Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsThursday, May 7, 2009
Media / Teh Internets “The current days of the internet will soon be over.”
Posted by Paul Constant on Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:11 AM
The above quote is from an interview with Rupert Murdoch. Here's more:
The establishment media is dying and advertising revenue has plummeted...This has forced sectors of the corporate media to charge the dwindling number of loyal readers they have left for news content, a practice which is set to become widespread according to Murdoch...“Asked whether he envisaged fees at his British papers such as the Times, the Sunday Times, the Sun and the News of the World, (Murdoch) replied: “We’re absolutely looking at that,” reports the Guardian. “Taking questions on a conference call with reporters and analysts, he said that moves could begin “within the next 12 months‚” adding: “The current days of the internet will soon be over.”
I despise Murdoch, but when he predicts something, you should pay attention. He didn't get where he is by being a bad guesser. But I don't think people will pay what the media wants; the genie is out of the bottle as far as that goes. The story linked to above, on Prison Planet, theorizes that this is the collapse of corporate media, and I don't think that's the case, either. But people have been trying to find money on the internet for ten years now. The vast majority have failed. This problem is going to need to find some sort of resolution in the next year, or people like Murdoch are going to be in serious trouble.
3
Yeah, Rupert Murdoch has shown a great talent for moving to new media. And now that my eyes have rolled out of their skull and are flailing about around my chest, lets not fucking kid ourselves: Murdoch has no idea what he is doing when it comes to the internet.
Yes, he was a genius in old-media just like the Republican party used to be geniuses at wining elections. But saying that this translates over to new media or the internet is ridiculous - people are already winning that war and Murdoch has already lost it.
Him saying that its going to change just shows how completely out of touch he is with the internet age.
Yes, he was a genius in old-media just like the Republican party used to be geniuses at wining elections. But saying that this translates over to new media or the internet is ridiculous - people are already winning that war and Murdoch has already lost it.
Him saying that its going to change just shows how completely out of touch he is with the internet age.
4
Rupert Murdoch can smell money like a fat lady looking for the last donut... At the end it will be him and the cockroaches eatting all the twinkies so yeah, I pay attention when he says something...
5
What Murdoch might be doing here is signaling. He's letting other media companies know his plans in advance in hopes that they will follow suit for the good of all media companies. Check out the premium content right now on the Wall Street Journal site. The WSJ offers obnoxious editorials by Karl Rove for free but charges for in-depth material that investors believe will give them insight into the market. Hopefully the Stranger can keep this site going with ads like The Cocktail Compass thing that I see next to this comment field. In the long run, if there is no model for making cash on the Internet, there will be many fewer products out there to read for free. No New York Times, no Slog, no Wall Street Journal.
6
The economics of the internet provide a huge opportunity...where you had substantial local circulation, it's nothing compared to the size of the internet audience. That also hugely increases competition, and ad-driven revenue is unfortunately smaller on the internet than traditional media (on a per-viewer basis, in my estimation).
If people want global/national news and analysis, a few big names will wipe out the competition due to their expanded audience. For local news and the off-beat, blogs suffice for the needs of most. In essence, a local newspaper on the internet is not in a position of strength.
I would offer a prediction of my own: the high-visibility/internationally viewed franchises will split into two main duties: conglomerating press releases from business/governments/ngos etc and the analysis/opinion. The former will become highly commodotized, while the latter could not be. My hope would be that in the competitive cesspool of the internet, the truly prescient, cogent, self-criticizing analysis will come out on top with expanded readership and success. There won't be much room in the middle for mediocre national reporting, though the special interest kinds of small-scale operations will proliferate at the bottom, right along with the lolcats.
If people want global/national news and analysis, a few big names will wipe out the competition due to their expanded audience. For local news and the off-beat, blogs suffice for the needs of most. In essence, a local newspaper on the internet is not in a position of strength.
I would offer a prediction of my own: the high-visibility/internationally viewed franchises will split into two main duties: conglomerating press releases from business/governments/ngos etc and the analysis/opinion. The former will become highly commodotized, while the latter could not be. My hope would be that in the competitive cesspool of the internet, the truly prescient, cogent, self-criticizing analysis will come out on top with expanded readership and success. There won't be much room in the middle for mediocre national reporting, though the special interest kinds of small-scale operations will proliferate at the bottom, right along with the lolcats.
