Print 40 comment(s) - last by glitchc.. on Sep 22 at 7:18 PM

Eric Schmidt says in general paid content plans don't work online

Print publications that run websites are fighting to convince their peers and readers that paying for content online is the only way to go. The problem is that a generation of internet users are used to getting content for free and getting them to pay for the content will be difficult if not impossible.

Publishing tycoon Rupert Murdoch has previously stated that his company will begin charging for access to the content on all of its websites. Currently the only publication that charges for content in Murdoch's empire is the Wall Street Journal.

Shortly after Murdoch made the decree that all of News Corps. websites would charge for access to content, Google CEO Eric Schmidt scoffed at the plan and said that newspapers don’t want to "piss off" readers. Schmidt has again scoffed at Murdoch's plan to charge for online content.

Schmidt told attendees at a meeting of a group of British broadcasting executives that it would be very hard to charge for content online because the same content is available free.

Reuters quotes Schmidt saying, "In general these models have not worked for general public consumption because there are enough free sources that the marginal value of paying is not justified based on the incremental value of quantity. So my guess is for niche and specialist markets ... it will be possible to do it but I think it is unlikely that you will be able to do it for all news."

Schmidt is basically saying that the Wall Street Journal being successful with charging for content online is the exception, not the rule.

Murdoch has still not rolled out his pay for content scheme to any of the other websites in his publishing empire; perhaps he knows deep down that wishing readers would pay and getting them to do so are two very different things.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Faux News - We Distort, You Abide.
By cruisin3style on 9/21/2009 1:39:24 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, truth...

Like when Fox News "accidentally" labels that congressman who had a fling in Argentina and another recent congressman conducting similar mischievous acts Democrat next to their state instead of Republican (which they were)

i.e. D - GA or whathaveyou

I realize I am somewhat biased (to the left) myself, but if you had seen the Outfoxed documentary or seen some of the completely INSANE things fox puts on it's (mostly nighttime, as I understand it) lineup that I have seen clips of on Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's shows....

yeah, unbiased may not be possible, but biased is Fox News baby

RE: Faux News - We Distort, You Abide.
By ChristopherO on 9/22/2009 1:43:15 PM , Rating: 2
Like when Fox News "accidentally" labels that congressman

You do realize *all* the networks do things like this all the time? Places like Media Bistro (the TVNewser blog) tend to catch the egregious ones. Of which there are a lot, on all networks. Singling out Fox is just disingenuous in that regard. It's usually just human error, some graphic guy in the control room, who isn't paid very much, just makes a typo, and a producer catches it later. There was also the issue awhile ago where MSNBC or CNN put something up during one of Bush's speeches that appeared to be inflammatory, but it was a system error message from a crashed editing box.

Things like this happen, get over it.

I personally hate all cable news. CNN is boring as heck, seriously, where do they get their anchors? MSNBC is obviously heavily biased to the left. They were a failing network, waaay behind in 3rd place, and made a conscious decision to go "all liberal" and are now in second place behind Fox leaving CNN in the caboose. Fox is obviously tilted right, but seriously, what's wrong with that?

You *always* need contrary opinions to keep a check and balance on things. The rest of the media is going quite soft on Obama right now. Fox isn't. During Bush's years, Fox was more favorable, and everyone else wasn't.

Frankly I wish there were more viewpoints available, but we have what we have.

For the record, the only news show I watch is Special Report w/Bret Bair. It's Fox 6pm ET. Best out there. The first 40 minutes is hard news, no celebs, no sports, no crazy outlandish murders, etc. It's like the video equivalent of the Wall Street Journal. The last 20 minutes is like a Sunday talk-show panel. Most of the time they are pretty fair with right-to-left people, some days they only have moderate-to-conservative panelists. If it's a dumb topic, I just skip-it. I'm really there for the first 40 minutes.

If anyone knew of something similarly unbiased with hard-news-only (politics, world, etc), I'd be willing to hear about it.

By ChristopherO on 9/22/2009 1:50:58 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, Jim Leher on PBS. I forgot about him. Bret Bair and Jim Leher's Newshour are similar. If you like one, you might want to check the other. Jim can get stories that Fox can't (since democrats usually refuse to talk to Fox to appease the left-wing, same reason republicans avoid MSNBC), and Fox can get stories that Jim can't since they've got a vastly bigger budget than PBS.

"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki