Thursday, October 15. 2009Two Years Into The Krudd Imperium......John Linton absolutely nothing has been done, every election 'promise' ignored or broken, the years of fiscal responsibility consigned to huge debt in record time, and the populace more obviously embracing "the world owes me a living/panem et circenses" attitudes to the nanny State........or am I the only person reading this incorrectly: http://www.itwire.com/content/view/28518/53/ Perhaps I'm wrong in thinking that the ABC isn't a commercial entity at all but exists on huge, and ever increasing, amounts of taxpayer money (currently in excess of $A1 billion a year)? So what is this tosser doing declaiming that because there is no cost to him personally, his Labor voting mates who comprise the preponderance of ABC 'employees' or the ABC generally of producing TV and radio programs (courtesy of this publicly funded sinecure) people who use their own and their shareholder's money to actually produce newspapers and TV and radio programs (Rupert Murdoch's media as one of the examples he used) should simply give away their programs - just what does he think is used to produce movies, TV shows, radio broadcasts outside his 'sheltered workshop' which has no responsibility and no accountability and certainly no ability to make the money it needs to provide so many inadequate people with over paid jobs? His stupid statement: "But the old days are gone, he said, and traditional business models with it." (and by the way - what does this Johnny come lately hack know about the old days anyway) ignores the fact that if content is 'given away' then there is no money for a commercial entity to remain producing it.....unlike the ABC that simply adds up a wish list of expenditure and get the tax payer's money to fund it. In this overt hand out Australia put in place by the swinishly lying Krudd and his controllers in the run down end of the Sussex Street.A far more sensible opinion about "free" news is contained in this article from the UK Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/libby_purves/article6870224.ece It is all part of the the Labor influences now seen everywhere in the media with the most obvious example being the 15 year old children of, presumably Labor voters, who post on our own and other on line fora about how they should be allowed to steal whatever they want to because firstly they can and secondly because the horrible US movie, CD, DVD and TV production companies make huge profits. It simply confirms that as well as having no morals/ethics they also have an IQ so low and they exist in some sort of cargo cult household where their parents provide all of the housing, food and clothing and 'pocket money' that they fail to understand that it costs huge amounts of money (in the case of the mindless block buster movies they favour up to $US200 million or more) to produce the article they then think it is their right to steal. How do they think such things are 'manufactured' that they can get them without paying the asking price? The utter IQ of zero crass stupidity of this statement: "The public pays for the ABC to deliver distinctive, quality content to (who the f*** does he think he's talking to to need this said)....but what possible relationship does it have to an organisation that isn't endlessly funded by taxpayers????? But there's more to this sinecured 'public servants' pig ignorance of any aspect of normal commercial life: "The latest example is the push by newspaper proprietors, led by This idiot is so terminally stupid (and the statement is actually quite incorrect), something widespread across the ABC employees I have been exposed to via the radio and ABC TV, that he doesn't grasp the Marketing 101 principle of using the money from profitable income streams to pay the start up costs of investing in future income streams. How on Earth does this moron think the 'free' on line news papers were being funded? They were being funded by the PAID for print media they duplicated on the basis, at the start, that very few people looked at the on line versions and therefore the loss of revenue from people who ONLY used the on line versions was miniscule. As that changed over time some income was picked up from on line advertising but not enough to pay the cost of the on line media production and display and more people stopped buying the print versions. I was one of them - I used the on line version of the WSJ for many years but now it has to be paid for I am happy to pay for it. I use the UK on line Times which is still free but if it became chargeable I would be happy to do pay for it - because I value the information those two on line news papers provide and I obviously can't buy a print version of them in Sydney - not to mention the convenience of on line news papers. After two years of Krudd's spiralling out of control giveaways doubtless the author of this arrant nonsense is simply conforming to the Labor voting profile of "why should I pay for anything - the "gummant" can get the rich Liberal voting tax payers to endlessly fund my employment and every other aspect of my life" - no-one really needs to get paid 'outside' money to produce goods and services.
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
My wife gets free daily newspapers and I have subscribed to highly discounted weekend ones. I don't think that the model of the end reader paying (print or electronic) is necessary, or worth defending. The daily news from the beginning has been a bait for advertising.
It is ridiculous to run classified ads on the net on a large scale (they end up looking like a Google page), and impossible to run half-broadsheet display ads. On top of that coders such as myself have devised ways to scrub all annoying material from our screens, so it's not even exposed for a second, and will continue to defeat any new technique the advertisers try. Sometimes their tricks are simply self-defeating. Advertisers are well aware that only the most untutored computer users look at internet ads. Television is in a similar boat as we continually devise ways to capture media without ads, and many of us are already watching ordinary free-to-air TV with computers set up for media. That number is increasing. This digital ad removal ability is Mr Murdoch's dilemma, now that so many have come to read their news online, and I have no doubt that paid-for internet news would be for a very small ex-broadsheet readership and would not recover declining advertising revenue. I suspect he believes this too, and has a wider, and ugly, media DRM agenda in mind. Comment (1)
Just because the consumer has always paid directly for content doesn't automatically mean that is how it should always be. Rightly or wrongly, a significant percentage of people don't want to have to pay for content anymore, or want to pay less. There is no point complaining about it, that accomplishes nothing. The world has changed and media companies need to change with it.
