Media mogul Rupert Murdoch has once again been banging the free-online-news-for-everyone drum, as his firm closes in on its takeover of the Wall Street Journal. During a shareholders meeting in Adelaide today, the News Corporation chairman said he would scrap subscription fees on the WSJ website in favour of a free model that he …
Slowly he takes over the west. He's using the make it free to make it sound like hes a fluffy bunny and in no way ever exerts pressure on editors to spin stories the way his political mates want them.
A Sign in the Times they are a'changin.
"Meanwhile, overnight the WSJ site became populated with Digg buttons, firing off rumours in the blobbysphere that Murdoch's firm will imminently buy the Web 2.0 news aggregator."
What for? They only Spread and Share the News, they don't Make IT. And that is surely much more Rupert's Wont. In Aspiration that would aKin to Destiny rather than a Victim of Fate and Circumstance.
If more readers is better..
... even if the more readers are no longer paying anything for content...
.. does that also mean more viewers, even if they're not paying, is also better?
So when does Sky UK content go free-to-view then?
Readers vs revenue...
Murdoch is gambling that he can run the site via online advertisements thus he won't need to charge for content.
Readership increased because of free online access to print subscribers.
The concern is that it costs to create the level and quality of content found in the WSJ. Can Murdoch sustain it as well as keep up print subscriptions if he offers the content for free?
- Twitter: La la la, we have not heard of any NUDE JLaw, Upton SELFIES
- China: You, Microsoft. Office-Windows 'compatibility'. You have 20 days to explain
- Apple to devs: NO slurping users' HEALTH for sale to Dark Powers
- Is that a 64-bit ARM Warrior in your pocket? No, it's MIPS64
- Apple 'fesses up: Rejected from the App Store, dev? THIS is why