Blog tasks
1) Do you agree with James Murdoch that the BBC should not be allowed to provide free news online? Why?
I disagree with James Murdoch; people have already got quick access to several news sources. Taking away the BBC's free news services would be damaging to the system. We already require a TV licensing fee to have access to BBC television news/ Iplayer, so this type of news is already paid for. Considering most British people hold the BBC news in high respects, they will always pay for the service.
Read this blog on the Times paywall three years on (note this is the UK Times - not the New York Times!)
2) Was Rupert Murdoch right to put his news content (The Times, The Sunday Times) behind a paywall?
He was right to put up a paywall because papers like The Times has been suffering hugely because of the digital revolution. By using a new business model, hopefully the paper will gain a social constructed value - thereby encouraging people to buy the paper.
3) Choose two comments from below the Times paywall article - one that argues in favour of the paywall and one that argues against. Copy a quote from each and explain which YOU agree with and why.
"In any business, success depends on delivering one of three things to customers: lowest cost, differential quality, or a niche unavailable elsewhere. Newsprint is no exception, but the lowest cost product in the marketplace is set at zero. The Times isn't niche, that's the like of aviation monthly, so it has to deliver a product of sufficient quality for readers to be willing to pay the premium. Is it doing this? I would say not really, more work is needed, and it's hard to see how the quality can improve with costs being cut."
I completely agree with this comment. Newspapers hold no value socially. If their prise was to be raised, so would its value.
"I'd put my money on The Times when it comes to UK-based newspapers.
MailOnline's audience is vast, especially for a UK-based title. Yet with all that scale, with the most advanced data strategy, and undoubtedly with cost help from the wider organisation, it still only makes a tiny profit. More sadly, is that the product is getting further and further away from news; their strategy is to create a deluge of rapidly-written disposable content then overlay it with audience data. It also works with lots of partners to develop their data - many of which will retract that partnership over the next 2-3 years as they seek to retain value for themselves.
The Times, more than any other paper, is more ready for a printless future, should it arise, as they just need to migrate users, in relatively low numbers. to the digital subscription. And it is having an almighty practice run to get it right. It doesn't need to create the vast volumes of (crap) content that the Mail does and it has a very strong brand argument to ad buyers."
This second comment I've picked discusses how The Times' business strategy will be successful. I agree to some extent; it is one of the few papers who is adapting to the digital revolution. Read this article from the Media Briefing on the continuing decline of the newspaper industry.
4) Why do you think the Evening Standard has bucked the trend and increased circulation and profit in the last two years?
The Evening Standard had increased circulation and profit in the last two years because of their adjustment of business model. They are free sheets - they depend on adverts/promotions. This free product appeals to people because they are receiving content for free and it is being distributed in London.
5) Is there any hope for the newspaper industry or will it eventually die out? Provide a detailed response to this question explaining and justifying your opinion.
I feel that technology's advancement is so rapid to the point that newspapers are failing to even compete. The only hope there is for the newspaper industry is its value as a product is improved.
No comments:
Post a Comment