Rupert Murdoch says internet will change and sites will get $ for their content
 

Speaking on a conference call as News Corporation announced a 47 percent slide in quarterly profits to $755 million, Murdoch said the current free access business model favored by most content providers was flawed.

"We are now in the midst of an epochal debate over the value of content and it is clear to many newspapers that the current model is malfunctioning," the News Corp. Chairman and CEO said.

"We have been at the forefront of that debate and you can confidently presume that we are leading the way in finding a model that maximizes revenues in return for our shareholders... The current days of the Internet will soon be over."

its on the front page of cnn

what do you think?

meh 5678

Maybe the porn industry will wake up to this obvious reality soon as well.

One can only hope....

They should try reporting news and not talking about news wrapped in opinion that skews the truth based on the direction that news corp is moving in.

Then they would make a profit..

I love how they think going subscription base is the answer.. when people are leaving mainstream media left and right. They miss the simplest of facts... They Don't Report News!

:2 cents:

My local newspaper just raised it's daily price to $1 and it's half as big as it used to be.

I pick one up every so often and read things in it that I saw on GFY three days earlier.

The problem they are experiencing is common to us all. It's hard to sell something when the same thing is easily available for free.

I guess the thing with news is that its only good for a day, a week at the most, after that its completely worthless. But how will they compete against the free news services or even something like twitter which has a lot of news first these days?

I would pay for real journalism.

I really think lots of people would... Including myself.

Let me know when you find some then because all I have seen in recent news is sensationalism close but.
The real news is often forgotten or omitted in favour of opinion and ratings!:2 cents:

In the UK as the US it has become particularly bad for instance the recent protests at G8 and the swine flu epidemic.
:disgust

Fuck that asshole.

I agree Kandah

Fuck that illuminati Bilderberg ZIONIST CUNT

amen.....

i still like reading a hard copy paper over lunch or a pint.

its unfortunate, but i think that bottle has been opened. good article about it posted on here few months ago.

there is a huge difference between free and even charging 1 cent, and the traffic will flow to free. and you can try to convince people to pay, and some will, but i think we are heading towards an area where technology and innovation will be towards finding what people want and how to make money off of it.

for instance, imagine in 10 years where we will be when mass amounts of bandwidth will be virtually free

As long as there are people working for less than you, you're screwed

As it was proven in 2000 free ad driven content doesnt work. I read hulu is thinking about adding a pay premium section. You can throw new flashy terms but at the end of the day basic business principles dont change.

how much would you pay, and how much would others pay? its got to be tough when there are so many free sources out to effectively market to the ones that would pay and make any money on it.

I would pay the normal price for the paper, as I would today.

We have other free media sources, television, the radio, and online. Papers were making money when free was super big.

The problem, they don't report REAL news and when they do, I can't have it NOW.

Think of it like this... Something BIG goes down, plane crashes into a river. Someone posts on GFY, holy shit... blah blah blah. You open CNN, MSNBC, and Google News.. nothing, refresh an hour later, nothing, 3 hours later.. finally google news has it.

However, Twitter and like 1000 blogs posted the news seconds after it happened. CNN missed out.. the money to be made is gone, the burst is over.

Or Obama does something, whatever.. CNN likes it, Fox bashes it, MSNBC has a group meeting over it.. and the local paper reports what CNN wrote, but gave it an new title.

Who proved that? How could they prove that when 9 years later people are still making millions doing it?

Hulu will add a premium section, HD and better sound. They could also add dvd sales, p2p downloads (others are doing this), mobile options will be growing too, and the ppv allows for more movies and unique episodes to be purchased.. something I'm waiting for.

Hulu is making money... it's free ad driven content, works..

Fareed Zakaria

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/fareed.zakaria.gps/


Thats a good one.

Rupert's reign is over, look how he ran MySpace into the ground. Good riddance.

Imagine in less than 10 years, when no one bothers to pay to film or create ANYTHING any longer, since it is assumed that the final product is supposed to be distributed for FREE!

yea, i understand its not a rosey scenario. but things will adapt, like they are starting to with music. movies is not far behind.

it sucks because its causing a lot of change, but i dont think the progress is going to diminish. bandwidth prices will keep dropping and that makes it cheaper to distribute content to try to make roi

The start of the internet as a distribution channel is similar to what happened with sears/roebuck in the late 1800s when they discovered they can market over this new postal mail thing, and the same with telephones and telephone marketing

Not sure what that means. Sears sold products for profit, and still do. They do not pay for products, and then give everything away for free.

ill explain, my comment was vague.

when postal mail first became reliable in the US, some guy named sears had access to lists of peoples names and addresses, and started sending them catalogs for stuff they could buy.

all of the sudden people had access to products that they would otherwise purchase from local stores, typically at a premium price, because of delivery costs back then for certain things.

so using the mail helped sears connect people that wanted things with a low-cost way to do it, at the expense of the people selling them those products at the time.

which is similar to what is happening now. its become easier and cheaper for a business to stuff a bunch of content in front of a consumer, i dont expect it will slow down anytime soon

Islamic fuckheads and the old winners in the "type 0 - civilisation" economy both fight the internet. The internet is a techonological progress which(if further developed) belongs in a type 1 civilisation(Michio Kaku).

