Showing posts with label Murdoch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Murdoch. Show all posts

Thursday, 16 October 2008

Paid Content at WSJ

Group think says there's no future in paid content. The WSJ begs to differ and it was while visiting their site for my normal first two paras free of charge that I was presented with a full article under this header.










This prompted me just to take a look at their current offers and marketing. This house ad on top right hand corner of their home page.










This adclick takes you through to three offers, off a 2 week free trial automatic renewal offer:





2 Weeks Free(54 weeks in total) with your payment when you purchase

1 year of WSJ.com + the Print Journal






Print Journal
1 year for $89










WSJ.com
1 year for $89








WSJ.com +Print Journal
1 year for $99





All looking good. I'm in Europe, the dollar is a peso; I've had a subscription before but I can get round that - marginally alter my name and new address. Old trick.

They nearly had me.

Before I read the small print:

This is a special offer made available only for first time annual subscribers. Thereafter, your subscription will be renewed automatically at the then-current annual rate. You will be notified of any rate changes in advance. Savings percentage based on 52-week newsstand price for The Journal print edition plus the standard 1-year rate for The Online Journal. Offers good for new subscriptions for a limited time only. Newspaper delivery is only available in the contiguous U.S. Sales tax may apply.


Good, simple, clear marketing and a timely moment given the financial crisis to tempt me in with a full sample article (we can argue about pros and cons of automatic renewal offers subject to seeing their conversion data - as a consumer I personally never bite, but as a marketer I know they work).

However, they've forgotton one rather important fact: this offer is on something called the world wide web, their offer is for contiguous U.S only, I live in France and no option to click through to WSJE.

Mr. Murdoch, your subscription marketing people are asleep on the job. In Manhattan-centricitis land.







READ AN ALTERNATIVE IHT DAILY NARRATIVE AT
A PLACE IN THE AUVERGNE




International Herald Tribune
IHT
New York Times
NYT


Vacation /Business Trip Furnished Apartment in Paris



Wednesday, 1 October 2008

Not a pretty time for media stocks

Tuesday, Sep 30
It's been a bad year for media stocks, but it's been an even worse year for the fat cats who own them. According to a Forbes.com article Rupert Murdoch saw his net wealth plummet $2 billion dollars in 2007, from $8.8 billion to $6.8 billion. (This was before yesterday, when News Corp. stock dropped more than $1 per share.)
Put this into terms we can understand and that's a loss of $1.5 million an hour. So that's fun. But Rupe's not alone.

In total, the 30 CEOs of public corporations on the
Forbes 400 lost $215 billion in 2007, of roughly $633.78 per second.
Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett saw his wealth fall almost as much as Murdoch's. Of course, he still has $50 billion in the coffers, which allows him to make gambles such as investing $5 billion Goldman Sachs. It must be nice to be rich.




A PLACE IN THE AUVERGNE

International Herald Tribune
IHT
New York Times
NYT

Vacation /Business Trip Furnished Apartment in Paris

Wednesday, 17 September 2008

Murdoch: "Hard Times Are Good For Big Companies" - And I Don't Want To Buy The New York Times (NWS)


If memory serves me, didn't he at one point say the same thing about the WSJ, long, long ago? He says he's not interested, then says he's interested in acquisitions in perhaps 6-9 months.



This from Silicon Valley Insider:

Like he has in the past, Rupert Murdoch declares that his newspaper and local TV ad businesses are doing terribly, but that the rest of the company is growing great guns. Or at least enough to ride out a downturn.
And New York Times readers and/or employees who fear that Rupert was going to buy the crown jewel of American journalism can relax. Not going to happen, he says.
Joining late...
"Hard times are good for big companies"
Biggest challenges/uncertainties for next few years?
I don't see uncertainties. I can't see the future. But consumer advertising - newspapers all over the world and local stations in our case - is bad. But we have big profit drivers (cable, etc) that can counter bad things happen to us in traditional advertising.
Most resilient? The WSJ. But that's really b2b advertising, not consumer. And you're going to be surprised how fast we'll grow in Internet activities. But if you're talking about what's going to come back fastest - local TV, etc, I don't know. "The local television market in this country - there's no point in hiding it. It's bad." Car ads make up biggest component of local tv and that's down significantly. UK slowdown started later than U.S. Australian slowdown just starting now.
Trying to exit outdoor business internationally.

We have preliminary agreement to sell to sell Russian business, etc. But you look what happened in the Russian market last week, and I'll believe it when I see it.
Investing in other markets vs. buybacks?

Very interested in India. Star does that, but also looks at smaller territiories, Malaysia. Starting to make films in India, more TV programs. We're extending everywhere. We see ourselves as a creative company. The distribution is secondary, and we'll do more of it, because it gives you secure company. Our business is going to be moving farther and farther away from traditional consumer advertising and toward subscription models.
We're not a big creative music company - we don't want to be. On the other hand, I think either yesterday, or today, we're launching MySpace Music [
memo to Chris DeWolfe - give Rupe a heads up!] and that's going to do well. Hulu already the biggest distributor and seller of TV and movies on the Internet. And the stuff we sell there we get a big margin for.
Stock price to low?

