Why Murdoch, the old media reactionary, is wrong to charge for content

[bemildred]

I have never received so many calls from so many places across the world to talk about the momentous decision by Rupert Murdoch to charge people for access to his newspaper websites.

As so often with statements by the world's most famous media mogul, the announcement is being treated as the word of god. Where Rupert goes, said several TV and radio presenters, others are sure to follow.

Excuse me if I disagree with those slavish reactions, and with Murdoch and, incidentally, with Lionel Barber, the editor of the Financial Times, who also believes that paid-for content is inevitable.

I tend to agree with Jeff Jarvis (Murdoch's move to charge for content opens doors for competitors), Guido Fawkes (Murdoch bucks the market) and John Temple, publisher of the now-defunct Rocky Mountain News (charging for a basic news service is flawed).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/aug/07/charging-for-content-rupert-murdoch

This guy is right enough, but the real problem, as many sites have already discovered, is that if you charge for content on the internet, you will have no audience, because content is not a scarce commodity.

[Deja Q]

1. Neither are people.

Lower wages and then wonder why nobody spends.

[jody]

2. Murdoch like anyone is free to charge what he wishes for his product/services and people are free to

pay or ignore his offer.

[billyoc]

3. You go, Rupert, charge as much as you want!

Ten bucks a click!

:evilgrin: