Fake Steve Jobs and Rupert Murdoch Are Mooks. MOOKS!
Last week I read an article by Daniel Lyons about how some websites we all enjoy (Twitter, Facebook) ought not be free anymore. Interesting idea, but his example of a site that was making money because of its subscription service, Paltalk, was one that I had never even heard of. It’d be like saying, “Hey, this is Omar, the most popular team roper in all of Saudi Arabia” and the rest of us are scratching our heads (maybe a few asses) and saying, “Well, isn’t that nice” while thinking, “Who the hell is Omar?” Don’t get me wrong, if Twitter and Facebook can find a way to monetize themselves more profitably (or hell, profitably period), the more power to them.
Then yesterday I saw an article on MediaPost about Rupert “So What If I’m Old I Got More Money Than Your Poor Ass Will Ever See” Murdoch that more or less said he’s tired of us getting to read Fox News for free so it’s time to open up our wallets. Never mind that a lot of the stories they have can be found elsewhere, though it might be worth a nickel or so to read about “murder bombers” and “freedom fries” or whatever contrarian phrases they decide to use to show they’re not a part of the liberal press machine.
I think both of these guys, one a reporter on electronic media and the other the owner of such media, are missing the boat. First, I think in Lyons’ article he has some good ideas on how Facebook and Twitter could generate a little revenue, but their broad appeal is based on the fact they are gratis. Who the hell is going to pay to read about the minutia of a jerk’s life? Do you really want to pay to know I’m watching the neighbor’s dog take a dump or that I think my toenail is infected? Even if you were my friend? Is there really a segment of society with enough disposable income that they want to be “friends” with someone they sat next to in friggin’ Health class who puked all over their shoes when discussing the female reproductive system? But if they’re free, oh hell yeah, sign me up and I’ll even pretend to remember so-and-so or share my own inane thoughts.
The reason these sites are popular and we know the name of them is because they are FREE. And we use them because they are FREE. Sure, if they decided to move to some sort pay-to-play model, there would be people who’d be willing to pay their fee and keep using them. But I imagine even more people would not, and Twitter, Facebook and these other sites would lose the name recognition, relevance, importance, and, perhaps more importantly, users.
I think Rupert Murdoch’s standpoint is worse. At least Lyons doesn’t own those properties and has ideas to keep people using them while profiting off others who do get a monetary benefit from them. Murdoch, I think, is crazy to think that the content his online outlets provide is so important that people would pay to read or view it. Imagine if in the early days of radio or television, they could have come up with a way to get people to pay a premium for that content. Those media would have died, just as Fox News’ website will likely do. All Murdoch is doing is opening it up for CNN, MSNBC and other online news sources to eat his pie.
If he’s pissed about not making enough money off of his sites, perhaps Fox ought to develop an online marketing strategy that allows them to dominate the SERPs as well as paid listings. By increasing the number of opportunities and times (or reach and frequency) humans can view this content, News Corp. can charge a higher premium for advertising on those properties. With more people viewing the content, Murdoch’s advertisers will get a better return on their ad dollars since, with Fox’s new online strategy, their sites are everywhere and now relevant and important.
The thing I don’t think either of these guys are getting is the internet will largely remain a source of free information, entertainment and god-knows-what-else. Like the radios and televisions or yore, having something to receive the signal, or 1′s and 0′s, is the entry fee. Well, in the case of the web, internet access is the other crucial important element. I just doubt that after people by their “receiver” and pay for their “antenna,” they’re going to pay for these services while there will still be so many other free alternatives.
I will be upset if websites start requiring subscription fees and so forth to read their content.
That will be a huge let down!
That’s exactly why at FEM we’re not implementing a subscription to the outstanding content on this site. However, there is a fee to comment. That’ll $5, please! Thank you! ;)
“…the internet will largely remain a source of free information, entertainment and god-knows-what-else.”
Mostly porn. Lots and lots of porn.