Sure. But too much work to please the analysts. Whenever we do something, the analysts kill us. "When I bought MySpace, they said `He's a frickin idiot. Mad!' A year later ,they were saying it was worth $20 billion or something, which it certainly isn't." Same thing with Fox News.
On WSJ.com.

We're going to be getting revenues of $100 million in advertising. Look at the new redesign. Under the new scheme, the home page ad, which is not to big or too dominant, we're charging $100,000 per day on the home page. On MySpace, the first year or two, we screwed up the selling of that. But now we're selling the MySpace home page an average of $500k per day, up to $1M. So this will be a big deal for us.
MySpace:

Ambitious budget but we've certainly made it for first quarter. Who knows what the next 9 months will hold.
Fox Business, we hopefully we lose as much as we lost in the half-year last year. It will be a three-year thing but we're confident it will be very valuable asset.
Let's talk about print advertising at Dow Jones:

Everyone here hates it but we're actually increasing print ad revenues. New magazine, Barrons. Advertising at European edition up 35% and Asia edition up 25%. There's obvious demand.
Would the DOJ allow you to buy the NYT?

"I don't know. I've never asked them. Whoever wrote that crap, it's nonsense. I'm not interested. We're not interested in buying any more newspapers. We're happy with what we have."
MySpace: Where are you at monetizing current inventory on MySpace?

"I think we do it enough, except we don't charge enough, and we're in danger of cluttering. I'd rather we have fewer ads and charge more."
Google relationship?

"It's going fine. They knew they wouldn't make the $300 million the first year, and they wouldnt' make it the next year, and by the third year they'll be very close. But take a look at the market out there. If they didn't renew, Microsoft would be out there in a minute with a big check."
On to film.

We had a bad summer. We expected a bad summer. Some films moved late, but whatever. One little film we put out turned out to be a dog. But no matter. We had a good 50/50 partner. But starting at Thanksgiving, and then Christmas, and then into next year, we have great films. Night at the Museum sequel; X-Men sequel, Ice age sequel...we'll absorb costs this year and the really big films will throw off profits in 2010.
What do you think about bidding on Olympics down the road?

"I think NBC capitalized pretty well. They don't have much else going for them right now." But who knows? They're launching 9 new shows. Maybe some will be good. We launched 1 new show this fall. Launched last night, did well. World Series should be good for us, if you have the right teams in there (Rupe doesn't want to see the Minnesota Twins in the October classic, we're guessing).
The advertising on the Fox broadcast network is good. Upfront holding up very well, we've had almost no cancellations, and scatter selling very well. It is pretty competitive out there, but we are selling at higher rates than the other. We're at least on target for the network.
Succession plan for Roger Ailes?

He's not going anywhere. He's very happy. (We bet!). I'm very happy with him. We're good friends and we get on well. Are there good people in the company that he's developing? You bet.
Big picture re: acquisitions?

We're not doing anything while the future as murky as it is. We'll give it another 6 months, 9 months, who knows.
http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/9/live-rupert-murdoch-at-goldman-nws-


A PLACE IN THE AUVERGNE

International Herald Tribune
IHT
New York Times
NYT
Vacation /Business Trip Furnished Apartment in Paris

Thursday, 11 September 2008

Murdoch: I Won't Put the 'Times' Out of Business (Portfolio/Vanity Fair)

No, he'll buy it!


Mixed Media
by Jeff Bercovici

Sep 10 2008 2:28PM EDT
Murdoch: I Won't Put the 'Times' Out of Business
Excerpting his upcoming book in Vanity Fair this month, Michael Wolff claims that Rupert Murdoch has become embarrassed of Fox News, and, in particular, of its biggest star, Bill O'Reilly. But it sure doesn't seem that way in a lengthy Q&A Esquire conducted with the 77-year-old News Corp. chairman for its October issue.

More Murdoch:

-"It's bullshit to say we're going to dumb down The Wall Street Journal. We didn't dumb down the London Times -- we made the London Times. The Sunday Times, too. Are they a little more popular than they were? Yes. They are populist papers. You've got to listen to readers."

-"I don't think for a minute that we're going to put The New York Times out of business. I think they have a future, too. But there's certainly room for an alternative."

-"I think that [Times publisher] Arthur Sulzberger, over the years, has made it very clear that he wants a very liberal paper, and that he wants a staff that reflects that community. For five years, he didn't want any white, heterosexual men hired. He was sending a clear message."

-"It's a libel to say that I use my newspapers to support my other business interests. The fact is, I haven't got any other business interests."

http://www.portfolio.com:80/views/blogs/mixed-media/2008/09/10/murdoch-i-wont-put-the-times-out-of-business







A PLACE IN THE AUVERGNE

International Herald Tribune
IHT
New York Times
NYT

Vacation /Business Trip Furnished Apartment in Paris