So, how about this paywall that Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp has built around its Times and Sunday Times titles?
The general mood seems to be gleeful schadenfreude at the inevitable demise of the Dirty Digger. Apparently, by cutting off access to content to all but those prepared to pay for it, Mr Murdoch will remove his content from the public debate. RIP The Times.
Not so fast, reckons Peter Preston in this Observer article. The current newspaper model has been brutalised by the internet. Giving it all away for free and hoping the advertising numbers will stack up has seen newspapers haemorrhage profits. As Preston rightly points out, so what if Murdoch loses 95% of unique users? The 5% remaining are committed readers and are actually prepared to spend money to access the offering.
The problem with monetising online content is translating those huge readership figures into revenue. The best way to do that is to have a readership that engages with your content, with whom you can build up a relationship and whom you can offer up as a valuable advertising proposition.
Maybe you can achieve that with a thriving community on online forum (think Mumsnet), or through creating a relationship on a social media platform (think Vodafonenz on Twitter). Equally, sifting out the tightwad chaff from the prepared-to-part-with-money wheat has got to be worth a shot. So far it seems to be working for the Wall Street Journal.
As an aside, I can’t help feeling that any debate involving Rupert Murdoch or News Corp loses often gets a bit irrational. This is particularly true of the U.K., where journalists have deeply personal views on his way of running his empire.
Last year, I read the biography The Man Who Owns the News by Michael Wolff. (The review is also by Peter Preston). I went into it with the impression that he was some sort of devil on horseback who used media ownership for his own ends. I came out of it pretty much with that impression confirmed, but also with a grudging respect for the old battleaxe.
What struck me the most is that he loves the newspaper business. He bought the WSJ against all the advice and, it seems, almost against all reason. Ironically for his detractors, maybe the newspaper business will survive because of him.