It is clear that traditional business models used by music, TV, movies and news companies no longer work... so these companies need to stop trying to make them work. I'm not suggesting they should give away their content for free, just that they find a different way to make money from it. If media companies and content owners can't find a way to effectively make use of the opportunities the Internet provides they have a serious problem. All they are doing now is bombarding people with intrusive and generic flash video ads. How can anyone seriously believe that is the best they can do. Charging people is still a viable alternative, but only if it is reasonable and only if the content is good enough. The majority of content that currently exists on Australian news websites is absolute rubbish. The world has changed. You can complain all you like about the absurdity of people wanting stuff for free... but people are still going to want stuff for free. The solution is not to try and force people to pay. The solution is to try and find a way to give it to them for free and still make some money. Comments (2)
When you grow up and get a kindergarten education in manufacturing 101 you will understand that unless goods and services are paid for they don't get produced.
If they don't get produced people like you can't steal them. Christ - I find it amazing that people are so f***ing stupid. Comments (8)
Of course goods and services will only be provided if they are paid for. However it does not follow that the market should be charged for that good or service based on cost recovery. In some cases that works. In others the market is willing if not eager to pay well above cost (block buster movies come to mind). In still others, the market undervalues the service and refused to pay cost, at least on the basic service.
I think general news fits the last category. There certainly is news that it worth paying for, and people willing to pay for it. But most people don't want to pay much for news, and they have been taught to expect it for nothing, so I expect the market for pay-per-view news is rather small (my favourite news site survives on subscriptions, but just barely). Mr Murdoch never before sold news to the public. He sold page-space to his advertisers, and paid the public to look at those pages by putting some news on them too (the news-stand price just helps people think it must be valuable because it has a cost - and pays the newsagent for shelf space). So it is strange that he turns to the idea of selling news directly now. He needs to find a new market, but direct-paying customers is likely to be small market. I have no imagination in this area so I cannot suggest anything. The one clear beneficiary of a free and open press that I can see is a free and open nation. We the people benefit from the news being reported. So I am happy for my taxes to go through the ABC to support news reporting. This blog is in some ways like a news service. It takes items of information that I wouldn't normally bother to find out myself, and presents them in a particular context and with a particular focus. You seem to be able to get value from providing this service without asking the readers to pay. I suspect Mr Murdoch (or some of his staff) could also find better ways to monetize his news than charging for it. Of course if he wants to charge for it, that is up to him. But I suspect the result will be to marginalise, nor monetise. Comment (1)
Neil,
You clearly, like me, subscribe to the free market theories of Adam Smith. The point is that you can't steal something that isn't produced and nothing will be produced that costs effort unless its paid for. The ABC is ruinously expensive in commercial terms and you, if you are taxpayer in Australia, pay for it irrespective of whether you use it or not. To try and say that "news" is free is ludicrous - it cost whoever provided the information and if they don't recover the costs of providing it they will sooner or later stop providing it. NOTHING is free. Comments (8)
I never said they didn't have to be paid for... just that there didn't have to be a cost to the consumer. I don't pay anything for free-to-air TV, I get it for free, that that doesn't mean it is being produced for free.
If news websites start charging I won't 'steal' the news, I will get it somewhere else for free... or go without it since the majority of it is rubbish anyway. It's easy to complain about people stealing content... but that really doesn't provide any solution. Comments (2)
John, you're loosing it. There were 15 yr olds of presumably Liberal voters when the Libs were in power (& they too squandered 10+ years to "do nothing", don't forget) who also thought the same re: downloading copyright content.
We all know your hatred of anything not right-of-center and you're lowering the quality of your commentary by continually banging on that ~1/2 of Australia that doesn't vote like you do. The dead horse is well flogged, move on.. Comments (2)
Don't like my views?
Simple solution. Don't read them. Comments (8)
Luddite, JL's horse may appear deceased, but don't raise the half the voters bit - half of Australia's voters are dead wrong on just about every topic. You only have to keep breathing to stay on the electoral roll.
Comment (1)
I turn my TV on every day and watch content, news, sport and entertainment, and I don't pay to watch it.
Then I tune my TV into Austar/Foxtel and watch content, news, sport and entertainment, that I am paying for. The point is that there will always be a need for, and a audience for, both free to air and paid for content. This would be the same for online news services. As mentioned above there are many ways to recover the cost, or write it off as a service to the community, just as Exetel does for the environmental projects it supports. It depends on what direction you are looking at the issue from. Comment (1)
Lawrie,
You pay for FoxTel/Austar - it isn't free. If you tune in the ABC you/other taxpayers pay for that. "Free" Radio is paid for by advertising revenue. What is your point? NOTHING is free and never has been. Comments (8)
The irony here is that it could make more sense for people to pay for their news online than in print.
There's less physical media involved, distribution is faster and environmental impact is easier to constrain and offset. Some of the comments in the ABC interview linked to make sense, regarding the ABC continuing as an important content provider for the Australian market and furthering their presence. There are still costs attached though - whether the data is fetched via peering, Akamai or transit, delivery is still a cost to be borne by someone so such a shift in distribution can actually result in a taxpayer paying again for the content. Comments (2)
Chris,
What the ABC does is completely irrelevent to any commercial operation. Taxpayers provide enormous amounts of money to pay for EVERY ASPECT of the ABC and it cannot then charge Australians for whatever services it provides. However if taxpayer money stopped there would be no ABC. Whatever this public servant drone says is completely irrelevant to what a commercial entity has to do to stay alive. Last time I looked no-one is forcing ANYONE to read a newspaper - they CHOOSE to pay the price if they find value. The ABC exists in to the future based on all Australian taxpayers paying for its existence irrespective of whether those taxpayers ever watch its TV or listen to its radio output - and, by the way, most Australians don't. The ABC is yet another anachronistic nanny State piece of nonsense where a bunch of left wing drones decide how to use your taxes to produce crap that only a tiny minority avail themselves of. Comments (8)
I agree with your statements regarding the article's relation to commercial entities and their activities - it's not the place of the ABC to make such statements. I admit, I personally enjoy a portion of what the ABC produces much more so than anything on any commercial television network.
Where I do think the article makes sense is to do with online presentment of ABC output. And no one is being forced to read a newspaper, you're quite right about that. There are plenty of publications I subscribe to and pay for, and I prefer the electronic option of delivery for a number of reasons. Content and service has to be paid for somehow whether it's advertising, subscription or some other service subsidising the cost. Not my intention to disagree with you here John, except perhaps on the Labour government achieving nothing whilst in power - they've managed to confuse journalists everywhere about how the communications world actually works in this country. Comments (2)
Anything of any worth costs time/effort/money/skill/knowledge/distribution/etc.
If no price is paid then nothing is produced - fundamental one of commerce. As for the ABC's "quality" of programming - it must be a matter of taste and a taste that doesn't appeal to me. Personally I only watch cable for entertainment and one or other of the commercial channels for live AFL. Occasionally the ABC will buy a program that hasn't been on UK/TV or HBO previously and then I will probably watch an hour or so of ABC for the 'run' of the show. ABC news, last time I saw any is dross but that isn't the point. News has to be 'reported' and that takes money and if money is expended then it has to be found somewhere and then on an ongoing basis. If that is the case, which I think is inarguable, then unless you are going to an Orwellian version of State controlled 'news' then you need diversity of ownership and accountability of some sort. "Free" news is not going to happen - except in a one party State where the value of 'free' news is in controlling what people are allowed to know. In short - the person pontificating in that article was a total moron and everything he said was moronic.... ......in my opinion. Comments (8)
A single person working from home can post quality content online extremely easily and the cost of production is incredibly low.
Legacy costs like printing presses, marketing departments, physical distribution networks, flash offices in the CBD are not required to compete. Anyone (ie: traditional media) with those type of costs are at a significant disadvantage. News is freer than ever, definitely more free that news coming from a state funded organisation where decisions are made about what to run by a small group of people. I don't understand how anyone can see online news as a scarce resource, people are perfectly happy to produce quality content in exchange for attention. If you understand economics 101 you'll understand when I say: good luck charging for a resource that isn't scarce. Comments (2)
The topic was "news" not "content".
A person working from home has no access to "news". Please read the referenced article by Libby Purves for a more detailed reasoning why "professional" news is not capable of being "free'. Comments (8)
I already pay for News through an Austar subscription, where I can, and do view CNN, BBC World and to a lesser extent Australian Sky News.
I won't be one subscribing to online news content. Comment (1)
...but you already are - a screen is a 'new' version of a print newspaper - and not only do you pay for your online news service you also have to watch the on line ads.
Comments (8)
I read the article but I still believe there are just too many compelling substitutes and alternatives that subscription for online news content will not work apart from in exceptional cases like the WSJ.
You might be interested in reading this article by Bernard who the editor of interest.co.nz. He worked for 18 years for Reuters, the FT Group and Fairfax as a financial journalist and editor. http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/07/17/opinion-how-to-profitably-publish-financial-news-online-for-free/ Comments (2)
|
Calendar
QuicksearchArchivesCategoriesBlog AdministrationExternal PHP Application |