Rupert Murdoch has become the first media mogul to make bold changes to his company’s newspaper monetization strategy that may reshape the way people receive their news--by paying for it.
Up to this point, web publications have primarily relied on advertising alone for revenues but this has had problems because online advertising rates are so much lower than those in print. Murdoch and others in the traditional media are seeking to change that by creating a system where readers and viewers are required to pay a subscription fee as well.
There is certainly a motivation to try something different. Overall, News Corp.’s operating income dropped by over 30 percent in its latest earning report. Its cable networks are the only holdings to be driving growth this year, with Fox News’ operating income increasing by 50 percent.
Clearly, much of News Corp.’s struggles are due to the recession, but newspapers have been struggling long before the recession. With content available for free online, fewer people are paying to subscribe to newspapers and magazines.
Americans have been reluctant to pay for subscription fees for news content online, especially after having received it for free for fifteen years, so will News. Corp’s plan succeed? There are not many details as of yet on what kind of subscription plans Murdoch plans to establish, but there has been a lot of attention as of late on a plan put forth by newspaper editor-turned Silicon Valley CEO Alan Mutter. At a meeting of newspaper executives in May, Mutter talked about his new venture, ViewPass.
ViewPass, is described as a network that will give users access to content for participating newspapers and websites while providing options for increased monetization. Content-producers have the option of having subscribers pay for content on a per-article basis, a monthly basis, or on various bases of bundled articles.
This strategy may work better than a traditional pay wall.
As Mutter said on his blog, pay walls cannot be successful when competing against so many free sites.
If you suddenly put a pay wall on a website that used to be free, you are bound to lose a substantial amount of traffic representing a considerable amount of potential advertising inventory. Once customers are turned off, it will be awfully hard to get most of them back, especially as plenty of free websites will be glad to welcome them.
By getting many content-providers untied under one network, there will be less competitive pressure on those newspapers that do charge for content. It will be easy for other newspapers to experiment with a subscription model, so each won’t fear losing too many readers because other newspapers would presumably be using subscription models, as well.
In fact, the New York Times is also considering launching subscription plans, and USA Today is planning on it. Steve Brill is launching a subscription service called Journalism Online.
In order to successfully sell a subscription-based product, however, newspapers must have something unique to offer. If each newspaper offers the same bland coverage of a routine Obama economic speech, there are so many sources with that story that competition will bring the price down. This is reflected in what have been the two successful subscription models to date, the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, both of which offer unparalleled coverage of the economy and markets, products which you can profits off of as well, thereby making them investments.
Mutter touches on this is one blog post, saying that newspaper companies should produce “a limited number of premium-priced, niche publications," as they abandon their daily print schedules altogether.
In doing so, they would relieve themselves of 60% of the cost of producing a newspaper, which goes into production and distribution.
The shift in niche content hastened by the rise of the internet is reflected by the fact that local newspapers are doing better than national papers and losing advertising revenue at much lower rates. There are a number of reasons for that, chief among them the fact that they have less competition.
You find the same national stories in every major newspaper, with little difference in between. You can only find a story about your local community in local papers.
Media companies will always be necessary, because news and information is always necessary, but the means of distribution and the nature of the content is changing rapidly. Rupert Murdoch may be at the front of the line in changing it. Or not. After all, putting one's news products into a for-pay structure does significantly reduce their influence and reach. Only time will tell if paid content strategies will work or not.
—Mitchell Blatt is the editor of the foreign affairs blog Bombs and Dollars.





















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
He's probably got the best
Thu, 08/06/2009 - 19:01 ET by danboHe's probably got the best shot at doing this. The NY Times? You have to be kidding. USA Today? Sure?
But I'm with you; even for Murdoch it would be tough. There are too many people waiting to fill the void if he goes subscription. And he may lose those people completely and never get them back.
One lesson from post Katrina New Orleans. A lot of die hard YATS had to live for an extended period outside of NO after Katrina. (North Shore, Baton Rouge, Southern Miss, The Felecianas.) A lot of them decided life outside of New Orleans had it's own joys. And stayed in their new homes. That may happen to Murdoch.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
The internet must be free to all.
Thu, 08/06/2009 - 19:23 ET by superconI never go to pay sites. I like Fox News but I wouldn't pay for it.
" if Republicans are able to stop Barack Obama on health care, 'it will be his Waterloo, it will break him...." -Sen. Jim DeMint
ESPN
Thu, 08/06/2009 - 19:30 ET by general companyStarted this type of nonesense a few years ago. I havent been there in a few years.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
I'm with you
Thu, 08/06/2009 - 21:25 ET by ParagrouperAs long as there are viable free sites to choose from, I'll spend my time there.
"Beware the fury of the patient man." - John Dryden
Sooner or latter fee bases
Thu, 03/04/2010 - 16:58 ET by josh_mSooner or latter fee bases newspaper subscriptions will find their ways to us, I am pragmatic on this and actually I am surprised they didn't come up with that earlier. Nothing good goes for free and we know that, we might as well accept the idea. I wonder what web content management systems are on Murdoch's options list...
With all due respects. If
Thu, 08/06/2009 - 23:03 ET by danboWith all due respects. If Obama is stopped on this power grab. It won't be by the republican party. (A few of them will play big roles but most of them are democrats lite or cowards.)
