Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2010
 |  Follow Newser on Twitter   Friend Newser on Facebook   Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds   Subscribe to Newser emails Newsletters

OFF THE GRID

This Is Rupert's Last Stand: Making You Pay

Aug 6, 09 | 8:43 AM   byMichael Wolff
Get posts from Michael Wolff via email (Sample)

Follow him on Twitter @MichaelWolffNYC

Share
Is Rupert Murdoch too old to matter? In the face of the worst downturn in the history of the newspaper business—what everybody except Rupert believes is a structural rather than cyclical decline—he bought the Wall Street Journal, built the world’s largest newspaper printing plant just outside of London, and is still talking about buying the New York Times. Yesterday, his company, News Corp., posted the biggest losses in its history. In response, my Uncle Rupert—who as recently as a year ago, when we last spoke, had yet to go, unassisted, onto the Internet—announced that he would shortly make his newspapers available online only if you paid for them.

Well, I'll say this, he’s swimming against the tide.

His uphill fight is probably even greater than it might appear. Not only is he, among all media executives, the most technically disinclined (actually, totally illiterate), but his company, of all the big media enterprise, is the most technically backward and maladroit. He may now employ more reporters than anyone else in the world, but they use the oldest computers. He may have some of the world’s most trafficked news sites, but they are also the slowest and most inept. Technology, at News Corp., has always been regarded as one of those things, like fancy hotels, or long-form writing, that are not part of the company culture.

Nor is Rupert suggesting, at this point, a turnaround in that culture. He is not, all of a sudden, going to spend hugely on technology upgrades.

Instead, what he is going to do is the thing he has always done: buck convention, offend sensibilities, and not pussyfoot around. "I believe that if we're successful, we'll be followed fast by other media,” Murdoch said yesterday—which has pretty much been his method of operation in the media business. By force of will and clarity of position, he defines the world.

What’s more, he believes this new world, like the older one in which he succeeded, is a tabloid world: “When we have a celebrity scoop, the number of hits we get now are astronomical,” he said, unmindful that his scoop, on the Internet, is a second away from being everybody else’s scoop. “We'll be asserting our copyright at every point,” he added, like a man getting ready to go to war (say in Iraq or Vietnam).

My book about Murdoch is called The Man Who Owns the News because owning the world’s biggest news business is exactly what he set out to do, and because that is pretty much what he achieved. There is, simply, no one who produces more news than Rupert. Quantity is what he does. On this basis and with this approach, he is now losing his shirt. But he cannot conceive of the world in any other sense than one in which his news outlets are not the most emphatic and powerful and lucrative.

At this point, however, for him to continue to own the news, for the world to go on existing in large measure in Rupert Murdoch’s version of the news, you are going to have to pay him per click.

It isn’t likely that you will—but Rupert has pulled off upsets before. Though this one would be his most astounding.

More of Newser founder Michael Wolff's articles and commentary can be found at VanityFair.com, where he writes a regular column. He can be emailed at michael@newser.com.
  

25 comments
VIEWING:
 
