Not a new debate.
Just a new argument.
With Rupert Murdoch’s paywall strategy showing early signs of being a sustainable model, the debate over free v. paid-for content rages on. Check out the story that appeared last week and showed some positive food for thought…
Meantime there was also an impassioned, although slightly overlong, but interesting and stimulating speech from a senior Australian correspondent. Scroll down to her numbered points if you’re short of time.
Way too early to call this one of course, but I’m reminded of the early years of SKY, which was, believe it or not, an ad-free environment. The lack of “commercial messages” was supposed to be one of the main benefits of our monthly subscription. Well that changed, and now we’re all used to it.
In print for many years, we’ve had a tussle between Free and Paid For publications. Usually the free journal or paper is viewed as slightly inferior, and perhaps lacking in objectivity. Will the internet reflect this same tension? Will we have premium channels, such as timesonline.co.uk, and a raft of cheaper also-rans?
The key here, in the UK at least, is of course the BBC. Funded and paid-for, but not at the point of consumption. Murdoch has real issues with the Beeb, and you can see his point.
We need good quality news reporting. We’re happy to pay for quality in other spheres. We also enjoy the odd free treat.
So is there room enough for everybody in this world? What do you think?