Fox's Big Gamble: Paid Content
November 15th 2009 16:39
There is no doubt that Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox and Sky news, is a great business man. What else is obvious is that he does not like to give news away for free and really hates competitors like the BBC and ABC Australia stealing his content.
Murdoch has set a June 2010 deadline for his sites to start charging for online news. If anyone could pull it off, I think Murdoch can but many others have tried and failed. The New York Times has tried unsuccessfully on more than one occasion to charge and Howard Stern's big gamble to leave terrestrial radio for Sirius has at best had luke warm success.
The question is would people pay for Fox's content or would they just flock to other news agencies to get their news?
Eventually I'm sure that most news will require a subscription: reporting is a costly business. I would be concerned at being the first however, as you risk losing market share to the freebie holdouts. It may be the last holdout could be the winner because they will have the market share and could more slowly implement a premium service charge.
Murdoch has set a June 2010 deadline for his sites to start charging for online news. If anyone could pull it off, I think Murdoch can but many others have tried and failed. The New York Times has tried unsuccessfully on more than one occasion to charge and Howard Stern's big gamble to leave terrestrial radio for Sirius has at best had luke warm success.
The question is would people pay for Fox's content or would they just flock to other news agencies to get their news?
Eventually I'm sure that most news will require a subscription: reporting is a costly business. I would be concerned at being the first however, as you risk losing market share to the freebie holdouts. It may be the last holdout could be the winner because they will have the market share and could more slowly implement a premium service charge.
| 49 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog














