[LINK] Newspapers online
Kim Holburn
kim at holburn.net
Mon Mar 29 14:56:42 AEDT 2010
On 2010/Mar/29, at 1:17 PM, David Goldstein wrote:
> Of course, I wouldn't expect anything else from this list but
> Murdoch bashing.
...
> And if you read my comments, I haven't said anything in favour of
> Murdoch.
You see, I read your comments as being fairly extremely in favour of
Murdoch. Accusing linkers of Murdoch bashing does that for me.
> As for my comments, if you had read the, I have mentioned the BBC,
> The Guardian and New York Times as well, and I wasn't aware these
> were owned by Murdoch.
The Guardian and NYT are UK and US papers. I'm not sure I'd consider
them mass market any more than any national newspaper. IHT now I might
consider. I have often wondered if IHT is not government funded
though. How else does it get absolutely everywhere?
> As for Chinese newspapers being mass market, you can argue they are
> in their own country. I'm arguing on a global scale. As I said
> earlier, they don't have huge readerships outside their own countries.
There are very approx 70 Million people of Chinese origin living
outside mainland China. I've seen the odd Indian around too.
> Not that I've seen figures to indicate it, but I would be surprised
> if readership for Chinese newspapers online goes anywhere near those
> of, say, The Guardian, New York Times, BBC, Daily Telegraph and even
> The Times and Sunday Times.
I'd be surprised if most US or UK papers have anywhere near the
circulation of Chinese papers.
> As for Chinese newspaper etc making money, everything I've read on
> issues on Chinese markets indicates the markets would not be huge.
> Of course there are websites like Tencent (or something similar)
> that have made their owners billions, but as many western companies
> have found, it's entertainment that makes the money in China and
> many Asian countries. Not news.
What western companies make money on in China and what Chinese
companies make money on in China are not the same things. Actually
resources make money in China especially for us.
> And of course Kim, you must know everything.
Not at all, but I did live in China for a number of years. No need
for ad hominem arguments.
> And more than every mass market newspaper that has tried to make
> money online from advertising, as I doubt there is one that has made
> money.
And you think this is about to change? Tell us what you really think.
> But then you can go into discussions about how Chinese spend money,
> that they like to save a greater percentage of their incomes than
> almost all western countries and a range of other issues.
>
> I totally agree that "They don't need more money than the currently
> get from online advertising, they need something like what they used
> to get from print advertising which is considerably more." But your
> comment has nothing to do with my comment you related it to.
It wasn't clear to me what you were referring to. The BBC doesn't
need to make money from its website does it? It probably has the
largest reach of any media group.
> And yes, we will see what happens. And if you read my comments, I
> haven't said anything in favour of Murdoch.
I beg to differ.
> All I've done is comment on the idea of paywalls.
What you have commented on is your perceived anti-Murdoch bias in this
list. I'm not even sure what you think about paywalls.
> I'm happy to discuss the merits or otherwise of Murdoch and his
> media empire,
Go on then.
> but it's not what this discussion is about.
I thought it was actually.
Kim
>
> David
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Kim Holburn <kim at holburn.net>
>> To: Link list <Link at anu.edu.au>
>> Sent: Mon, 29 March, 2010 1:01:21 PM
>> Subject: Re: [LINK] Newspapers online
>>
>>
> On 2010/Mar/28, at 6:17 PM, David Goldstein wrote:
>> You seem to not
>> realise that the 2 aforementioned papers only need a
>> small
>> percentage of their online readers to pay for access for them
>> to
>> be getting more money than they currently do from online
>>
>> advertising.
>
> They don't need more money than the currently get from
>> online
> advertising, they need something like what they used to get
>> from print
> advertising which is considerably more.
>
>> Just
>> because millions of people read your newspapers online doesn't
>>
>> mean you earn much money from advertising.
>
> Then you're doing it
>> wrong.
>
>> As for the Chinese and Indian newspapers, VERY few people
>> outside
>> those countries will want to read them. The large mass
>> market
>> newspapers (and the BBC) in the UK and mass market papers
>> in the US
>> are global media outlets now.
>
> Perhaps you meant
>> English newspapers. I would have thought a market
> of 1.3 billion
>> (or so) was a mass market.
>
>
> What you seem to be saying is that the
>> only mass market media is
> Murdoch. So then the original
>> statement :
>> Times and Sunday Times newspapers from June, becoming the
>> first
>> media firm to test consumers' appetite to pay for
>> mass-market news
>> online.
>
> May as well be :
>> Times
>> and Sunday Times newspapers from June, becoming the first
>> Murdoch
>> news sites to test consumers' appetite to pay for mass-
>> market news
>> online.
>
>
>
> On 2010/Mar/28, at 9:37 PM, David Goldstein
>> wrote:
>
>> Ivan and Karl, mention the large readership of Indian and
>> Chinese
>> newspapers. But they are not global players like several
>> British or
>> American news outlets.
>
> Yeah there are only
>> Chinese people in ... every country in the world.
>
>> Plus the markets
>> may be large but there is little money.
>
> Not true.
>
>> Hence why,
>> as many people say, Google pulled out of China. They made
>> very
>> little money there and so their decision was very easy.
>
> You know they
>> made little money there for sure? And that was the
> reason they
>> pulled out?
>
>> Newspapers such as The Guardian and New York Times are
>> widely read
>> throughout the world.
>>
>> And once people
>> get over the anti-Murdoch sentiment that pervades
>> this
>> list,
>
> Compared to you we're probably all virulently
>> anti-Murdoch.
>
>> people might have a reasonable debate on the pluses
>> and minuses of
>> paywalls for news content. At least the press in
>> the UK has been
>> debating this with interesting points for and
>> against.
>
> Why do we have to debate it? The debate that really
>> matters, as they
> say, is the one which makes the money. We only
>> have to wait a while
> until we get to the "I told you so"
>> bit.
>
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original
>> Message ----
>>> From: Ivan Trundle <> ymailto="mailto:ivan at itrundle.com"
>> href="mailto:ivan at itrundle.com">ivan at itrundle.com>
>>> To: Link
>> list <> href="mailto:Link at anu.edu.au">Link at anu.edu.au>
>>> Sent: Sun, 28
>> March, 2010 7:10:14 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [LINK] Newspapers
>> online
>>>
>>>
>> On 28/03/2010, at 6:17 PM, David
>> Goldstein wrote:
>>
>>> I suggest you
>>> read the
>> discussions on the move by The Times and Sunday Times in
>>>
>> greater
>>> detail.
>>
>> I have: it's one of my favourite
>> areas of interest. Might I
>>> suggest that you come down off your high
>> horse?
>>
>>> Sure every country
>>> has some differences,
>> and the BBC and ABC will benefit. But you
>>> seem to fail
>> to
>>> understand that the BBC/ABC receives their money from
>> licence
>>> fee/government.
>>
>> No, I do
>> not.
>>
>>> You seem to not realise that
>>> the 2
>> aforementioned papers only need a small percentage of their
>>>
>> online readers
>>> to pay for access for them to be getting more money
>> than they
>>> currently do from
>>> online
>> advertising.
>>
>> No, I do not.
>>
>>> Just because
>> millions of
>>> people read your newspapers online doesn't mean you earn
>> much money
>>> from
>>> advertising.
>>
>> I
>> was making no comparisons with advertising revenue and the
>>>
>> profitability of a news media outlet.
>>
>>> As for the Chinese and
>> Indian
>>> newspapers, VERY few people outside those countries will want
>> to read
>>> them.
>>
>> So what? Their readership is large
>> enough to warrant a different
>>> outlook.
>>
>>> The large
>> mass market newspapers (and the BBC) in the UK
>>> and mass market
>> papers in the US are global media outlets now.
>>
>>
>> They've
>>> got a long way to go before they are truly global in
>> news
>>> presentation. And
>>> whilst Murdoch might have
>> a global presence, each market is
>>> different.
>>
>>
>> iT
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Link
>>> mailing list
>>> href="mailto:> ymailto="mailto:Link at mailman.anu.edu.au"
>> href="mailto:Link at mailman.anu.edu.au">Link at mailman.anu.edu.au">>
>> ymailto="mailto:Link at mailman.anu.edu.au"
>> href="mailto:Link at mailman.anu.edu.au">Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>>>
>> href="> >http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link"
>> target=_blank
>>>>> href="http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link"
>>>>> target=_blank
>>> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Link mailing
>> list
>>> href="mailto:Link at mailman.anu.edu.au">Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>>> href="http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link" target=_blank
>>> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>
> --
> Kim
>> Holburn
> IT Network & Security Consultant
> T: +61 2 61402408 M:
>> +61 404072753
> mailto:> href="mailto:kim at holburn.net">kim at holburn.net
>> aim://kimholburn
> skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on
>> request
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Link
>> mailing list
>> href="mailto:Link at mailman.anu.edu.au">Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>> href="http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link" target=_blank
>>> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
--
Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
T: +61 2 61402408 M: +61 404072753
mailto:kim at holburn.net aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request
More information about the Link
mailing list