Media

 

Newspaper publishers told "free is too expensive"

 

LONDON - Newspaper publishers struggling to meet the financial challenges in the digital age only have themselves to blame, according to Les Hinton, chief executive of News Corporation's Dow Jones today.

Les Hinton
Les Hinton

Speaking on the first day of the World Newspaper Congress in Hyderabad, India, Rupert Murdoch’s US leader accused the press of being the "principal architect of its greatest difficulty today".

He told the conference of more than 800 media delegates from 87 countries that those involved in the newspaper business had been "taken-in by the game-changing gospel" of digital evangelists, and asked "how can it be that the internet offered so much promise and so little profit?"

He added: "We are allowing our journalism – billions of dollars worth of it every year – to leak onto the internet. We are surrendering our hard-earned rights to the search engines and aggregators, and the out and out thieves of the digital age.

"It is time to pause and recognise this – free costs too much."

Hinton, who used to oversee News International’s British newspaper operation, including The Times and The Sun, urged the world’s press to "beware of geeks bearing gifts" and said it was time to place a premium back on content.

"Because news costs,"he said. "Because quality costs. Because free sets the price too low. Because free isn’t sustainable. Because free is too expensive."

The chief who has worked for Murdoch both in Australia and the United States and is widely regarded as one of the mogul’s closest allies, questioned the "build it and they will come" philosophy regarding "eyeballs and advertisers".

Using Google’s video site YouTube by way of example, the chief executive said the company that defined viral on the web has had to start paying for quality, professional content [like Channel 4], after discovering not enough advertisers were willing to feature alongside "home videos of pet dogs having baths, or kids doing karaoke in their bedrooms".

"Today, there is one thing we must agree about the content economy – the content economy that they tell us is over," he said.

"That is, the one thing free news sites have in common with online newspapers… the one thing free news sites have in common with online newspapers… virtually none is making money."

Hinton warned that even the advertisers which were initially lured by impressive clicks and page impressions, are now becoming more discriminating.

Drawing on a report called The Silent Click, by Comscore and the Online Publishers Association, Hinton said there was a disconnect between what brand marketers are now asking for in terms of quality measurement online – brand awareness, purchase intent, favourability – versus what publishers have been providing them with – click thrus, unique users and ad impressions.

"Ironically, what they now want is more ‘old media’ metrics they are used to getting from print and television," he said. "It supports what we have been saying all along: that audiences exposed to display advertising on high-quality content sites are more engaged, more favourable towards a brand, and are more likely to spend."

In a call to arms the chief executive of Dow Jones, which owns Wall Street Journal, America’s only major newspaper currently making a profit from charging for content online, called for publishers to find "new and better ways to meet the needs of their viewers, listeners, and readers".

He added: "Let’s face facts. A business model that assumes we can’t charge for the content we produce assumes that our content has no value in the online market.

"In pure economic terms, such a business model has to mean one of two things: Either there is no demand for the content or there are substitute suppliers of that content sufficient to drive the price almost to zero."

Pointing to WSJ’s more than two million paying subscribers, Hinton stated: "I don’t believe it."

Instead, he told publishers to "rationalise the lingering inefficiencies" and to "re-conceive our business in a less costly context".

He concluded: "In the future, good journalism will depend on the ability of a news organisation to attract customers by providing news and information they are willing to pay for.

"Free costs too much. Good content is valuable. That hasn’t changed. It never will. The question is who will provide the content and who will be compensated fairly for the value delivered."

X

You must log in to use Clip & Save

 
 

All Comments

Freemon SandleWould

Freemon SandleWould - 01 December 2009

These journalists must really think alot of themselves. Everything I see done by "pro" journalists whether it be on TV or internet is low quality. I'll take a new media blogger arty every time over these guys. Get a clue guys ....you're not as good as you think !

 

Paul Lomax - 01 December 2009

What a load of crap...

Since when did market economies take 'fair' into account when deciding the value of something?

I like steam trains. Lots of people like steam trains. Steam trains cost a lot of money to run. But they're not economically viable, so they were replaced.

You can't say content is valuable because it costs money to produce. Value is based on what people will pay, it's not cost-plus. There will always be free good-enough content on the web. There are no longer publishing monopolies restricting supply, keeping prices high.

 
Aaron Savage

Aaron Savage - 01 December 2009

You've got to hand it to News Corp that they are throwing everything they have got at this, but there again they are betting the farm on it so I guess not throwing everything at it would be pointless.

Whether they are right and their content stands up to a pay wall tariff, or if all this blood and gusto turns out to be folly remains to be seen, but I am fascinated by the way that the lines are being drawn.

Picking a fight with market conditions, Google and the BBC all at once, definitely shows something, I'm not entirely sure what but it is definitely something.

 

Ian Lynch - 01 December 2009

Let's say investigative journalism, analysis and insight have value online. In this area, newspaper brands are aggregators of a limited supply of content providers \(journalists, columnists, contributors), competing against a global supply of content providers and, more importantly, the technology-enabled exchange of free insight and analysis widely available from and to their 'customers'. That leaves investigative reporting. If they are still capable of that, then I suppose I might, just might, need them as well as my iPhone, the BBC, colleagues, friends and family for my news.

Find smarter ways to profile your audience and improve their value to your advertisers, the news of Pandora's escape is already in my in-box.

 

Faustino B - 02 December 2009

Is it just me, or ar they not taking into account that any good news stories they do print behind their pay wall will be reported on by other sites, who may have simply read their story? Even if you stop people getting in for free, you can't stop the people who are paying to get in from taking stuff back out and sharing it \(as long as it's not verbatim of course).

 
JAMES SMYTHE

JAMES SMYTHE - 02 December 2009

The "geeks bearing gifts" might have actually saved the traditional TV business, for the time being at least. Wide-screen HDTVs are more desirable than VOD through a PC. Perhaps phone apps, tablets or digital paper can do the same for premium written content, but I'm not sure that the WWW will.

 

Comments

 
 

Only registered users may comment. Sign in now or register for free.

 
 

Jobs

 

News By Email

The Media AM Bulletin : Preview

The Media PM Bulletin : Preview

Breaking News from Media Week : Preview

You need to register to receive our bulletins. Registration is free and only takes a minute.
If you have already registered then sign in to your account now and selected 'My bulletins' within preferences.