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)

New Media Revolution gives US Presidents celebrity status

Charlie Grant, New Media Executive





With election fever gripping the world, it seems that everyone and his uncle know the names Barack Obama and John McCain. Even the British youth, most of whom wouldn’t know the leaders of our very own major political parties, seem to know not only where Sarah Palin hails from, but how much she spends on clothes and her penchant for high heels.

It seems that one of the major contributing factors for this world-wide know-all of the American election can be put down to the one thing that unites us all - the internet.

Never before has the World Wide Web been used to such effect; with blog, videos, podcasts and websites popping up all over, dedicated to what has been the most costly US presidential campaign in history. Not only has YouTube become a tool for passionate voters to express their opinions to the masses, but even the two sparring political parties have adopted the video revolution.

Both the Democrats and Republicans have issued videos for the Google-owned website. Obama has even managed to secure a video of his ‘A More Perfect Union’ speech in the ranks of the highest-watched videos of all time.

YouTube was once a place where like-minded individuals (all possessing very fast internet connections of course) went to upload their latest vodcast, or to mime along to the Backstreet Boys. Now it’s become an incredibly strong political tool. With over a billion internet users in the world, and over 100 million YouTube videos watched every day, it’s easy to understand why the spin doctors are using the internet to reach the voting public.

They did their job so well, in fact, that many non-Americans now feel passionate enough to show loyal support to a favoured candidate. And even this ‘across-the-pond’ support isn’t wasted. Eager Britons have posted their written and spoken opinions in droves. It would only take a few undecided US voters to happen across a convincing argument written by a British blogger to change the course of history.

The internet is a powerful tool. It can turn politicians into superstars and ‘nobodies’ into celebrities. The jury is still out on whether our own politicians should go the digital way and embrace the new media popularity contest, but who knows? In a few years, we could be watching Gordon Brown dancing around his room to some ‘90s Euro-pop in a fantastic attempt to attract the youth vote…

Charlie Grant