8
I pay $50 per month for my high-speed internet. I think Rupert is going to come looking for his cut of that.
9
"This problem is going to need to find some sort of resolution in the next year, or people like Murdoch are going to be in serious trouble"
So what? People like that's existence isn't some sort of truth that MUST exist. Fuck em.
So what? People like that's existence isn't some sort of truth that MUST exist. Fuck em.
10
Luckily for me, I get most of my news for free from French sites and online scientific news services, so Fox can go XXXX themselves for all I care.
11
I'd pay for Slog. A little.
Also, are there ads here? Wouldn't know since I installed AdBlocker. That's a real problem for people who think online ads will be any source of significant revenue in the future.
Also, are there ads here? Wouldn't know since I installed AdBlocker. That's a real problem for people who think online ads will be any source of significant revenue in the future.
12
Murdoch and fellow media big wigs will all band together, charge for access, copyright everything, hire all those out of work corporate lawyers to prosecute the hell out of people who illegally post their content.
13
I would say it's about time, and I say that as someone who reads and links as much internet news as anyone.
Maybe this will compel bloggers to put forth more truly original content, rather than just link news stories, or fall by the wayside. Or maybe not. We'll see.
Maybe this will compel bloggers to put forth more truly original content, rather than just link news stories, or fall by the wayside. Or maybe not. We'll see.
14
The problem with their point of view is that they really really really liked the business model that supported unidirectional content. That business model is dead.
15
@11 People like you are destroying the internet. Sort of like if everyone recorded TV shows and cut out the commercials. There is a reason the content is free and the new and improved browsers have helped users block obnoxious scripts and pop-ups but they also block the ability to track sales and clicks which translates into dollars to run the websites you love so much.
I know some have tried to boycott Firefox and other browsers by in turn blocking them from their websites but this has has little impact.
This is the same generation that thinks its OK to copy current music and movies for free whenever something is released or before its released. Things will be changing in the next few years and users will be forced to pay because they don't want ads. I already see it happening bigtime in the backroom planning and trial stages. As you can tell popular blogs are falling out of favor and closing and professional content will be blocked from being copied unless you type it out by hand. At one time people said they would never pay for music and some still don't but just wait.
I know some have tried to boycott Firefox and other browsers by in turn blocking them from their websites but this has has little impact.
This is the same generation that thinks its OK to copy current music and movies for free whenever something is released or before its released. Things will be changing in the next few years and users will be forced to pay because they don't want ads. I already see it happening bigtime in the backroom planning and trial stages. As you can tell popular blogs are falling out of favor and closing and professional content will be blocked from being copied unless you type it out by hand. At one time people said they would never pay for music and some still don't but just wait.
16
@11: AdBlock Plus and similar tools are great, but they are not invincible. As soon as such things put a dent in ad revenue, you can be sure that Google and other ad space resellers will write an application that can efficiently and dynamically serve ads directly from the sites carrying the ad. This will make AdBlock's URL blacklist completely obsolete.
17
Its more that the days of the old mega-moguls are over. The Buffets and Murdochs can't "leverage" things to profit from them. The new moguls like Gates and Bezos offer "Freemiums" and share their business with many others...
The blog, the individual reporter and so on.
( BTW...no one makes money from the Internet? Sheesh...did you see that Amazon building going up?! )
The blog, the individual reporter and so on.
( BTW...no one makes money from the Internet? Sheesh...did you see that Amazon building going up?! )
18
@15: Oh fuck off. Advertisers do not have a right to my bandwidth, CPU cycles or temporary filesystem any more than I have a right to your refrigeratorr. URL filtering is a fundamental trait of computer networking, and it is the advertiser's job to deal with that, not the target market's job to pretend things are otherwise.
So long as advertisers work in their own best interest, I will work in mine. If they need my altruistic help, they don't have the valid business model they claim they do.
So long as advertisers work in their own best interest, I will work in mine. If they need my altruistic help, they don't have the valid business model they claim they do.
20
Good Luck With That.
Does anyone RTFA anymore? TV, radio, blogs - its all just reactions to those articles and the comments. I can see people in media paying for that content but not the general public - those free papers handed out at coffee shops & transit stations are good enough for 90% of the population.
