Results 1 to 6 of 6
January 21st, 2010, 08:39 AM #1Bold Move by NY Times to Charge for Content in 2011
I thought I'd post this information on the forums being that the NY Times has to be the most influential paper in America. The Wallstreet Journal coming in second place.
I've heard Barry Diller (my old boss ) say that he wanted to find ways to monetize content on the web, but I thought it would never fly. I still think this idea is off being that there is so much content and news worthy outlets to compete against, however it seems the NY Times wants to take a crack at it. Well, in any case check out the article:
January 21st, 2010, 09:25 AM #2
I always thought it would be interesting to see which way the other media jumped after Murdoch announced that they were doing the same. Companies like the NYT can't survive if they give their content away for free forever!
The irony is that these publications are struggling, when I think that demand for the high-quality journalism they provide is at an all-time high. It's just that people are used to getting good quality journalism for free.. which ain't ever gonna work in the long term.
Now, you might think that there's an opportunity for independent publishers (that's us, folks) to take advantage of this by filling the demand for free content ourselves.. but there's a catch, something in law called the "Hot News Doctrine" that was established way back in 1918 with International News Service v. Associated Press which basically established that repackaging someone else's story as your own was unfair competition and hence illegal.
January 21st, 2010, 01:36 PM #3
I hear you Dynamoo and yes, this move could be the begining of something new when it relates to content and media sources. I guess we will see....
January 23rd, 2010, 01:57 AM #4
- Join Date
- June 18th, 2006
- The Call is coming from Inside the House!
You know most of us would trade business models with a newspaper company in a heartbeat.
They have branding, familiarity, a way to gather and package news.
The thing they dont have and dont seem to be able to do is monetize the traffic they have. And it does not seem like they have been very good at getting that done.
Are they actually telling me they cannot cover their bandwidth charges with ads and maybe make a bit of money?
They have a newspaper that needs reporters and editors. They just need to keep market share, cover bandwidth and IT costs, and maybe make some money.
Maybe the problem is that their is no investigative journalism, no edge, and no voice in most papers. That has little to nothing to do with the internet.
Do you think sucessful bloggers would be, if their voice and news was the same as 20 other sites?
January 23rd, 2010, 02:10 PM #5
Emilio I find it funny that you call the NY Times the most influential paper. Can you name 3 people that actually read it? To me its the equivalent of the National Enquirer. Everyday they have what is called a "corrections" section where they have to correct themselves from the previous days news.
The Times may have been a good paper but I don't consider them to be influential at all anymore. They need to try to do something to save their business. The majority of the people that read the times were those commuting to Wall street so what does the times do, they cut the business section in half that had the stock quotes. I find that to be too funny.
January 23rd, 2010, 02:30 PM #6
Murdoch is clinging to a business model that will be obsolete in pretty short order. Go ahead, let him charge for online access to the Times - when was the last time news of any importance was either scooped or exclusive to the Times? There isn't a single news story they've got that I can't read elsewhere.Daniel M. Clark
Greg Hoffman Consulting
By TomCPAWAY in forum CPAWayReplies: 0Last Post: October 16th, 2011, 12:14 PM
By f3lto in forum WebMerge (Fourthworld.com)Replies: 8Last Post: August 27th, 2007, 08:35 PM
By Mr. Sal in forum Newbie Affiliate FAQs & Helpful ArticlesReplies: 6Last Post: December 26th, 2003, 09:29 PM