Rupert Murdoch: “Internet Will Soon Be Over”

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mike Seidle on May 7, 2009 at 3:31pm

I for one am counting on big media making a play to restrict access to content. It will be good for business. Social media is the future. Big media is past and present.

The real scary thing is what is going on with cable isps: their TV offering is wagging the dog.

Past: Internet was a nifty add-on sale.
Present: TV revenues are doing the same thing as newspapers. They are fighting to keep their TV offerings relevant by raising prices on access. Here's the basic idea: make sure pay per view and cable are cheaper than downloading. This is so anti-customer it's not even funny.
Future: TV is a nifty add on sale to internet.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Douglas Karr on May 8, 2009 at 9:49am

The question is one of value, not business plan. For some reason, the media moguls love to argue that the Internet is to blame for dwindling readers viewers. The Internet is not to blame, the value of the news content is. Murdoch should take not that people would rather read the rants of bloggers than the biased, shallow reporting of modern journalists.

The fourth estate has let us down. Our beauty pageants are getting more difficult questions than the White....

I would continue to buy the newspaper, if it weren't simply a rag full of AP articles that aren't applicable to me, my business, or my region. This is WHY media is failing - not the Internet. The Internet has simply enabled quality content to get to readers without the influence of editors and publishers who dumb it down or filter it.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike Seidle on May 8, 2009 at 10:46am

Doug - Value explains why blogs are becoming more popular and why people prefer them to major media. Value doesn't begin to explain why the media players are flailing around looking for an exit from the death spiral.

• Distribution costs are now effectively zero. Old media is based on controlling distribution of TV, radio and print content.
• Traditional media is basically a distribution business. Internet has disrupted this just like the record industry.
• Even with the best content, consumers expect low prices online (because suppliers built for internet have low costs) and traditional media companies have fixed assets that would prevent them from dropping the deadweight and becoming competitive.
• Consumers control the experience with internet, and media controls the experience with old media. It's hard to create value when you can't control what ads your viewers/readers see.

Which leads to what is going on with big media and cable: they are trying to raise the cost (Comcast bandwith capping, TimeWarner's failed attempt to charge per GB, etc...) of internet to make traditional content distribution have value. Newspapers are trying to find a way to get readers to pay them for their online product... but they have too much competition to get away with charging and need search engines to get traffic, which leads to a situation that resembles checkmate.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Colin Clark on May 8, 2009 at 11:08am

I would agree that the AP has killed newspapers, not the internet.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Parke Ladd on May 8, 2009 at 4:11pm

Doug--Exactly. I believe that the large, overly-biased, papers will fall away, and the local well written, well designed papers which are applicable to the communities in which they are sold/distributed, will thrive.

I really want to read opinions and articles written by those around me about the people, businesses and adventures which are likewise occuring around me. This is why I read lots of local, Indy written blogs! Community driven news which works to advocate positive change and to support/help it's readers will (hopefully) flourish, and (hopefully) businesses within those communities will also be willing to contribute their ad money, as well, regardless if it is online or paper based or both.

Local content value...local content value...local content value.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Chris Tomlinson on May 8, 2009 at 11:49am

Would I pay for social media? Eh, probably not. But for Facebook / Twitter and Myspace to truly succeed, I think they need to monetize it beyond just advertising.

Think of the iPhone apps at $0.99. It's a simple and quick purchase and you spent a mere dollar. If social media can find a way to do the same, they'll be fine and the big business model will have to find a way to adapt.

I think newspapers are dying because of the Internet, but I also think they're dying because they haven't adapted quickly enough. Many predict that 2009 will be the downfall of many many newspapers and in the end, only the big ones will survive. Although that seems logical taking into account the size of these media conglomerates, I think more regional websites are going to be the real key to survival on the web.

Obviously SI isn't a "in your town and knows everyone" kind of site, but it is more localized. And if you get even more local (i.e. your home town) I think a media company/site can find even a better market for advertising/sponsoring which in turn means revenue and should mean success.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Hazel "The Queen" Walker on May 9, 2009 at 4:42pm

I quit reading the news papers because I never felt I was getting the whole story and it was always Very Negative. With Social Media, I get more sides to every story then I can make up my own mind.

Would I pay for Facebook - No Twitter - Maybe Linkedin - Yes Myspace - No

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by David Mark on May 10, 2009 at 12:56pm

I would pay to be on Twitter only. The people, content and results I've had in a short while have been worth paying for. How much would I pay? I don't know. Facebook annoys me a bit and MySpace no longer has value for me. Things can change and I may have a different opinion at some point. Until, then, I'll stick to Twitter.

▶ Reply to This