Rupert Murdoch & Newscorp…are you crazy?

By: ispeculatornew
Date posted: 11.11.2009 (5:00 am) | Write a Comment  (1 Comment)

      Post a Comment

newscorpI’ve been critical of Murdoch’s ambition (as well as the entire media industry) regarding online content in the past. Mainly, the idea of charging for all content is siply not realistic. As I’ve stated before, the Wall Street Journal is an exception for many reasons. But for some reason, it seems as though News Corp is now considering one of the craziest things, taking itself out of Google.
Let’s review the facts. In order to be in Google, the Wall Street Journal must make its content available to the search engine. By doing so, it makes it possible for users to get content for free by searching on Google. If that same user were to go directly to the article without going through Google, he would be unable to view the content without becomming a paid member. Well, now Ruper Murdoch is tired of it and thinking about taking himself out of Google. Crazy? You bet. WSJ gets about 15% of its visitors from Google. And consider that all of those visitors are sending links to friends, sharing their links and in the end often signing up for a paid membership.
Others have considered doing it before and even taken action, but in the end, at least for a while, any internet company or website NEEDS Google. The entire internet still revolves around the internet giant and while social media is hot and gaining traction, it still pales in comparison to search engine traffic.
Could the Wall Street Journal survive without Google? Yes of course. It has quite a reputation and its corporate clients will continue to pay for years and years to come as long as the content quality remains high. But why would NewsCorp even seriously consider taking out their most important source of traffic (i.e. most important source of new members, revenue). You would think that the Wall Street Journal could simply add:
-Incentives for those users to sign up
-Deterrents to free viewing such as more advertising (t is after all a very attractive niche for which they could charge very expensive rates).
Just seems short sighted and for some reason, I feel like NewsCorp is often this way. Is Wall Street Journal a successful paid content example? Absolutely. But every time I hear Ruper Murdoch talk about making all of his content paid, it draws a huge smile on my face. He simply does not know what he is getting himself into…. Kind of like how he purchased the leading social media (MySpace) a few years ago and lost
While Twitter and Facebook have grown 660% and 200% in the past year.. MySpace is actually down 12%… Bravo News Corp. Well done…
facebook-com-twitter-com-myspa_uv_1y

If you liked this post, you can consider subscribing to our free newsletters here


1 Comment

  1. Comment by John — November 11, 2009 @ 9:16 am

    Exactly, who would be crazy to refuse tons of readers and traffic from Google. If so, Murdoch and News Corp are crazy enough, they can add a code in order to block google redirection and after, their websites will no longer appear in Google’s search results huh? They have already started with WSJ. Like you said, WSJ have a “client access” only (for paying users). Instead of complaining, why not doing so with all their websites (fox or new york post or newsweek) and file closed? Anyways, by going on their websites , there are tons and tons of ads. Tons of ads = Moneyyyyy!!

    I think Murdoch has an old-view of internet. This is the 21st century and things are continuing to evolve rapidly…

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.