Free news is good news

So Rupert Murdoch has decided that money no longer lies in free news.

He’s pulled the plug on The London Paper free sheet, and is proposing to slap a subscription fee on all News Corp’s online news content. But is it realistic to believe consumers will pay for “quality journalism” when diverse news content is still available for free elsewhere?

We all keep hearing about the supposedly imminent death of the newspaper, and the internet has been named as the number one culprit. It’s a no brainer really. Why make the effort to leave the house and buy a paper which will be chucked in the recycling bin at the end of the day, when you can access up-to-date, real-time news and opinion from the comfort of your own bed, office or train seat?

We couldn’t go up to the newstand and take the front page from The Sun, the media supplement from The Guardian, the comment pieces from The Independent and then strike up a conversation with hundreds of other readers about what they thought about an article. The internet provides all this - and it’s all free (well, except for the monthly bill...)

Media is business, so news has to make money somehow, but with print circulations plummeting and no great success stories for online adverts, advertisers are getting cautious with budgets. So where an obvious alternative may be to charge for online content, the general consensus seems to be that this will drive surfers away whilst alternatives still exist.

Here is a cross section of comments from The Guardian in response to the original story:

"Well, I won't pay.”

“Won't affect me as I don't read his rags so I really do not care. For every crap rag that starts charging, 10 better ones can be found online for free.”

“If I have paid for the print editions of the three papers I buy daily, am I then expected to be happy if I am asked to pay to get updates on their websites?”

Consumers are always on the lookout for a bargain - better still a freebie. So maybe companies like Spotify have got the right idea. Listen to music tracks for free but expect to hear an advert every few songs which cannot be skipped or turned down. Convert this to The Sun or The Times etc, every 3 articles you click on, a tailored advert appears.

This is not to say however, that the paid-for content model is not working in some circumstances. Take the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. Its editor, Walter Hussman, was profiled in last Sunday’s Observer. The 62 year old started charging for online news content in 2002 and has continued to make a profit and see print sales increase. If you’ve got something niche or exclusive though there’s always potential to make money.

If Rupert can be guaranteed to get the scoop on every story, then there’s a chance he could pull in the online readers. But until all online news content is subscription only, it’s difficult to see how this can be a billion dollar idea.

And where does this leave bloggers or independent news sites? Will they be sucked into this new, potentially profitable internet landscape?

It’s clear that the face of news is in a state of flux. Consumers are after free, up-to-the-minute exclusives with pictures, videos and comments. It seems that unfortunately quality is no longer the priority, so where is the money in this? There must be a way for the media to capitalise on the internet boom - but I don’t think this is it. I know I won’t be paying. Will you? Comment and let us know.

Janelle Hardacre (The Intern)