I don't watch baseball games anymore - I still follow baseball but I prefer the live blogging reactions on BTF and other blogs. The Live blog of the Oscars on Slog was more entertaining than the TV event.
Control of bandwidth is the only realistic revenue stream for the internet. Advertising I suspect will be much more targeted in the future & thus less ubiquitous & more effective than what we have today.
You can see the future with Music. People buy stuff only when they care about the artists themselves - it's more like a donation. I think the days of mass produced & mass marketed pablum are over. Music has been democratized and the lions share of revenue will be generated by performances.
Does anyone RTFA anymore? TV, radio, blogs - its all just reactions to those articles and the comments. I can see people in media paying for that content but not the general public - those free papers handed out at coffee shops & transit stations are good enough for 90% of the population.
I don't watch baseball games anymore - I still follow baseball but I prefer the live blogging reactions on BTF and other blogs. The Live blog of the Oscars on Slog was more entertaining than the TV event.
Control of bandwidth is the only realistic revenue stream for the internet. Advertising I suspect will be much more targeted in the future & thus less ubiquitous & more effective than what we have today.
You can see the future with Music. People buy stuff only when they care about the artists themselves - it's more like a donation. I think the days of mass produced & mass marketed pablum are over. Music has been democratized and the lions share of revenue will be generated by performances.
21
This will all seem funnier after the internet is just a weird memory of enormous amounts of time wasted in the early 21st century
22
@18, you are not taking from advertisers, you are taking from the content provider YOU sought out. The Stranger could not possibly exist without the revenue from those ads. Your action benefits you but can never be extensible to the wider world -- if everyone did it, the Stranger would be gone. That's not the Tragedy of the Commons, but it's at least a corrollary -- and it's perfectly selfish. You are the only person who exists in your universe, aren't you?
23
@15:
I think it's a little hysterical to say the Internet is being "destroyed" just because people use AdBlocker or similar apps - if nothing else these serve to drive innovation on the part of advertisers, who must continually adapt to each new emerging technical workaround to their own efforts to get their ads in front of eyeballs.
Given the fact that the pirates tend to be always a few steps ahead of the corporations on the Internet, I just don't see how Murdoch is going to wrest profitability on exclusive content, since so-far at least, no one has been successful in developing a system that essentially prevents distribution of said product after the first access. Portability is the name of the game in the new paradigm, and any scheme that negates the portability of the product by purchasers in turn severely diminishes it value to them.
Unless Murdoch has some new-fangled distribution system in-mind, one that doesn't embed anti-pirating, or distribution-limiting code directly into the product itself (which invariably leaves it vulnerable to hacking), I just don't see how he, or any other content provider could pull something like this off, particularly given the somewhat dismal track-record for subscription-based online content in the past Sure, some people may be willing to pony up $$ to access exclusive content, but will there be enough of them willing to do so to make it profitable, especially since there will always be either alternative, free content available, or underground distribution networks for leaked content from the subscription sites.
Given the permeable nature of the Internet, I don't see how exclusive content can remain perpetually exclusive. Air-tight is just not something the Internet does very well.
More...
I think it's a little hysterical to say the Internet is being "destroyed" just because people use AdBlocker or similar apps - if nothing else these serve to drive innovation on the part of advertisers, who must continually adapt to each new emerging technical workaround to their own efforts to get their ads in front of eyeballs.
Given the fact that the pirates tend to be always a few steps ahead of the corporations on the Internet, I just don't see how Murdoch is going to wrest profitability on exclusive content, since so-far at least, no one has been successful in developing a system that essentially prevents distribution of said product after the first access. Portability is the name of the game in the new paradigm, and any scheme that negates the portability of the product by purchasers in turn severely diminishes it value to them.
Unless Murdoch has some new-fangled distribution system in-mind, one that doesn't embed anti-pirating, or distribution-limiting code directly into the product itself (which invariably leaves it vulnerable to hacking), I just don't see how he, or any other content provider could pull something like this off, particularly given the somewhat dismal track-record for subscription-based online content in the past Sure, some people may be willing to pony up $$ to access exclusive content, but will there be enough of them willing to do so to make it profitable, especially since there will always be either alternative, free content available, or underground distribution networks for leaked content from the subscription sites.
