Murdoch can fook off if he thinks I'm paying for any of his tulipe. Left to me I wouldn't have Sky telly (I don't pay for it). It's not that I don't like him (although I don't) - but I still have plenty of choices that don't involve putting cash in his slimy pockets.
-
-
I don't see why news on the net should be free. It costs just as much to put there as newsprint and has a similar advertising basis to print, yet we still pay for papers.
I think the FT has it right - if you only look at a couple of articles a day it stays free. If you start reading the whole lot it costs money."See, you think I give a tulip. Wrong. In fact, while you talk, I'm thinking; How can I give less of a tulip? That's why I look interested." -
The FT has it right in that it serves a niche market that is prepared to pay.
The Times and The Sun do not have that niche. I suppose The Sun could try and make itself even more celeb obsessed in the hope that people will pay for that rather than buy Hello or Heat but I doubt it'll work.
I agree that online news is not a free commodity, but if we are going to pay for it it had better be of a MUCH higher quality than Murdochs current output.Comment
-
We don't pay for all papers - Metro, Evening Standard and a thousand local freesheets are just examples. Taking that to its logical conclusion, we'd have to pay for that big sky news telly in Liverpool street station. I agree it's fine to pay for the kind of in depth coverage a paper gives - whether on t'internet or print, but I wouldn't pay Murdoch.Originally posted by Moscow Mule View PostComment
-
If I was forced to pay for news I'd go for a wire service, or a sub to one of the aggregators like newsnow. Why on earth would you want to pay for second-hand tripe with a bit of spin from Newscorp?Comment
-
We pay for it one way or another; whether it's p.o.s costs or inderect cost raised through adverising sales passed on in product costs.Originally posted by Peoplesoft bloke View Post
Tw@s like Murdoch and that Ryanair bloke have a very unsubtle business model, but in reality we should celebrate this for sparing us MORE advertising!Comment
-
Murdoch loses. Game Over, you have failed to achieve a high score, etc.
The problem facing newspapers now is similar (though not identical) to the problem the music and movie industries have recently been failing to cope with: how to move to new business models that allow them to continue to make money in an age of limitless digital distribution.
The music and movie industries have attacked on two fronts: Digital Rights Management (DRM) and legal action against their own customers. Unless you've been in a cave in Bora Bora (or the boardroom of one of said companies) for the last few years, you will be aware that these strategies have failed in exactly the way everybody with any nous predicted they would fail.
Murdoch's strategies will also fail, and for the same reasons: the fundamental reason being that they're the same old piss in a different-shaped bottle, and that won't cut it any more.
Still, I loathe Murdoch and his empire, so I'm more than happy to see him consign the whole thing to a footnote of history by making the catastrophic mistakes he is currently making.
The irony is that, if he realised that the old business model is gone for ever and thought through matters a little bit, he would realise that News International is probably the only news organisation big enough to be able to help put the new business model into operation without itself being destroyed.
But he doesn't so he won't so he's toast
Good riddance to bad rubbish, and welcome to the New Age
Comment
-
Stolen and will be passed off as my own work in the near future.Originally posted by NickFitz View Post
Many Thanks
PLComment
-
WHS - cheers!Originally posted by Pondlife View Post...my quagmire of greed....my cesspit of laziness and unfairness....all I am doing is sticking two fingers up at nurses, doctors and other hard working employed professionals...
Comment
Comment