You’ve never paid for news, you never will

Eric says:

06:22am | 27/11/09

“Comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable” - That’s not news, it’s political activism.

Crikey isn’t news either, it’s a left-wing propaganda organ.

Certainly, True Believers are willing to pay for political activism in the guise of “news” - but most people are not True Believers.

peddler says:

07:09am | 27/11/09

Yeah yeah yeah. Perhaps if the American magnate Murdoch wasn’t doing his best to strangle internet search, your piece might be a tick more credible. The fact is, using The Punch as an example, Murdoch propaganda isn’t *worth* paying for, on paper or online. Keeping your CV up to date, are you?

Michael says:

08:28am | 27/11/09

Make it pay to view, i’ll never bother reading it again, i’ll go to the ABC or BBC or any number of providers, on the flip side I wonder how you will continue to advertise to people like me who have browser add ons that block your ads and scripts, quite a pickle, though I must say if you weren’t always trying to sell me insurance i might be more interested in the ads, put ads up for gadgets and I might even click one.

Sites like this one I think should allow you to register and have a profile, in the settings I should be able to select the kind of ads I want to see.

Dan says:

09:36am | 27/11/09

I refuse to pay for news. If I’m doing a google search for a particular news story, nothing makes me close the browser window faster than reading “To read the rest of this story, sign up to one of our subscription models…”

potrm says:

10:04am | 27/11/09

The success of iTunes and the app store proves people are willing to pay for ‘content’ and ‘services’ online. I’m at a loss as to why I can’t buy apps from Uncle Rupert that allow me to access news and video content. At the end of the day, Murdoch as to take some of the blame for his big Internet gripes. He’s dropped the ball many times, including the debacle that is myspace. Hell, if he had’ve bought me a sandwich and a coffee I could have told him exactly why that was such a shocking deal with negligable long-term benefit.

John Grey says:

10:31am | 27/11/09

I am confident that will come, potrm. The apps, not the sandwich.

firstdogonthemoon says:

11:18am | 27/11/09

My Dearest Mr Rat - That avatar is a gift to you, the only payment required is that you keep on being hilarious and adorable on the internet. But I retain copyright And my hugely funny cartoons are available for free two weeks after publication.

John Grey says:

11:23am | 27/11/09

I hereby pledge continued adorability.

Nick P says:

11:23am | 27/11/09

I dont need news sites anymore. I have my well informed twitter-sphere to keep me up to date with the goings on in the world. Cause they are like the new micro-blogging journalists man. ;p

EG says:

11:29am | 27/11/09

You have a point & then again maybe not - you’re right, people don’t buy news - they do however pay to see what’s behind the headline. It’s all about making the headline grab strong enough for people to part with funds, time, effort, whatever, so they can see or read the rest of the .....you guessed it, the “Headline”. Advertisers will always pay if you have the eyeballs or the subscribers & the readers/viewers will generally find a way to skip past the ads, during which process some of the ad info will inevitably slip through. Of course if you want your ads to be read or viewed, it’s not that hard…..simply make the headline of the ad grab your attention. Rupert has a problem in that the delivery, which has justified the cost so far, has become a heck of a lot cheaper, which means it’s fantastic for him if only we would be prepared to keep paying a buck a day - unfortunately (or fortunately in most of our cases) we can get loads for no bucks a day, so basically Rupert has a problem (if you want to ignore the fact that along with the problem he also has $10B).
My prediction (it came to my in a dream, or perhaps after a few drinks) - business folk will pay for the Wall St Journal & similar publications because the release of the content is more easily controlled than the general headline grabber, oh…and also they can claim their subscription back on tax. However there will always be someone somewhere who will make the content available for free - if not then it will get passed around the traps similar to the way music is shared. And the irony of it all is that if the originators of the content (news, music, whatever) had been less greedy to start with, everybody would have happily paid a small amount in recognition of the effort/talent - but greedy news proprietors & ultra greedy record companies have screwed everybody for so long that we’re all fed up to the eyeballs (no pun intended).
At the end of the day I do hope that they keep paying you though, because somebody has to dig up the often hidden facts & tell the story - so enjoy your lunch.
And just for the record - I’m in the news media industry as well (both in broadcast & on-line).

aubrey says:

11:42am | 27/11/09

Eric said:
“Crikey isn’t news either, it’s a left-wing propaganda organ.

Certainly, True Believers are willing to pay for political activism in the guise of “news” - but most people are not True Believers. “

I must protest.  I am a Crikey subscriber primarily so I get a daily dose of firstdogonthemoon.  The “news” I consider as free side dish.  Crikey’s “left” bias is only relative to Murdoch papers.  I’m actually happy for Rupert to allow Google to filter out its trash.  Makes Google a better value proposition for me.

JohnM says:

03:41pm | 27/11/09

I quit as a Crikey subscriber because of the time it was taking. I couldn’t just ignore the email. It interests me that the New York Times tried a pay model for some of its content a couple of years back, only to drop the payment a few months later. We’ll se how Rupert goes.

Jeefunk says:

04:13pm | 27/11/09

Oh God, it’s so boring to hear this same tripe over and over about why people refuse to pay for content. The comments are predictable. ‘I never have and I never will’ they say. Real solid argument you have there. Let’s just surrender to a future where the ABC is our only ‘professional’ source of Australian news, or perhaps we can rely on user generated content. Did you follow the Iran election on Twitter? It was groundbreaking and revolutionary… it was also bloody annoying to navigate, polluted with garbage and inaccurate. Just pay the bloody $5 a week and keep the diversity for Christ’s sake, you tight-arse whingers.

Socrates says:

04:15pm | 27/11/09

Yeah, I’ve been revolting for years too.  But what’s really revolting are the bloggers who write their post BEFORE whatever they are pushing/demonising has appeared.

Both Left and Right, and the much maligned Centre, can be pretty silly at times, but they can also make a lot of sense.  We are lucky to live in a country where (so far) all shades can be published and debated.

Nickk says:

02:31am | 28/11/09

Jeefunk: “Did you follow the Iran election on Twitter? It was groundbreaking and revolutionary… it was also bloody annoying to navigate, polluted with garbage and inaccurate”

Sounds like most online news sites to me…