Rather he'll be stopped by the american people.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
I read a book a few
Thu, 08/06/2009 - 19:24 ET by Chris NormanI read a book a few years ago, set in the near future, where newspapers had become only internet based and broadcast to large screens made to simulate a real newspaper because "people were used to holding a newspaper". I don't remember why I didn't think that was as ludicrous at the time as I do now.
I do like the idea of the books downloaded to the Sony electronic books they sell at Borders. I'd like to try one out at least. I just thought if those electronic books are ever successful, Borders is selling the rope that would be their own noose.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Who's going to pay for what they can get for free?
Thu, 08/06/2009 - 19:35 ET by nwahsI wouldn't pay for something I could get for free, but then people do pay for bottled water.
Why not Jeb Bush?
I like FOX and all; however,
Thu, 08/06/2009 - 20:16 ET by mostlymoderateI like FOX and all; however, Murdoch has got to be kidding. Nobody is going to pay for basic 'news'. I can see specialized news reporting agencies like law, medical, or science journals but basic news? No way. Too many free versions out there of the same stuff.
This model amy work if all
Thu, 08/06/2009 - 20:27 ET by Dan The Man 2This model amy work if all or most sites go pay for access. In doing so the news will be restricted and the fair use of the articles may be restricted also. After all they want you to come to their site and for you to pay for it therefore it stands to reason that they have a vested interest in restricting its use.
However, the public will buck against a pay model because they are getting it for free. In addition we the public will lose the diversity of writing styles and opinions for free. We will lose our ability to easily fact check and this will be a greater detriment than anything else.
That said I am willing to pay for some content on the web. Going to be a rough 3 years til Duh One is re-elected due to lack of information flow.
Do you have to pay for
Thu, 08/06/2009 - 20:29 ET by b4m4wyDo you have to pay for 'Naked News'?
LOL
Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
Ronald Reagan
Not the right approach
Thu, 08/06/2009 - 20:42 ET by Gat New YorkThe business model of media had been built primarily on advertising dollars - not subscriptions. We never paid for network news broadcasts.
With the internet and the diffusion of audiences, having a profitable rate base based on smaller audiences has been challenging, but if I were Murdoch I would charge a premium for advertisers to his Fox websites rather than try charging for subscription and thereby reduce is audience base and advertising revenue.
Pay For The News?
Thu, 08/06/2009 - 21:25 ET by packmanYou want us to pay for the news? Get a grip Rupert! We don't need your stinking news...
Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread... ~Thomas Jefferson
Oh good,
Thu, 08/06/2009 - 21:47 ET by acumensomething else for the Dems to tax.
Charging for Internet News
Thu, 08/06/2009 - 21:49 ET by ItchyZSounds like an opportunity, Newsbusters.
Really dumb move
Thu, 08/06/2009 - 21:58 ET by DurdenThis has been tried so many times before by websites that were, at the time, much more popular than Fox is now. It has failed every single time it has been tried.
Too much competition out there coupled with the fact people have become way too accustomed to getting it free. Plus add to the fact you wont be getting anything from Fox that is really much different than you'll get elsewhere for free.
Murdoch has always been pretty stupid like this and I hate that he never gets called out for it. Foxnews.com is nothing more than a free site bent towards advertising the Fox News TV station. That is how websites started, as advertisments for actual companies/tv stations/movies. This desire to nickle and dime people always falls flat on its face.
Being pretty much the only mainstream conservative outlet, I do worry this will only bolster the likes of MSNBC.
A long time ago
Thu, 08/06/2009 - 23:04 ET by nwahsWell long in internet time ( about 5-7 years?) there was this popular search engine called Excite. Someone had the brainstorm that they should make people register to use it - free but cumbersome registration. Guess what happened to Excite? I'm guessing the guy who had that brainstorm is now working at Fox.
Why not Jeb Bush?
Big mistake.
Thu, 08/06/2009 - 22:53 ET by GregEBig mistake.
Oh really
Fri, 08/07/2009 - 00:09 ET by ThoreauSo you folks wouldn't pay for accurate unbiased information? Investigative reporting(John Stossel?). How much information gets tossed into the toilet because you let Proctor and Gamble and Monsanto Corporation or the White House pay for your investigative reporting? What are there now, 13 reporters in Department of Transportation positions.
I think this is a good thing. Not only would I pay them, but I'd give them a monthly quart of blood if it meant that I would get information that isn't approved by Obama's minions or a Corporation.
If you pay consumer reports for accurate information of inanimate objects, why wouldn't you pay for information that has to do with something more profound- like your life.
In any case, I respectfully disagree with the majority opinion. Freedom is not free. Literally. You either pay to play or somebody who sees you only as a commodity to be milked will pay for you. You choose.
Rupert Murdoch is going own
Fri, 08/07/2009 - 17:45 ET by goldbarRupert Murdoch is going own the biggest pay toilet in the world!
Your trolling does not work any more.
Sat, 08/08/2009 - 14:20 ET by JWFgoldbar is a lying partisan hack and here is the proof
People like Murdoch have the
Sat, 12/05/2009 - 17:01 ET by aaron34People like Murdoch have the power to change things and this is what he just did. Maybe it's a good thing, online newspapers don't get real revenues this can lead to ruining the company-customer relationship. Web content creation would get higher appreciation this way this can only lead to good things.