The End of Free?

Rupert Murdoch announces the end of free access to news sites, the UK Times, The Sun as well as the WSJ and New York Post. He believes that by his charging for access to the news, the rest will follow suit.

Online news media is dominated in New Zealand by two players. Stuff.co.nz and NZHerald.co.nz. Both have won awards for content presentation. They represent two distinct divisions in media interests in New Zealand - the Herald is an Auckland based but nationally focused paper with a big circulation and that includes online. Stuff accepts feeds from various local papers. Both are free, presently. However the online content is abridged versions of what is published in the paper.

Online advertising has going through many hoops trying to find a business model and NZ Herald has used banner advertising as well as google. Stuff does the same.

What is wrong with Murdoch's idea? It is a reaction to a huge loss. If he had changed things a year ago, that loss would not have been. So why wait?

Because the competition is continuing to give the same news, the same vital stories that we read newspapers for, they are free elsewhere. This makes selling it online difficult unless you add value.

There is considerable antipathy in the online media world for the old world dictating conditions. For this reason it is doubtful that Murdoch will lead the world by charging for content. His brands have compelling content for its audience, so adding value to it seems natural.

The UK Guardian has added new lines of business - including a dating site - and paying for the print edition as online PDFs, and an excellent online discussion community. The NY Times has interesting social networked discussions. I even have a NYT follower. I can see a summary of all my posts. I would not mind paying a periodic subscription for either of these papers - but if the subscription was a barrier to involvement, maybe not. It is what other people write that is interesting.

The NZ Herald has a similar reader response zone - full of rants that are usually partisan anger that reduces the value. Contributions usually hide behind a web non-de-plume. That also reduces their value. The blogs carry zero comment icons too often. Stuff blogs seem a little more connected with their audience possibly due to attracting a younger set and more perceived balance in discussion? (Disclaimer - I have previously worked for the company that publishes the NZ Herald).

For a news site to charge it has to deliver something other than just re-blogging the news wire services. You can read the same stories in every paper. It is a long standing cabal - journalists share the news and thus appear to have far more to offer. There are a few journalists that are really worth reading.

Part of the reason is the business strategy of devaluing online content so the newspaper sells. The other reason is the devaluation of the art of discourse. It is impolite to say much more than a paragraph these days.

The "brand" is the current focus. The newspapers maintain an identity. The online version reflects the identity of the print version as that is where the advertisers are. They relied upon printing as the cost of entry but now suddenly have a million competitors. The online version has to have more value than the print version, but "social" networks they are not. Their forums should be democratic thermometers but social mediation occurs elsewhere.

The way for newspapers to make money is ... [sealed section]...