Your points are well taken. However, I do not believe that Murdoch is dumb. I do however, believe he is disingenuous.

The WSJ was a “leaky wall” long before he came along and, I think it’s clear that it’s one of the few products that can succeed that way.

Moreover, his point isn’t that people are copying his stories without attribution, but that links are being aggregated – a position that would be ridiculous on its face even if he did not do the same himself. Finally, if he really believed in his case, he would switch ALL of News Corp’s publication to a paid model, something he has no plans to do.

What’s annoying is that he cloaks himself in a stupid argument about journalistic integrity (again – ridiculous on its face given the source).

Web news businesses can be quite profitable (I should know, I’ve run one), but whining won’t do the job.

- Greg

The reason Murdoch’s idea is dumb is that it’s unworkable. All it does is create a niche which will be filled by unreachable companies stealing and reprinting the “subscription” material. Murdoch simply can’t protect his content – technically or legally.

It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the web, and a desire to impose out-dated business models on it. Advertising may, or may not, support online newspapers – time will tell. But the root of the problem is the cost of content production in old-world newspapers, which is geared around a heirachical reporting structure organised for daily or weekly publication, and employing highly trained writers at considerable cost, while also maintaining a vast printing operation. Online video has shown that people are often happy to sacrifice quality for availability or immediacy. I can’t pretend to have a solution, but the structure of 20th century news organisations looks inappropriate to the web to me. We all know there’s a better solution, just no one has thought of it yet. The person who does will be the first Rupert Murdoch of the 21st Century.

I guess we’ll see, but 10 million pounds is peanuts if that’s what they’re shooting for, they will certainly fail.

Paid models work for a small fraction of media, which is how the advertising model got to be so popular in the first place (the vast majority of newspapers and magazines lose money on distribution). Meanwhile there are plenty of sites who make serious money without paid content so unless you are offering something truly unique, people won’t pay.

- Greg

Times paywall makes a lot of sense to me
Tue, 30 Mar 2010 | By Suzanne Bearne

It seems silly that people keep banging on that The Times will see a dramatic
fall in online readers when it brings in its paywall in June. Of course it will.
But with online advertising in its current form not bringing in significant
revenues, why can’t we champion News International for being so brave?
I’m not expecting every single publisher to follow suit, and of course News
International needs to offer a slicker and worthwhile experience for the money,
in terms of usability and content. But this model has been thought through for
months by commercial chief Katie Vanneck’s customer direct division. This isn’t
a spur of the moment, ill-thought-out decision. There’s intelligent rationale
behind it.

First, News International is well aware the bulk of users will depart. But
actually, who cares? With an increasing number of publishers talking about how
people who dip in and out of a site are becoming less valuable to them,
perhaps this decision is on cue.

The remaining users who love the brand – perhaps up to 5% of Times Online
traffic – will become its bread and butter. Remember, newspapers don’t gather
the millions of people in circulation their online operatoins boast but they
attract a regu4lar, loyal readership.
So this loyal online userbase will be worth a substantial amount. They’ll have
provided more personal details which can be used to target them with more
relevant ads and offers.

And the site will still get some extra traffic from the free-to-access home page.
I think News International spot on with its pricing model too. Currently 20m
unique users access Times Online. Even if this drops to 100,000 subscribers
paying £2 a week, that’s revenue of £10.4m a year, excluding advertising.
However, I would have preferred a similar model to The Financial Times, which
teases users to sign up by allowing free access to a small number of articles a
month.

This is a space we’ll all be watching with interest. If such a model turns out to
be a success for News International, it could have a domino effect on its rivals.

Thank you for you comment. Although, it should be pointed out that Wikipedia has always been a non profit organization and therefore has always relied on the generosity of users.

- Greg

Wikipedia is under huge stress and the fact that it got bailed out by consumer generosity cannot be successful business model.

Regards, Lalit

- Greg

Charging is about protecting the newspaper which is still the only revenue source capable of funding the expensive newsroom and news-gathering process.

A metro daily’s biggest competitor is its own free Web site.

I don’t think walled pay content is the way to go. I don’t know any way to increase revenue.