Comments on: What is Murdoch’s endgame? http://www.mb-blog.com/index.php/2009/11/29/what-is-murdochs-endgame/ A blog and forum by Nigel Hollis Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:07:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Nigel http://www.mb-blog.com/index.php/2009/11/29/what-is-murdochs-endgame/#comment-13293 Nigel Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:37:13 +0000 http://www.mb-blog.com/?p=1505#comment-13293 <p>Thanks for the comments. I am not sure this issue has become any clearer while I was away on vacation!</p> <p>To Phil's point I do think there is a role for both premium paid content and free content but the providers of paid content must a) deliver content of real value, b) content themselves that their audience is likely to be a tenth of what it would be otherwise, and, c) acknowledge that they cannot hope to wall off their content completely.</p> Thanks for the comments. I am not sure this issue has become any clearer while I was away on vacation!

To Phil’s point I do think there is a role for both premium paid content and free content but the providers of paid content must a) deliver content of real value, b) content themselves that their audience is likely to be a tenth of what it would be otherwise, and, c) acknowledge that they cannot hope to wall off their content completely.

]]> By: Philip Peters http://www.mb-blog.com/index.php/2009/11/29/what-is-murdochs-endgame/#comment-13211 Philip Peters Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:01:17 +0000 http://www.mb-blog.com/?p=1505#comment-13211 Below is the first paragraph on my take on the Google Murdock challenge: GOOGLE is not Sovereign CONTENT IS KING Google projects itself as a plebian brand – a guardian of the masses. Its “do no evil” mantra acts as a sort of psychic shield against critical assault. Yet when one looks closely at its organic core – its essential OS is that of a sovereign. And, some sovereigns need a jester in the court to present truth without recriminations. So, permit me the role of jester as we take a look at the latest Murdock driven assault against Googledom. By extension we’re now questioning our digital value philosophy. Link to the full story: http://www.nearshorejournal.com/2009/12/google-is-not-sovereign-content-is-king/ Below is the first paragraph on my take on the Google Murdock challenge:
GOOGLE is not Sovereign CONTENT IS KING
Google projects itself as a plebian brand – a guardian of the masses. Its “do no evil” mantra acts as a sort of psychic shield against critical assault. Yet when one looks closely at its organic core – its essential OS is that of a sovereign. And, some sovereigns need a jester in the court to present truth without recriminations. So, permit me the role of jester as we take a look at the latest Murdock driven assault against Googledom. By extension we’re now questioning our digital value philosophy.
Link to the full story:
http://www.nearshorejournal.com/2009/12/google-is-not-sovereign-content-is-king/

]]> By: Laurence Simon http://www.mb-blog.com/index.php/2009/11/29/what-is-murdochs-endgame/#comment-13209 Laurence Simon Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:12:16 +0000 http://www.mb-blog.com/?p=1505#comment-13209 Endgame? Hrm ... he hires Matt Drudge? -ls Endgame? Hrm … he hires Matt Drudge?
-ls

]]> By: Philip Herr http://www.mb-blog.com/index.php/2009/11/29/what-is-murdochs-endgame/#comment-13130 Philip Herr Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:23:03 +0000 http://www.mb-blog.com/?p=1505#comment-13130 Hi Nigel, glad you addressed this topic. At this point the only viable way for many websites to stay afloat is to sell advertising access. And unless it is very specifically relevant to the viewer, it is immediately ignored. So as things progress both advertisers and content providers have come to realize the limitation of the advertising supported model to sustain the web. Which brings us to paid content. So far WSJ has kept a good deal of its content behind a paid wall. And it looks as if more will be placed there. And those of us who see value will go after it. (I subscribe to both paper and online versions). It is the institutions that truly deliver unique and valued content that will be able to do this – the WSJ, NYT and probably Washington Post, because of their coverage depth, breadth and access to news sources that others typically cannot reach, that enable them to charge for content. I see two tiers of content developing – paid and premium and all others. One final thought, I can’t agree that by cutting off 20% of his audience that Murdoch will be losing loyal users. I’d think that they – like me – will go out of their way to get to WSJ content. And if it requires a different search engine, then so be it.   Hi Nigel, glad you addressed this topic. At this point the only viable way for many websites to stay afloat is to sell advertising access. And unless it is very specifically relevant to the viewer, it is immediately ignored. So as things progress both advertisers and content providers have come to realize the limitation of the advertising supported model to sustain the web. Which brings us to paid content. So far WSJ has kept a good deal of its content behind a paid wall. And it looks as if more will be placed there. And those of us who see value will go after it. (I subscribe to both paper and online versions).
It is the institutions that truly deliver unique and valued content that will be able to do this – the WSJ, NYT and probably Washington Post, because of their coverage depth, breadth and access to news sources that others typically cannot reach, that enable them to charge for content. I see two tiers of content developing – paid and premium and all others.
One final thought, I can’t agree that by cutting off 20% of his audience that Murdoch will be losing loyal users. I’d think that they – like me – will go out of their way to get to WSJ content. And if it requires a different search engine, then so be it.
 

]]>