Newspapers: the effect of online technology
Based on the handout you've read and the links provided, answer these questions on your blog with detailed, in-depth paragraphs. Remember, critical autonomy means forming your own opinions on these issues.
1) Do you agree with James Murdoch that the BBC should not be allowed to provide free news online? Why?
It can easier be seen that Murdoch's perspective is easily influenced by his own self-interest in regards to his need to maintain profitability and a large market share - which is obviously threatened by BBC providing not only competition but also free content which audiences would see as a benefit, why would they pay for content that can be for free elsewhere? However, it is much more complex than that, just because the BBC is providing free news doesn't mean they will a) have the same content or b) style or perspective, the BBC is bound by various rules and regulations such as having to be factual and unbias, which other news papers are more learnt with -- they don't always have to provide a balanced argument. Murdoch shouldn't be so worried.
James Murdoch also takes a stab at making the BBC seem rather communist (in a negative way) by saying “expansion of state-sponsored journalism is a threat to the plurality and independence of news provision.” Whilst i understand that news papers closing down due to their lack of profit and funding would result in decreased plurality of news however its something that connects the public to the state, isn't that necessary for democracy? Moreover, whilst the BBC may be funded through the licence fee, pretty much controlled by the government, however ultimately the audience is paying for that news thus they are obliged to provide the audience with the news they want and need not just what the government wants. Moreover their rules and regulations mean they must be unbiased, that would include giving both sides of the argument even when the government is involved. This reason he gives for BBC not making a positive move by allowing free news, it seems a rather debatable one.
I don't agree with James Murdoch if in honest, i think its a rather self interest filled and closed minded perspective. Free news should be provided, by the BBC and many other news providers too, as it means there is not economical barriers to the access of news, audiences shouldn't have to pay for news about the environment that impacts their lives too, the audience had the RIGHT to know, they shouldn't have to pay for their rights. The BBC online allows for news of professional quality to reach an audience, just because you can't afford to always pay for news, doesn't mean you should be excluded from quality.
Plus, we already pay for it through the licence fee, why should we have to pay for it again online? The BBC doesn't make money from advertising unlike Murdoch's productions so he shouldn't be so bothered. News is about empowering an audience, giving them awareness of the environment they live in, their loved ones live in, a right they should be given without having to pay directly. Journalism won't come to decline, they'll find new ways of making indirect money online, e.g data mining, analysis of data, adverting revenue, whilst also making a massive (positive) social impact on the community.
2) Read this blog on the Times paywall three years on.
3) Was Rupert Murdoch right to put his news content (The Times, The Sunday Times) behind a paywall?
Well according to the article "To convince people to "pay for news" does not remove a £28 million loss overnight or even in five years." so it shouldn't even be making much of a difference, however the research also showed that in recent years the digital income increases more than the income of print, so creating revenue through the digital side rather than the print is more profitable. It also works with the concept of sustaining a loyal audience and stable revenue through them rather than trying to create a massive audience research that doesn't always result in revenue.
4) Choose two comments from below the Times paywall article - one that argues in favour of the paywall and one that argues against. Copy a quote from each and explain which YOU agree with and why.
FOR:
Frank said: "I'd put my money on The Times when it comes to UK-based newspapers.
MailOnline's audience is vast, especially for a UK-based title. Yet with all that scale, with the most advanced data strategy, and undoubtedly with cost help from the wider organisation, it still only makes a tiny profit. More sadly, is that the product is getting further and further away from news; their strategy is to create a deluge of rapidly-written disposable content then overlay it with audience data. It also works with lots of partners to develop their data - many of which will retract that partnership over the next 2-3 years as they seek to retain value for themselves.
The Times, more than any other paper, is more ready for a printless future, should it arise, as they just need to migrate users, in relatively low numbers. to the digital subscription. And it is having an almighty practice run to get it right. It doesn't need to create the vast volumes of (crap) content that the Mail does and it has a very strong brand argument to ad buyers.
What the management of MailOnline have done is show that the free model might just work ever so slightly, but probably not in a robust, profitable way. What News UK have shown is that they can move over paying customers, and keep a healthy ratio of decent content to preserve the brand equity."
"It is so ridiculous if these mainstream newspapers believe that they can "force readership of fee-based news. One can get the same "news" for free almost anywhere on the internet. I'd take a hint from the alternative free weeklies that survive just off their local advertising. I don't think anyone would read them otherwise. These papers are full of paid advertising. The fee model will never work.
