Newspapers: the effect of online technology
1) I don't agree with Rupert Murdoch's argument of not allowing the BBC to provide free news mainly because the news provided by the BBC is not necessarily 'free'. The BBC is funded by TV licences, something that every household in the UK pays which allows us to watch and record TV programmes which are broadcasted. The money that the TV licence company makes goes to the BBC which helps fund their content and the services they provide to us consumers. This accounts for the running of the BBC iPlayer, the TV channels, shows and the website along with other services. The news that the BBC provide is not free as it may seem, because the BBC is a publicly-funded company and does not offer advertisements and pays for itself through TV licensing allows the channels to operate. The BBC can be argued the most influential and most successful broadcaster in the UK and even the world. News provided by the BBC is funded by us, and is different to other news corporations who provide free news accompanied by advertising, such as The Guardian, and other companies who provide subscription-based services which require users to pay for the news they receive, such as The Times.
2) I think that Rupert Murdoch was not right in making his new content subscription-based only. This is because ever since he did, his audience numbers have fallen dramatically, the total paid sales from 2010 to 2013 have stayed the same, from 516,000 paid sales in 2010 to 536,000 paid sales in 2013. As a newspaper company, The Times has not significantly grew in the three-year time period and should be raising concerns on how long the company can last in the industry compared to its competitors. Mike Darcy, CEO of NewsUK told Sky that the reach that Murdoch's news content has does not generate any 'meaningful' revenue. He went on to say that if you still want to be here in ten years time, then it's better to sacrifice reach and sustain profitability. As a result, Times LTD has lost revenue of over £28 million on turnover of £361 million. Due to this loss, I believe that Rupert Murdoch should have not made his content subscription-based as it is causing many problems regarding revenue and is causing a fall in readership numbers, instead, he should have kept his content free and have charged digital ad companies money in order to place advertisements on their website, app and print versions.
3) "Just a thought on that: Times gets £14.99 pm from 140,000 subscribers, making it considerably more than it made in online advertising. Are you suggesting that it would be better for a commercial organisation to make less money? Or in other words, what's the point of having a web presence if you make no money?"
4) "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." - I agree with what this user has to say because with the rapid advancement of the Internet, the amount of new emerging newspaper sources which have been founded and introduced has soared tremendously."
5) The Evening Standard has bucked the trend because it increased it's distribution from around 700,000 copies a day to closer to 900,000 which explains why the 27% increase in circulation was present. Although they increased their distribution, they actually lost 83,000 readers which is 5% of it's total audience over that period.
6) I strongly believe the newspaper industry will eventually die out because I think us humans will become more green and resourceful and start using electronics instead of killing trees and nature to produce paper. The generation which reads newspapers will also pass away and this new generation barely reads any newspaper as the demographic is very low. Humans will also develop to use more technology and artificial intelligence in order to provide news for us which is beneficial for us. 25 years ago we did not have commercially used computers, who knows what the next 25 years hold for us?
2) I think that Rupert Murdoch was not right in making his new content subscription-based only. This is because ever since he did, his audience numbers have fallen dramatically, the total paid sales from 2010 to 2013 have stayed the same, from 516,000 paid sales in 2010 to 536,000 paid sales in 2013. As a newspaper company, The Times has not significantly grew in the three-year time period and should be raising concerns on how long the company can last in the industry compared to its competitors. Mike Darcy, CEO of NewsUK told Sky that the reach that Murdoch's news content has does not generate any 'meaningful' revenue. He went on to say that if you still want to be here in ten years time, then it's better to sacrifice reach and sustain profitability. As a result, Times LTD has lost revenue of over £28 million on turnover of £361 million. Due to this loss, I believe that Rupert Murdoch should have not made his content subscription-based as it is causing many problems regarding revenue and is causing a fall in readership numbers, instead, he should have kept his content free and have charged digital ad companies money in order to place advertisements on their website, app and print versions.
3) "Just a thought on that: Times gets £14.99 pm from 140,000 subscribers, making it considerably more than it made in online advertising. Are you suggesting that it would be better for a commercial organisation to make less money? Or in other words, what's the point of having a web presence if you make no money?"
4) "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." - I agree with what this user has to say because with the rapid advancement of the Internet, the amount of new emerging newspaper sources which have been founded and introduced has soared tremendously."
5) The Evening Standard has bucked the trend because it increased it's distribution from around 700,000 copies a day to closer to 900,000 which explains why the 27% increase in circulation was present. Although they increased their distribution, they actually lost 83,000 readers which is 5% of it's total audience over that period.
6) I strongly believe the newspaper industry will eventually die out because I think us humans will become more green and resourceful and start using electronics instead of killing trees and nature to produce paper. The generation which reads newspapers will also pass away and this new generation barely reads any newspaper as the demographic is very low. Humans will also develop to use more technology and artificial intelligence in order to provide news for us which is beneficial for us. 25 years ago we did not have commercially used computers, who knows what the next 25 years hold for us?
Comments
Post a Comment