all tried this when launching online versions of their papers, all of which pretty much failed. Of course, that's not to underestimate Rupert Murdoch's ability to part people from their money.

I can't see how a pricing model would work. The thing with the internet is that in a sense you've already paid for it - via your subscription to your internet provider, through your phone bill for data usage or whatever (that is of course presuming private use, not browsing at work/using free wifi), and so people are reluctant to pay more. I personally wouldn't pay for pay-per-view on the internet, but would quite happily buy a newspaper at full price.

I reckon Murdoch was waiting for David Hepworth to voice his opinion on the paying for online content debate in his 'And Another Thing' column before sticking his neck out and going for it...

Businesses have to make money, and with everyone deserting print for online, there go the profits with them. It's the obvious solution.

Why should everything be free after all? It's lovely for the reader, but disastrous for the proprietor. These are tough times.

the quote 'Quality journalism is not cheap'! I presume he's not referring to The Sun or the NOTW?!

At the time, I said that it wouldn't really take off until there was something on BSkyB that people couldn't get anywhere else. When they did the deal for live Premiership football...whoomp, there it is, as the song goes. Funny thing is, and this may be apocryphal, Murdoch was rumoured to be no more than a few months from pulling the plug on the whole enterprise before the Prem deal finally secured BSkyB's future.

If people feel they're getting something different from the online version of a paper than the physical one, apart from an extra few quid in their pockets, it might work. However, I can't see that all many people continuing to pay a subscription for a News Int'l website once they see how much more it costs them to browse the site on a 3G phone, for example - more than the cost of an actual paper, I suspect. As for reading the paper with your phone on the underground...well, forget it, obv.

This could conceivably have the fortuitous effect of forcing people back to print media. Otherwise, it just looks like a wild punt from someone with big enough pockets to afford the risk.

I think the Amazon product in the USA (kindle) is an example of how electronic copies of newspapers and magazines will be consumed in the near future. The problem with on-line newspapers right now is that most people need to be sitting in front of a PC to be able to read them.

If they were downloaded to a device on a daily basis so they could be dragged around on trains, planes and automobiles this would be an interesting business model that people might consider paying for.

I'm told it's possible for American subscribers to the service to have a copy of their favourite newspaper sent to their device (which is about the size of a medium size hardback novel).
I can't see many people paying for on-line newspaper content until there are more mainstream mobility options available.

I'm not sure Murdoch has really seen the point. The power of google and other search technologies now means aggregation is a much easier thing to do and subscriptin services need to do something special to justify users shelling out for them. As long as some large organisations, like the BBC and gmg for example, are making content available on a non-subscription basis then I'm not sure how NewsCorp is going to sustain this model.

Sky works because of differentiated content and added value. Subscribers see a benefit in paying for things they won't get elsewhere. I'm not seeing a lot of that with their online content. And users wil vote with their mice.

I can't say that I'd ever use them, I have an aversion to Rupe anyhow that means I will never give him money, either for his tawdry news operation, or for his planet-shagging TV conglomerate

Nothing will be free. You'll have to pay for everything sooner or later.

I worked for Murdoch for four years, so I couldn't give a shite about the man. All I know is, when it comes to business, he knows his stuff, and this is the way forward.

We'll be saying "Do you remember the internet, and how everything was free???"

... if what you pay for is exculsivity of information, and I'm not sure what exclusive news we should be asked to pay for (or is it the end of the printed editions, which may alienate those in society unable to be connected to broadband).

So, what exclusive news are the physical newspapers asking us to pay for??

It will never happen to the 'Morning Star' which will end up as the only way for UK web users to read a newspaper. Just think of the implications of that Rupert!

But surely the papers that stay free will see an increase in advertising revenue due to increased traffic from former Sun/Times readers looking for a cheaper alternative.I'm not sure if it will be enough to keep them going but The Mail seem's to be quite inventive/desperate when it comes to attracting the more deranged sections of the populace.

one wonders how long the uk market can sustain the present number of music monthlies, eg word, Q, mojo, uncut, classic rock, not to mention others such as nme, kerrang etc. it would be interesting to know their respective sales figures.
call me old fashioned if you will, but I still find I have to mentally grit my teeth each time I have to fork out nearly a fiver for a mag - but then again it also makes me more selective in what i choose to buy.

as seeing those two names on the cover persuaded Bargepole to keep his precious pennies firmly in his handsomely tooled wallet.

Was just catching up on the most recent Spotify thread, and it strikes me that there is some similarity in the discussions. It all seems to hinge on the changing ways people consume culture/ news/ opinion/ etc. I rarely buy a 'hard copy' of a newspaper, but read three daily online (skimming through the headlines, but reading the opinion pieces) - I would probably pay an online subscription for at least one, if not more.

About quality journalism not coming cheap if he started charging for the give-away evening paper that clutters up London's streets. Then see how many people still want it and are willing to pay for the quality journalism.

Murdoch cannot stuff the cat back in the bag. Whilst free online content exists, and an efficient micropayment system does not, few will shell out for his News Corp tack. And the BBC lingers in the background, doing everything online better than his tawdry operation. For nowt.

The difference between this and the Sky/football thing is exclusivity. Don't want to pay for the Mail? Get the Express for free, it's just as bad.

and we're all groping about in the dark trying to predict how it's gonna be in the future, with music as well as news, as well as other cultural products'

my take on it:

newspapers are dying - at least pay-for ones are. reason? 90% of them are absolutely awful, and people only bought them for something to do in breaks/on the way to work, and there's just no need for that anymore (other things to do in the breaks and on the way etc...) free papers might still exist, but they'll be bland.

'owning' music as a physical artefact is dying. we'll still have to pay, somehow, but i see this moving towards a system whereby the artist gets more of the slice, by setting up their own space on the net where we can just download their stuff direct, so they get the profit and there's no middlemen to get in the way.

whatever happens, you have to hope that the people who actually have a significant role in the creative process (the writers and the artists) actually start to get their just rewards, rather than the way it's been for donkey's years now, where the marketing men and other 'non-creatives' get a bigger slice than the goose who actually laid the golden egg.