Soldato
I do wonder why newspapers put their entire newspaper online for free. Stop doing that and you can't compete with BBC. Don't do it an less people pay for your news. I see their point.
But LOL.
But LOL.
Stupid idea which will work though. If every news outlet charges then what can people do?
Not pay for information. It will always be available free, somewhere on the internet. Does it matter who you get it from?
Nate
I do wonder why newspapers put their entire newspaper online for free. Stop doing that and you can't compete with BBC. Don't do it an less people pay for your news. I see their point.
But LOL.
Go and buy a newspaper.
It's not that silly. The sector is being hit hard and losing money and advertising revenue is falling and falling. I know we like everything for free, but it's just not sustainable. As Murdoch said, he's the first. But you can be sure the rest will follow.
Stupid idea which will work though. If every news outlet charges then what can people do?
[DOD]Asprilla;14631496 said:When calculating the profit for their sites the newspapers don't take into account the cost of producing their content, only the cost of maintaining the site and getting the content on it.
If the sites had to account for paying for content, which they should, then thay wouldn't show a profit.
Of course it does?
Not pay for information. It will always be available free, somewhere on the internet. Does it matter who you get it from?
Nate
Why? What is it that makes any source better than the other, because you have to pay, it's now better? The information will always be freely available.
For example in the financial sector Blogs such as zerohedge and from Chris Martenson have been consistantly getting the scoop on the more established names in the Mainstream Media, just by analysing information already in he public domain.
The idea of charging people for information is like akin making wikipedia subscriber only. Also not to mention piracy, how hard is it to copy and paste?
All you'll be subscribing to is a brand name.
Nate
It's not the news scoops that will be monetised as like you say when a big story breaks it is all over the web in seconds. It's the columnists that people enjoy reading that could be made into something that can be charged for along with other rich media elements. More and more sites are presenting video clips with their news stories and this is the way I see things going.
Why? What is it that makes any source better than the other, because you have to pay, it's now better? The information will always be freely available.
For example in the financial sector Blogs such as zerohedge and from Chris Martenson have been consistantly getting the scoop on the more established names in the Mainstream Media, just by analysing information already in he public domain.
I am currently sat in a newspaper's office at work mate, I know what I am on about
I actually LOL when I heard this yesterday. Murdoch is clearly not an idiot, perhaps he has gone mad in his old age. It will never work.
Or is it just another step along the road of controlling the interwebs.
Or is it just another step along the road of controlling the interwebs.
[DOD]Asprilla;14632652 said:Well they can't just keep giving it away, journalism costs money.
[DOD]Asprilla;14632583 said:Join the club
What I meant was that the newspaper covers the cost of the journalists and the news gathering and the site generally count their costs as additional subbing and any workflow / metadata (I'm looking at The Guardian on that one) along with their technology costs.
If the sites were to pay their journalism costs based upon the number of readers of each article it would be a different story, certainly for the titles I'm currently working for.