If we want to progress from the shitty world we have now, we must eliminate belief in supernatural creatures, control # of births, and throw out our current flawed economic system(it creates too many losers - most of the planet is broke and hungry, and research dollars will benefit only the few.

This I think won't happen - the old world economic winners own media, politicians, control our food, hold all the debts - and they will make you go quietly before they do themselves. Even worse is - they're used to you not doing dick to defend your rights, and happily invest loyalty in 1 of the sides in your parliament. Also Islam is out-breeding everybody, jeez....

Then we come full circle again - we can each sit on our ass and try to get more sign-ups, and hoping to do a little better than the next guy...

In my ideal future world technology should "free" us from debt, hunger, disease, taxes, and this seems so far away...

Also don't forget, that in the long, long, long run, we will see a solution to death too. Maybe you will be "downloaded" to some virtual world or planted in a cybernetic body. The promise of afterlife must be granted by technology - and this will be the end of religion!

fascinating, tell me more

I know everyone loves to dance on the grave of the newspapers in this internet age, but if you enjoy democracy and freedom, don't celebrate their death just yet.

The news stories that we all like to debate the most, the ones that take actual resources, secret sources, months to investigate, can only be done by newspapers. CNN, MSNBC, and FOX simply offer a visual form of the AP wire. They don't spend 4 months researching a story before publishing a well thought out story.

The death of the newspapers in this country threaten democracy more than any terrorist ever could. The current internet model simply cannot replace it.

So many people stuck in the old school marketing ideas.

newspapers have always been heavily subsidized by advertising, like most media, the idea that Murdoch is going to start charging for content, well no doubt he can to a degree but advertising will always be the big earner as it is now

dont know about dancing on their graves, but similar concepts apply to the porn world, where it takes $$$$ to make a scene, as well as movies, where it may cost 100 mil to make a film and you risk it being pirated and distributed before the movie hits the box office

Good point.

like the "got milk" campaign from 20 years ago mr. got webhost? ;)

show us the cash :)

free is going to be difficult to overcome unless there is a very unintrusive way to bill for content that consumers trust...but its a very interesting issue for certain

The papers and news outlets in the us have lost more than just the focus of the news. By reporting the OPINIONS of their owners and casters, they have forgotten and been limited from what the people want.

When I pick up a new paper here in Mexico, usually the front page is splashed with the latest drug killing, or the latest traffic fatality or something. With Headlines that are 3 inches tall.. Short of them screaming Extra on the street the head lines do.. But in the US they had to maxamize the space so that they could make every dime out of it with Ad's.

People want Blood and guts and the TRUTH, or at least the SIDE Of the TRUTH that can be easily gathered.

I would like to apologize for last night.

Nope, nothing like that at all.

you never have to apologize to me lloyd ;)

It's the end of net neutrality...

I stopped reading newspapers 10 years ago and I no longer watch the TV news. Channel-10 news, channel 8,7 etc just report sensationalized stories designed to make you watch so that they can maximize their advertising dollar. The more people watch their program the more they can charge for advertising.
Take this swine flu crap, so far about 400 world wide are suspected of having it and just two died in the USA mainly because they had other illnesses. It seems 54 thousand die of the flu each year but thats not news ?

By sensationalizing bird flu they get more viewers and more advertising $ and fuck what it does to the country and it does affect the country badly. One channel recently advised people to stay at home not mix with others and stay away from crowded places like bars restaurants, clubs , etc., that fucks all those businesses that are already going through hard times by losing them business.

Im not minimizing Bird Flu but it's no where near a pandemic and reporting should be more responsible and not based on $$$$$$$$:2 cents:

:2 cents::2 cents:

Fuck this freemason loving faggot and the fucking horse he rode in on! The fucking internet was built for free access. It has and always will be fucking neutral. I hope that faggot throws up his first bullshit website and gets a quick lesson from the ddosr's. Up yours cocksucker. Fuck cnn too

This bullshit is along same lines as dot xxx domain and we all know how well that went over with webmasters

Just wanted to bump this, for all those who get their news off GFY.

And not everything is gathered via associated press rss feeds, and news agencies buying that feed. There's real people out in the world trying to report. Regardless of how twisted their "report" gets bent by editors when it's delivered to your RSS feed of choice, it doesn't originate from a free source.

In some aspect, Murdoch might be making a case for content producers... or something.

I dunno.

if the content is worth money. not a news website.

If they dont have money to pay people to produce the content then there won't be any content. So yes they will have to find a way to charge for the content to pay the content producers.

Silly old fool, what would he know about media! :winkwink: