Rupert Murdoch: Online visionary?
Yeah, he’s considered a money-grubbing vulgarian whose malign influence has turned cable news into a tabloid cesspool. But as this Time article suggests, he understands the potential of all-online news. Consider:
Two years ago, Murdoch’s archrival, Sumner Redstone of Viacom, thought he had a deal for MySpace, but News Corp. swooped in and snatched it, bidding $580 million, $30 million more than Redstone and far more than anyone else thought it was worth. Then the site grew from 20 million members to almost 200 million, Google paid $900 million for the right to advertise on the site, and suddenly Murdoch’s price looked cheap — and Murdoch looked like an Internet visionary. “I love being called that,” he says, “but the truth is, I’m just lucky and nimble.” He generates his own good fortune by being perhaps the most gifted opportunist in media, a man whose nose for a deal makes him the last of the true media moguls, the one who’s still building — grabbing Dow Jones, dreaming about trading MySpace for a big chunk of Yahoo!, trying to launch a Polish TV network. News Corp.’s voting stock, of which the Murdoch family owns 31%, has gone up 18% in the past year, making him worth $9 billion.
So, Murdoch “gets” the Internet. But consider this:
“What if, at the Journal, we spent $100 million a year hiring all the best business journalists in the world? Say 200 of them. And spent some money on establishing the brand but went global — a great, great newspaper with big, iconic names, outstanding writers, reporters, experts. And then you make it free, online only. No printing plants, no paper, no trucks. How long would it take for the advertising to come? It would be successful, it would work and you’d make … a little bit of money. Then again, the Journal and the Times make very little money now.”
Murdoch is being cagey. I find it hard to believe that a smart operator like him doesn’t also “get” the demographics behind the online news situation. The young people who use MySpace are going to grow up, and the percentage of news consumers who use the Internet is only going to grow. As the number of visitors to online news sites grows and the number of dead-tree edition readers shrinks, those advertisers WILL come, and so will ad revenue. And they will pay a few bucks per month for premium content.
Crossposted to The Blog Pundit.








I don't think many people will want "premium content" unless it's relevant to their business or lifestyle and the "content" is not available anywhere else.When it comes to news, there are too many free online sources to bother with paid content.I get an online marketing newsletter that includes "premium content" reports that they charge money for. I can usually find the exact content free on the web by searching for it.
Sounds like a good idea – I just don't want him owning EVERY FREAKIN' MEDIA OUTLET in the US.