Given the permeable nature of the Internet, I don't see how exclusive content can remain perpetually exclusive. Air-tight is just not something the Internet does very well.
24
@22: Concluding that I am a radical solipsist from the fact that I use URL filtering seems a little grasping, Fnarf. The reason I use it is because so many advertisers insist on using obnoxious means to grab my attention. That's their right, as it is my right to punish them for doing so. It's a shame that some perfectly good enterprises (e.g., The Stranger) can be victims of these kinds of conflicts, but they are also in a better position to do something directly about the root cause of adblocking (malicious and invasive web ads) than I am.
Again, the "adblock is theft" folks basically just don't understand how networking works and are trying to pretend it is something it isn't (a series of tubes!). Innovative companies already answers to adblocking that are much more effective than your whining. Hulu, for instance, plays a 30 second static message that chides you for blocking their sponsor's message and explains why. The 30 seconds is considerably longer than the ad you would watch otherwise.
That's a good response to those using URL filtering. Another good response is careful selection of advertisers and quality monitoring. Not wanting to see that I am the 1 millionth visitor and may have won a boat, and not wanting my web browsing to be tracked by doubleclick: these things are indeed selfish, but not pathologically so.
Again, the "adblock is theft" folks basically just don't understand how networking works and are trying to pretend it is something it isn't (a series of tubes!). Innovative companies already answers to adblocking that are much more effective than your whining. Hulu, for instance, plays a 30 second static message that chides you for blocking their sponsor's message and explains why. The 30 seconds is considerably longer than the ad you would watch otherwise.
That's a good response to those using URL filtering. Another good response is careful selection of advertisers and quality monitoring. Not wanting to see that I am the 1 millionth visitor and may have won a boat, and not wanting my web browsing to be tracked by doubleclick: these things are indeed selfish, but not pathologically so.
25
The Buffetts aren't leveraging. In an industry he publicly predicted in the mid-90s would not be profitable within 20 years, Buffett had the wisdom not to overextend himself. The newspapers he owns or has large stakes in -- Omaha, Buffalo and the Washington Post -- are now weathering the economic downturn and ad revenue losses. Those papers didn't go deep into debt buying up other papers, and have only had to trim recently instead of slash and burn -- unlike the NYT, Tribune, LAT and, as we well know, Hearst and the Blethens.
26
@24 You can retionalize all you want but it comes down to theft. You can make all kinds of claims and excuses about the internet is not a tube and stuff but you are no different than the music pirates. Surely the dishonest sites have put a bad taste in your mouth and even the large newspaper sites has one of those annoying pop-ups but it does not mean you and many people like you should condemn the livlihood on millions of people because you don't want to see the ads. Everyone cannot delete the commercials on free TV and expect not to eventually have to pay for it or something. I am impressed with Hulu's answer to ad blocking.
My suggestion is turn off your ad blocker when you patronize your average website that relies on tracking users and only use it when you are surfing those thrashy porn sites that I can only bet you are frequenting based on your attitude.
My suggestion is turn off your ad blocker when you patronize your average website that relies on tracking users and only use it when you are surfing those thrashy porn sites that I can only bet you are frequenting based on your attitude.
27
Gah. Someone needs to radically rethink the content delivery model for online media. Establish an ASCAP (royalty-based) system for paying writers, and create a subscription coalition that lets you -- for the price of $50 a month or whatever -- have access to a gazillion online media sources. Better yet, *get Comcast or Qwest to build this into their service* -- if your IP address is with an organization who already subscribes, you get access to content! If not, you can ask your ISP to subscribe, or create your own subscription.
If online periodicals can work out this model with academic libraries, then I would think the online mass media journals could do the same thing.
If online periodicals can work out this model with academic libraries, then I would think the online mass media journals could do the same thing.
28
Lee, I agree that the ads are horrible -- the Stranger is running one from Vern Fonk with a fucking video in it, which is super-offensive. But again -- by blocking that horrible ad the entity that is losing is the Stranger, not Vern Fonk. And your answer is not extensible -- if everyone did it the Stranger would cease to exist. I know I'm repeating myself, but you seem intent on missing the point here. Huge portions of the world are already disappearing precisely because of the loss of ad revenue. Do you want the entire internet to go the way of the P-I?
