May 12, 2009

Trusted Sources

PricewaterhouseCoopers did a global survey to see if online news readers would be prepared to pay for content. The results are interesting.

Here's the Fairfax version:
Readers reluctant to pay for online news

Miriam Steffens
May 11, 2009 - 10:23AM

Rupert Murdoch's aim to have readers pay for access to newspapers online has been called into question by a global survey that found readers are unlikely to pay for general news they can get elsewhere free.

Publishers wanting to charge for content on the internet should instead focus on niche markets, with readers of specialised sport and finance content seen as more willing to open their wallets, it said.
And here's the Murdoch version of the same story:
Readers not averse to paying for online content

Nick Tabakoff | May 11, 2009
Article from: The Australian

A GLOBAL survey has found that readers could be willing to pay almost as much for some high-quality online newspapers as they do for print versions, particularly in specialist news areas.

The study of 4900 respondents in the US and Europe by accounting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers has found sport and business to be the areas in which consumers are most ready to pay for content.

The survey said consumers would be willing to pay 97 per cent of the purchase price of a traditional newspaper for online business content, provided there were no free online products of equal quality on the market.

For online sport, consumers would be willing to fork out 77 per cent of the purchase price of a traditional paper if there were no free internet equivalents.

The findings add impetus to plans by a number of the world's major newspaper publishers to find more ways to make money from online content.

News Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch said at the company's third-quarter results briefing last week that News would be charging for some mastheads' online content "within the next 12 months".

News is the owner of The Australian, which is also planning to make revenues from its internet content.
Who you gonna believe, eh????

Personally, I can't wait for the Australian to start charging for content. Murdoch's organ has been haemorrhaging credibility for years, and this is surely going to be another big nail in the coffin. Good riddance.


G. said...

I should be writing for the Guardian:

Or maybe they should be crediting me? Hmmn?

Stop Murdoch said...

It's as if he figures his work is done i.e. Destroying any semblence of journalism in Australia, bombarding our cities with his odious "free" publications etc, so now he can charge.

But perhaps, just this once, the wily old fascist has overstepped the mark this time?

Apart from the Simpsons, does anything in his foul empire actually make a profit? We know he is dishonest and pays almost no taxes, we know his employees are disgraceful shills.

Perhaps this idea of taking all his on-line shit behind a paywall is just a blustery threat? Like Don Quixote tilting at windmills?

"Good riddance" indeed.

Bukko_in_Australia said...

Doesn't he still make a profit from the online side of the Wall Street Journal? They were supposed to go free content after he took that over, but I haven't seen it happening. Not that I read it, but some of the econoblogs I frequent have links to WSJ stories. Many are behind a firewall.

What defeats that strategy is what did in the New York Times when it tried to limit access to Krugman and other quality columnists. There were always paying customers who would allow public access to their passwords, in order to bust the system. In this ideological world, I'm surprised there aren't token leftists who are doing that just to crimp Rupe's revenues. Perhaps there are. Like I said, I don't give enough of a fig to find out.


Blog Archive