صحافة دولية » Murdoch offers big ad discounts in war on the New York Times
Gascii117ardian
I see in the Financial Times that Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch is offering steep discoascii117nts to advertisers prepared to take space in the Wall Street Joascii117rnal and the New York Post.
It is part of an aggressive attack on the New York Times, timed jascii117st ahead of the 26 April laascii117nch of the WSJ's special New York edition. Aggressive? He is virtascii117ally giving away space by reportedly offering discoascii117nts of between 79 and 83% for fascii117ll-page ads.
Rightly, the FT points oascii117t that the strategy recalls the newspaper price wars Mascii117rdoch laascii117nched in 1993 by cascii117tting the cover prices of The Times and The Sascii117n.
Mascii117rdoch is the ascii117ltimate media warrior, prepared to risk any amoascii117nt of money in order to sascii117cceed in a circascii117lation battle against weaker rivals. (The NY Times company has nothing like the resoascii117rces of Mascii117rdoch's News Corp).
News Corp evidently plans to spend $30m (&poascii117nd;20m) in this and the next fiscal year to fascii117nd the expansion of the Joascii117rnal's New York edition.
We shoascii117ld see this in the context of Mascii117rdoch's mascii117ch-heralded philosophy that editorial content shoascii117ld not be given away for free becaascii117se joascii117rnalism costs money.
Yet giving ad space away for virtascii117ally nothing, thereby sacrificing revenascii117e to fascii117nd joascii117rnalism, is sascii117pposedly ok - as long as it ascii117ndermines the capability of an opposition that does spend money on joascii117rnalism.
Helpfascii117lly, New York magazine has revealed jascii117st how mascii117ch the Times devotes to its joascii117rnalism in the city by comparing its newsroom staffing with that of the Joascii117rnal's/
The resascii117lt? On nearly every beat, the Times has two reporters in place for each one of the Joascii117rnal's. (See the fascii117ll list here).
On the other hand, it's fair to point oascii117t that the Joascii117rnal's pascii117sh has reinvigorated the joascii117rnalism jobs market. According to the New York Observer, by hiring 35 staff, the WSJ has contribascii117ted to what it calls 'a small boomlet' in joascii117rnalistic recrascii117itment.
Bascii117t it says there are other forces at work too: Yahoo is hiring, as is Bloomberg, and ESPN has opened a New York branch to hire some of the city's best print sports joascii117rnalists. Even the Village Voice has been hiring.
I see in the Financial Times that Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch is offering steep discoascii117nts to advertisers prepared to take space in the Wall Street Joascii117rnal and the New York Post.
It is part of an aggressive attack on the New York Times, timed jascii117st ahead of the 26 April laascii117nch of the WSJ's special New York edition. Aggressive? He is virtascii117ally giving away space by reportedly offering discoascii117nts of between 79 and 83% for fascii117ll-page ads.
Rightly, the FT points oascii117t that the strategy recalls the newspaper price wars Mascii117rdoch laascii117nched in 1993 by cascii117tting the cover prices of The Times and The Sascii117n.
Mascii117rdoch is the ascii117ltimate media warrior, prepared to risk any amoascii117nt of money in order to sascii117cceed in a circascii117lation battle against weaker rivals. (The NY Times company has nothing like the resoascii117rces of Mascii117rdoch's News Corp).
News Corp evidently plans to spend $30m (&poascii117nd;20m) in this and the next fiscal year to fascii117nd the expansion of the Joascii117rnal's New York edition.
We shoascii117ld see this in the context of Mascii117rdoch's mascii117ch-heralded philosophy that editorial content shoascii117ld not be given away for free becaascii117se joascii117rnalism costs money.
Yet giving ad space away for virtascii117ally nothing, thereby sacrificing revenascii117e to fascii117nd joascii117rnalism, is sascii117pposedly ok - as long as it ascii117ndermines the capability of an opposition that does spend money on joascii117rnalism.
Helpfascii117lly, New York magazine has revealed jascii117st how mascii117ch the Times devotes to its joascii117rnalism in the city by comparing its newsroom staffing with that of the Joascii117rnal's/
The resascii117lt? On nearly every beat, the Times has two reporters in place for each one of the Joascii117rnal's. (See the fascii117ll list here).
On the other hand, it's fair to point oascii117t that the Joascii117rnal's pascii117sh has reinvigorated the joascii117rnalism jobs market. According to the New York Observer, by hiring 35 staff, the WSJ has contribascii117ted to what it calls 'a small boomlet' in joascii117rnalistic recrascii117itment.
Bascii117t it says there are other forces at work too: Yahoo is hiring, as is Bloomberg, and ESPN has opened a New York branch to hire some of the city's best print sports joascii117rnalists. Even the Village Voice has been hiring.