And some of the technical solutions you seem to favor are just as grisly -- for instance, I can't seem to make Facebook work if I have Flashblock activated -- even if I whitelist Facebook. It is by no means guaranteed that whatever replaces the ads you are currently blocking is going to be better than the ads.
And some of the technical solutions you seem to favor are just as grisly -- for instance, I can't seem to make Facebook work if I have Flashblock activated -- even if I whitelist Facebook. It is by no means guaranteed that whatever replaces the ads you are currently blocking is going to be better than the ads.
29
@26: How is it theft? I am using a built-in aspect of computer networking to tailor my experience of using the internet to my liking, and am doing so without violating any laws, without gaining unauthorized access to any site, and without violating anyone's copyrights or property rights.
In other words, I have a fundamental right to ignore what I don't want to pay attention to. Computer networking provides certain tools that make that job somewhat more efficient than it is in other media.
I do not, on the other hand, have any equivalent obligation to voluntarily cooperate with the sensory pollution of my world.
I also bought a magazine the other day, and the first thing I did was pull out the cardstock advertisements and throw them in the trash. I suppose that makes me a thief too.
Content providers have every right to set terms of access for their content. If they require that I see ads before I can look at their stuff, that's their job to enforce, not mine.
In other words, I have a fundamental right to ignore what I don't want to pay attention to. Computer networking provides certain tools that make that job somewhat more efficient than it is in other media.
I do not, on the other hand, have any equivalent obligation to voluntarily cooperate with the sensory pollution of my world.
I also bought a magazine the other day, and the first thing I did was pull out the cardstock advertisements and throw them in the trash. I suppose that makes me a thief too.
Content providers have every right to set terms of access for their content. If they require that I see ads before I can look at their stuff, that's their job to enforce, not mine.
30
@28: I'm not missing the point at all. If I believed that the new media will be made or broken by the altruism of computer power users, I would be acting differently. As it is, I believe that online journalism will depend on finding a revenue model that is more stable and reliable than Google Adsense.
Yeah, the solution could be worse than what we have, but the obvious next step is to serve ads from the same server as the content. That way, AdBlock and such things would not be able to block the ads (easily) without blocking the entire site. I know that's technically feasible, just not (yet) cost-efficient because of the relative minority of people who actually block ads while surfing the web. That's a big part of why I don't feel bad in the least about this sort of thing: if it were cost-effective to force me to see ads that I don't want to see, I would be forced to see them.
Yeah, the solution could be worse than what we have, but the obvious next step is to serve ads from the same server as the content. That way, AdBlock and such things would not be able to block the ads (easily) without blocking the entire site. I know that's technically feasible, just not (yet) cost-efficient because of the relative minority of people who actually block ads while surfing the web. That's a big part of why I don't feel bad in the least about this sort of thing: if it were cost-effective to force me to see ads that I don't want to see, I would be forced to see them.
31
There used to be free news content on the Internet before you dweebs commercialized it.
It was called UseNet and we liked it.
It was called UseNet and we liked it.
32
@everyone re: Lee
Lee is deficient in the reading comprehension department.
Just let it go. He's not running the world. He's not Murdoch. He's not a media exec.
He's nobody but Lee on Slog. He's just an idiot consumer, like 80% or more of the population.
Why do we waste our time here? Why not write a fully thought out letter to Murdoch himself? Assuming you have a good enough idea or comment, it just might make it to his attention.
At the very least, you'll be wasting your time writing to Murdoch instead of Lee on Slog, a total dimwit.
Lee is deficient in the reading comprehension department.
Just let it go. He's not running the world. He's not Murdoch. He's not a media exec.
He's nobody but Lee on Slog. He's just an idiot consumer, like 80% or more of the population.
Why do we waste our time here? Why not write a fully thought out letter to Murdoch himself? Assuming you have a good enough idea or comment, it just might make it to his attention.
At the very least, you'll be wasting your time writing to Murdoch instead of Lee on Slog, a total dimwit.
33
@32: There's noting at all wrong with Lee's "reading comprehension" but just the same, your reaction to having your bottom textually spanked until it was bright red was comically enjoyable. Tantrum on, my friend. Tantrum on.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (34) RSS