Jerry Harris"
1) Do you agree with James Murdoch that the BBC should not be allowed to provide free news online? Why?
It can easier be seen that Murdoch's perspective is easily influenced by his own self-interest in regards to his need to maintain profitability and a large market share - which is obviously threatened by BBC providing not only competition but also free content which audiences would see as a benefit, why would they pay for content that can be for free elsewhere? However, it is much more complex than that, just because the BBC is providing free news doesn't mean they will a) have the same content or b) style or perspective, the BBC is bound by various rules and regulations such as having to be factual and unbias, which other news papers are more learnt with -- they don't always have to provide a balanced argument. Murdoch shouldn't be so worried.
James Murdoch also takes a stab at making the BBC seem rather communist (in a negative way) by saying “expansion of state-sponsored journalism is a threat to the plurality and independence of news provision.” Whilst i understand that news papers closing down due to their lack of profit and funding would result in decreased plurality of news however its something that connects the public to the state, isn't that necessary for democracy? Moreover, whilst the BBC may be funded through the licence fee, pretty much controlled by the government, however ultimately the audience is paying for that news thus they are obliged to provide the audience with the news they want and need not just what the government wants. Moreover their rules and regulations mean they must be unbiased, that would include giving both sides of the argument even when the government is involved. This reason he gives for BBC not making a positive move by allowing free news, it seems a rather debatable one.
I don't agree with James Murdoch if in honest, i think its a rather self interest filled and closed minded perspective. Free news should be provided, by the BBC and many other news providers too, as it means there is not economical barriers to the access of news, audiences shouldn't have to pay for news about the environment that impacts their lives too, the audience had the RIGHT to know, they shouldn't have to pay for their rights. The BBC online allows for news of professional quality to reach an audience, just because you can't afford to always pay for news, doesn't mean you should be excluded from quality.
Plus, we already pay for it through the licence fee, why should we have to pay for it again online? The BBC doesn't make money from advertising unlike Murdoch's productions so he shouldn't be so bothered. News is about empowering an audience, giving them awareness of the environment they live in, their loved ones live in, a right they should be given without having to pay directly. Journalism won't come to decline, they'll find new ways of making indirect money online, e.g data mining, analysis of data, adverting revenue, whilst also making a massive (positive) social impact on the community.
2) Read this blog on the Times paywall three years on.
- The Times and The Sunday Times have now amassed a total of 140,000 paying digital subscribers, "mainly on the tablet"
- The papers, published by News UK - rebranded from News International as part of News Corp's split - now have more paying customers than they did on 2 July 2010, which is regarded by News UK executives as the true marker of success.
- The Times titles added 13,000 new subscribers in the first half of 2013, implying a monthly acquisition rate of 2,100, although the natural churn rate will mean the real net subscribers growth figure is lower
- the times digital increase
- his reach doesn't generate any meaningful revenue, and the pursuit of it undermines the piece of the business that does make money. it is better to sacrifice reach and preserve sustainable profitability.
- you only reach profit through subscriptions when you've deducted the cost of acquiring and retaining users
- but MailOnline makes a small profit and is on course to make £45 million this year, thanks to its six million browsers a day.
- And the age of being subsidised by other parts of the News Corp empire is now over,
- News UK is focused on increasing its recurring, stable revenue from loyal audiences and decreasing its reliance on advertising.
3) Was Rupert Murdoch right to put his news content (The Times, The Sunday Times) behind a paywall?
Well according to the article "To convince people to "pay for news" does not remove a £28 million loss overnight or even in five years." so it shouldn't even be making much of a difference, however the research also showed that in recent years the digital income increases more than the income of print, so creating revenue through the digital side rather than the print is more profitable. It also works with the concept of sustaining a loyal audience and stable revenue through them rather than trying to create a massive audience research that doesn't always result in revenue.
4) Choose two comments from below the Times paywall article - one that argues in favour of the paywall and one that argues against. Copy a quote from each and explain which YOU agree with and why.
FOR:
Frank said: "I'd put my money on The Times when it comes to UK-based newspapers.
MailOnline's audience is vast, especially for a UK-based title. Yet with all that scale, with the most advanced data strategy, and undoubtedly with cost help from the wider organisation, it still only makes a tiny profit. More sadly, is that the product is getting further and further away from news; their strategy is to create a deluge of rapidly-written disposable content then overlay it with audience data. It also works with lots of partners to develop their data - many of which will retract that partnership over the next 2-3 years as they seek to retain value for themselves.