TedR
Aug 6, 09 11:51 AM CDT
Astounding is right. He will be very much regretting this missed opportunity a year from now. He is wrong, but I have so much admiration for anyone in this day and age who is willing to throw it down clearly, plainly for what he believes. Good on ya. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
wxjunkie
Aug 6, 09 11:57 AM CDT
FOX News' Web site is pretty upsidedown but the WSJ has one of the best news sites in the biz. Of course, much of it was built pre-Murdoch. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
polstroad
Aug 6, 09 1:36 PM CDT
Rupert calls it quits. Wolff bereft, nothing left to post about. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
-4
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Aug 6, 09 7:01 PM CDT
I'm not sure I have to worry about Rupert calling it quits--tho I get your point.
Vote up! Vote down!
-2
gianpaul
Aug 6, 09 1:53 PM CDT
This war will be fought out by the preferences of the advertising pool - as the "pay per click" volume will not grow but shrink, one will realize that "les jeux sont faits". Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
deebles
Aug 6, 09 3:56 PM CDT
Is the Internet a library or a bookstore? Is it something sorta like, or completely different? Is it television in 1958, or television in 1980 when HBO came a knocking? As for Rupert, why does he still care? Hasn't he beat the ole man, yet? And if he hasn't, it's so sad that he never will. And he doesn't even have a sled, or a bloody bowling alley. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Aug 6, 09 7:01 PM CDT
In a way, his charm is that he still cares.
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
IN RESPONSE:
deebles
Aug 6, 09 8:18 PM CDT
That might be the nicest thing you can say about driven--the still caring.
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
Rocket448
Aug 6, 09 6:14 PM CDT
Orson Welles"Citizen Kane" ref ftw. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
WolffJr
Aug 6, 09 8:25 PM CDT
What he really would love to do is hold a meeting with the owners of every newspaper and news-related online outfit and ask them all to start charging for access, but that would be known as price-fixing. He is instead publicly suggesting/hoping/praying they follow suit. If they do, he wins; if not, he fails. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Aug 7, 09 6:09 AM CDT
A meeting of ever newspaper and news-related outfit would, in the Internet age, be the size of a political convention--and you know how easy it is to get agreement there. It's a fractured world.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Nwambe
Aug 6, 09 10:28 PM CDT
First of all, to coin a phrase, Murdoch's media empire isn't news, it's more... news-porn. That being said, this article seems a tad disingenuous, and a little reminiscent of the recent Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD battle - Which format do we choose, free news or pay news? Heavyweights are always the ones to come out swinging in terms of technology, and to say that Murdoch's approach dooms him to technological and thus financial obscurity seems a little heavy-handed. Remember, porn went to Blu-Ray first, and the rest of the world followed. If Murdoch goes pay, will the rest of the media really have a choice? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
Alberto-Rosso
Aug 7, 09 1:03 AM CDT
Didn't the Irish Times try the pay to view concept? How did they go with it? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Aug 7, 09 8:06 AM CDT
It hasn't worked well for anybody in a consumer media context. Specialized media can be another story.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
2-bits
Aug 7, 09 2:59 AM CDT
I'm feeling lazy, so I'll just quote the article: "unmindful that his scoop, on the Internet, is a second away from being everybody else’s scoop." For that matter, haven't sales of porn (in both DVD and pay form) dropped dramatically because of stiff (HAR) competition from internet sites that offer it for free? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
2-bits
Aug 7, 09 3:06 AM CDT
That was meant to be in response to Nwambe
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Aug 7, 09 6:10 AM CDT
And a good response it was.
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
ahoving
Aug 7, 09 9:14 AM CDT
2010 will be the Year of Paid Content. just because it didn't work before doesn't mean it won't work now. Free is only a model if you have another way to monetize. The only way to find out what the content is worth is by trying to charge for it. If the market determines the value is zero, fold up your tent and do something else. But rather than debate this endlessly, let's try it -- with some EASY paid content architecture like PayCheckr.com -- and then we'll find out. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Aug 7, 09 11:48 AM CDT
A) Many organizations have tried to charge for content (including the NYT) without success; B) Often you don't get more than one chance--so if you try something, it ought to be a little surer than a crap shoot; C) Just because nobody wants to pay for your content, doesn't mean you can't build a content business--the *reason* people don't want to pay is that, at least in the U.S., paid has not been a prevalent consumer model.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Mikey_nyc
Aug 7, 09 9:21 AM CDT
Consider the possibility that Murdoch knows this strategy has a high risk of failing, and if it does he will then be justified in making big cuts to his news sites. I don't think he is convinced that this will work. I think he is convinced that it's time for these businesses to make money or hit the bricks. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Aug 8, 09 7:19 AM CDT
Curiously, Murdoch is not so bottom-lined oriented. His strategy here is more messianic than obviously commercial. He believes that he can continue to dominate the news business--that he *does* dominate the news business enough to impose new rules on it.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
@comradity
Aug 8, 09 8:04 AM CDT
Michael, Murdoch may be mistaken to think that he can charge for his content "as is." BUT he has changed the game with this announcement, simply by creating demand for 1-click transaction technology. Is it a coincidence that the next day FT.com is reported to be planning a 1-click transactions system by summer 2010? I think the game will change for the better. Once paid media is enabled, the playing field will be level for all comers to compete for consumer dollars. Once a transaction system is in place, the focus will be on what people will pay for - real time interactive features that surpass the current telephone "party line" experience. BTW - I applaud your participation in the comment section here. At least you are trying. And I know it's not easy. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Mikey_nyc
Aug 10, 09 9:32 AM CDT
No doubt Murdoch has a long record of favoring growth over profit, but I think if he were taking that approach online the WSJ would already be completely free online, as was his original intent. I suspect that deep down Murdoch believes that new media is a dead end. For someone who has always bet hyper-aggressively on businesses he believes in, his new media plays have been notably cautious, or you might even say half-hearted. Sometimes that gets portrayed as cluelessness or a failure to "get" new media, but I see it as a lack of conviction that there are real opportunities there for him. And if that's his thinking he may be right. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Aug 11, 09 7:53 AM CDT
I think is right. Charging, for him, ma not be so much a way to create a new business, but to protect the old business.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
@comradity
Aug 11, 09 7:53 AM CDT
This is a game-changing moment for the industry. A time to discuss possibilities. 1) What does the market look like when information and media providers compete for audience by meriting a subscription? 2) What does the competition look like in a market where consumers are empowered to vote with their $? 3) How fast will the paid media economy grow when existing technology is leveraged to create a barter transaction system that debits for consumption, credits participation, credits links that lead to more subscribers? 4) Just how much will the audience pay for content which comes closer to emulating live events than any media has ever been capable of, e.g., enabling you to connect with like-minded individuals in real time - no matter where you are? 5) What is the premium brands will pay to earn the right to participate in paid media? 6) What is the role of agencies in a market where the media has a direct relationship with the audience? 7) Will consumers pay more to cherry pick content than they pay for the utility of access to choice via cable/isps/wireless? The upside for consumers, media, and brands is so valuable, that discussion is merited more than censorship. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
LEAVE A
COMMENT
Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.

 
RECENT POSTS
Feb 9, 10 | 7:46 AM

It’s the Sex, Stupid   

Feb 8, 10 | 7:10 AM

For Me, Palin Scores

Feb 5, 10 | 8:39 AM

Politics Has Lost Its Power. That’s Why There’s Gridlock

Feb 4, 10 | 8:07 AM

Rupert Murdoch Is Mad as Hell

Feb 3, 10 | 8:00 AM

Sarah Palin, Inc. Has a Problem

Feb 2, 10 | 12:14 PM

Obama’s Deficit Faux-Hawk

Feb 2, 10 | 8:32 AM

Jenny Sanford, Andrew Young, Gayle Haggard Tell Everything You Always Want to Know About Sex—Other People's

Feb 1, 10 | 8:12 AM

James O’Keefe: What Did Glenn Beck Know, and When Did He Know It?

Jan 29, 10 | 7:02 AM

JD Salinger, and His Way, Are Dead

Jan 28, 10 | 6:57 AM

The iPad Is Political

ABOUT

OFF THE GRID is about why the news is the news. Here are the real motivations of both media and newsmakers. Here's the backstory. This is a look at the inner workings of desperate media, the inner life of the publicity crazed, and the true meaning of the news of the day.

FeedRSS