Newspapers: the effect of online technology

Newspapers: the effect of online technology

1)

Personally I don't agree with James Murdoch in saying that the BBC shouldn't be allowed to provide free news online. This is mainly due to the fact that as chief of News Corp, at the time, it would be of benefit to him if all major newsproviders had a paywall behind them. This is due to the fact that if there are other companies offering the same news as the paid ones for free, consumers are more likely than not going to turn to them. I also believe that the BBC shouldn't install a paywall as it would only work to widen the digital divide that already exists. With BBC News being free, one's economic situation shouldn't bar them from being able to access the news which if having to be paid for, would mostly only be accessed by people within the AB demographic group. Making people have to pay to access it would be detrimental to those not so well of economically. As well as this, it could be argued that those paying for the TV licence are already paying for the news, so from that standpoint introducing another fee for getting news on the internet from the BBC would be particularly controversial.

2)

It can be said in some sense that Rupert Murdoch was right to put his news content behind a paywall. In making this decision, the digital subscribers to the content increased quite notably which as said in the article itself, was likely done as a way of preserving 'sustainable profitability' instead of focusing on greater reach. At the same time though this move doesn't ensure all-out profit for Murdoch either as having to remove a '£28 million loss' also stipulates that you maintain the subscribers as well as just attracting them.

3)

For - 'The Times, more than any other paper, is more ready for a printless future, should it arise, as they just need to migrate users, in relatively low numbers. to the digital subscription. And it is having an almighty practice run to get it right. It doesn't need to create the vast volumes of (crap) content that the Mail does and it has a very strong brand argument to ad buyers.' (Frank)

Against - '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.' (blackswede)

I agree with blackswede's comment in saying that it's surprising how major news publications think their best bet at maintaining profitability is imposing fees on news. As established within the 'Build the Wall analysis,' all this will result in is people turning to free newsproviders since they know they can get the exact same information there just without a price tag being attached to it.

4)

As a free newspaper, it's likely that the Evening Standard managed to buck the trend by there being wider distribution of the paper in typical places such as transport interchanges but additionally in major supermarkets as these are locations people are known to frequent the most.

5)

There is for now still hope the newspaper industry, as its more older audience still clings onto it as their main source of news in addition to TV. However as the years go by, I can definitely see its chances of survival dipping as online news starts to become the norm amongst the people, and newspaper institutions seeing that their levels are becoming unsustainable as people make that switch to e-media. The approach that has been taken by The Independent in having a digital-only newspaper is something I can expect to be more widely seen by other more major newsproviders. Something that will also be particularly interesting to view is the impact that social media will have on people's use of newspapers if they take the approach of The Independent as said before. Will it just so happen that in the future people's way of accessing news will be through social networks like Facebook and Twitter solely, since it doesn't seem so hard to believe now?