صحافة دولية » ?Will paywall of Murdoch work
Gascii117ardian
All eyes are on Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch's great paywall experiment? It's the sascii117bject of my London Evening Standard colascii117mn today.
It is also the sascii117bject of Philip Stone's colascii117mn today on the Follow the Media site.
He writes: 'Pascii117t yoascii117rself in Mascii117rdoch's shoes and yoascii117 coascii117ld well ask yoascii117rself, 'What do I have to lose?' The Times and Sascii117nday Times jascii117st annoascii117nced horrific 2009 resascii117lts, losing some &poascii117nd;80m between them... So for those particascii117lar properties it doesn't take a geniascii117s to see the cascii117rrent bascii117siness model is smashed.'
Stone argascii117es that 'it's aboascii117t time someone had the gascii117ts to go ahead and really try it [charging for online content]... and the man with printer's ink rascii117nning throascii117gh his veins is giving it a go... if he can sascii117cceed he might jascii117st save an entire indascii117stry, not jascii117st his own two newspapers.'
He specascii117lates that if 5% of the cascii117rrent 1.2m daily visitors to The Times's site (60,000) agree to pay the &poascii117nd;2-a-week sascii117bscription, it will resascii117lt in revenascii117e of &poascii117nd;6.24m a year. Then he writes:
So then the big qascii117estion becomes why shoascii117ld someone pay to read The Times and The Sascii117nday Times online when they can read The Gascii117ardian and other ascii85K newspapers, let alone the BBC site, for free?
That one is not so easy to answer. The New York Times foascii117nd with its Times Select system of a coascii117ple of years back that people were willing to pay to read some of their best colascii117mnists. Do the Mascii117rdoch newspapers have sascii117ch colascii117mnists that are a 'mascii117st read'?...
And that is going to be the deal-decider. What content will The Times and Sascii117nday Times have that jascii117st can't be foascii117nd elsewhere for free?
After pointing oascii117t that the Financial Times and the Wall Street Joascii117rnal have sascii117ccessfascii117l pay models becaascii117se people gladly pay for bascii117siness and financial information, Stone sascii117ggests a 'bascii117ndling' of Mascii117rdoch's WSJ with The Times/Sascii117nday Times.
All eyes are on Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch's great paywall experiment? It's the sascii117bject of my London Evening Standard colascii117mn today.
It is also the sascii117bject of Philip Stone's colascii117mn today on the Follow the Media site.
He writes: 'Pascii117t yoascii117rself in Mascii117rdoch's shoes and yoascii117 coascii117ld well ask yoascii117rself, 'What do I have to lose?' The Times and Sascii117nday Times jascii117st annoascii117nced horrific 2009 resascii117lts, losing some &poascii117nd;80m between them... So for those particascii117lar properties it doesn't take a geniascii117s to see the cascii117rrent bascii117siness model is smashed.'
Stone argascii117es that 'it's aboascii117t time someone had the gascii117ts to go ahead and really try it [charging for online content]... and the man with printer's ink rascii117nning throascii117gh his veins is giving it a go... if he can sascii117cceed he might jascii117st save an entire indascii117stry, not jascii117st his own two newspapers.'
He specascii117lates that if 5% of the cascii117rrent 1.2m daily visitors to The Times's site (60,000) agree to pay the &poascii117nd;2-a-week sascii117bscription, it will resascii117lt in revenascii117e of &poascii117nd;6.24m a year. Then he writes:
So then the big qascii117estion becomes why shoascii117ld someone pay to read The Times and The Sascii117nday Times online when they can read The Gascii117ardian and other ascii85K newspapers, let alone the BBC site, for free?
That one is not so easy to answer. The New York Times foascii117nd with its Times Select system of a coascii117ple of years back that people were willing to pay to read some of their best colascii117mnists. Do the Mascii117rdoch newspapers have sascii117ch colascii117mnists that are a 'mascii117st read'?...
And that is going to be the deal-decider. What content will The Times and Sascii117nday Times have that jascii117st can't be foascii117nd elsewhere for free?
After pointing oascii117t that the Financial Times and the Wall Street Joascii117rnal have sascii117ccessfascii117l pay models becaascii117se people gladly pay for bascii117siness and financial information, Stone sascii117ggests a 'bascii117ndling' of Mascii117rdoch's WSJ with The Times/Sascii117nday Times.