The Times, more than any other paper, is more ready for a printless future, should it arise, as they just need to migrate users, in relatively low numbers. to the digital subscription. And it is having an almighty practice run to get it right. It doesn't need to create the vast volumes of (crap) content that the Mail does and it has a very strong brand argument to ad buyers.
What the management of MailOnline have done is show that the free model might just work ever so slightly, but probably not in a robust, profitable way. What News UK have shown is that they can move over paying customers, and keep a healthy ratio of decent content to preserve the brand equity."
"It is so ridiculous if these mainstream newspapers believe that they can "force readership of fee-based news. One can get the same "news" for free almost anywhere on the internet. I'd take a hint from the alternative free weeklies that survive just off their local advertising. I don't think anyone would read them otherwise. These papers are full of paid advertising. The fee model will never work.
Jerry Harris"
I agree with both only partially though. In terms of the comment against it i agree with the fact that they shouldn't force readers to pay for content they can receive elsewhere however they do need to cover the costs from somewhere and can't always keep on using other methods to pay for it, using the audience data. they spend a lot on interpreting that, not the best way to lower their costs them.
5) Read this article from the Media Briefing on the continuing decline of the newspaper industry.
6) Why do you think the Evening Standard has bucked the trend and increased circulation and profit in the last two years?
They may have managed to sustain a larger audience as they are free and placed in a popular place, train stations. This would have meant a wider reach with the A-B audiences which organisations would notice and place their adverts targeting that specific audience. The free newspaper would result in a wider circulation and the audience resulting in a higher ad revenue causing them to make a large profit too.
7) Is there any hope for the newspaper industry or will it eventually die out? Provide a detailed response to this question explaining and justifying your opinion.
I think there is hope for the newspaper industry, defiantely during the short term,as many of them are owned by organisations that have a profit being created through various means and can carry on investing in the paper, moreover its hard to make an audience 100% change their way of consuming the news, there is still an established and loyal audience who love print news enough to pay for it too. However this audience may start decreasing in size where the audience much rather just consume news online causing the organisations to move onto an online platform where they have lower costs but can still produce news and potentially have a higher rate of income through data mining etc. news means that can develop over time. In the long run news papers may die out, all but a few, owned by the rich that are free to consume .
5) Read this article from the Media Briefing on the continuing decline of the newspaper industry.
- Readership for British national newspapers, as estimated by the National Readership Survey, has fallen 13 percent on average compared to the previous year
- While the Independent has the biggest percentage fall in readership at 34 percent
- an estimated 39,000 new readers in no way alleviates the pressure on the Independent, which lost 136,000 readers
- But those digital audiences need to be seen very differently because they are, for most publications, far easier to capture and worth far less.
- but they aren't getting in front of anywhere near the majority of the UK population even once a month. That is, of course, why the international focus on growing internationally is so necessary.
- their all-or-nothing paid for digital subscriptions, digital audiences are as or more difficult to attract than print ones, and are worth a roughly similar amount per user.
- The only common feature across all these newspapers is that as print audiences decline, there's a lot more to do in building and monetising digital audiences.
6) Why do you think the Evening Standard has bucked the trend and increased circulation and profit in the last two years?
They may have managed to sustain a larger audience as they are free and placed in a popular place, train stations. This would have meant a wider reach with the A-B audiences which organisations would notice and place their adverts targeting that specific audience. The free newspaper would result in a wider circulation and the audience resulting in a higher ad revenue causing them to make a large profit too.
7) Is there any hope for the newspaper industry or will it eventually die out? Provide a detailed response to this question explaining and justifying your opinion.
I think there is hope for the newspaper industry, defiantely during the short term,as many of them are owned by organisations that have a profit being created through various means and can carry on investing in the paper, moreover its hard to make an audience 100% change their way of consuming the news, there is still an established and loyal audience who love print news enough to pay for it too. However this audience may start decreasing in size where the audience much rather just consume news online causing the organisations to move onto an online platform where they have lower costs but can still produce news and potentially have a higher rate of income through data mining etc. news means that can develop over time. In the long run news papers may die out, all but a few, owned by the rich that are free to consume .
Comments
Post a Comment