .

Not quite. Not in the age of streaming TV, unless he'ss prepared to pay the Premier League for global rights.

 

[newbie]

Not comparable though. Sky TV has some exclusive content. Won't be the same with news.

The point is not that there's a direct comaprison between TV and internet but that Murdoch is gambling that he can turn something otherwise freely available into a profit by charging for it. I'm not sure there's a lot of point thinking he's lacking in nous.

In terms of news both CNN and Sky have created strong paid for news brands despite the availability- even saturation- of other outlets. If Murdoch can identify the specific hooks that motivate readers and sign up the star attractions (as he did with sport) he might well leave the others looking flat and uninteresting. That's entirely possible- even on U75 where it has virtually no friends just look at how regularly stories are linked from the Daily Mail compared with the Indie (or the Times come to that, which is a hurdle he has to deal with).

 

[Zabo]

Not comparable though. Sky TV has some exclusive content. Won't be the same with news.

Correct. He may have lassoed some of Britain with Satellite TV but the news media and the internet is global. Moreover he has two major hurdles to overcome - which he won't. The first is the anti-trust laws in America, thus stopping him building an empire and the monopoly legislation in the EU - see Microsoft law suit which they lost.

Nope, the world wide web and it's various news and media outlets won't sit back and let the evil bastard walk all over them. It wouldn't take much for another Al Jazeerah to spring up. Murdoch has more enemies than friends.

Sky News - what a fucking joke.

Real news

http://uk.reuters.com/

 

[paolo]

I'm not sure there's a lot of point thinking he's lacking in nous.

He's betting that he's the first in a turn of the tide.

If he's not, and all the others remain free, he can't "clever" his way into getting people into paying.

Remember he's just lost the London freesheet war. One of the most lucrative metro newspaper markets in the world.

Not lacking in nous sure, but also not omnipotent.

 

[Barking_Mad]

I agree with it - for all celebrity laden stories. That would free up plenty of normal airtime for real new stories and people will soon learn that *insert celebs name here's* life isn't really that important.

 

[purplex]

Most news would still be free but you want to read that special interview with lily whatsherface youll have to pay what will seem like token amounts.
The Micropayments business model already exists in the shape of the apple store and mobile content. It is proven.
As I understand it the idea is both content makers and content providers can both make money if the product is quality enough. Of course people will steal and people will share, but if they offered a huffington post type blogging service from which people could make money for every view, regardless of advertising it could drive content provision their way.

 

[marty21]

I agree with it - for all celebrity laden stories. That would free up plenty of normal airtime for real new stories and people will soon learn that *insert celebs name here's* life isn't really that important.

celeb stories sell newspapers, and drive traffic to websites, as people link on the stories from google/discussion boards, if the link asks for money, you'd have to be very desperate to find out what Jordan's done, to pay, and few will. Plus celebs crave publicity (well the celebs lower down the pecking order do) and if they get more publicity via free news sources, then the PR companies will be heading for those as well

 

[Corax]

And a small number of people will pay.

And then they'll blog about it.

And the vast majority will just read those blogs.

 

[YouSir]

Future of Internet Content

Following Editor's thread about the, hypothetical question, of charging for Urban's forums I thought I'd start a broader thread on the subject. With the mainstream media losing shitloads of cash with its old methods and the proliferation of low level/individual content on the internet undermining their attempts to shift over where does the future lie for journos, musicians, TV types et al? Will the big, Murdoch modelled media-groups find a place above the average blogger/Twitterer/Creative Commoner where they can make money? Will those more independent types find a way to make money? Will no one make money at all? Will anyone care? And so on and so forth...