The Long Tail - Sep07

A sign of things to come?

The blogosphere has erupted with insights into what the future may hold for the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) following Rupert Murdoch's purchase of Dow Jones in late July. Here's a snippet of their thoughts.

Think Anew and Act Anew

http://think-anew-and-act-anew.blogspot.com/2007/08/rupert-murdoch-and-wall-street-journal.html

Blogger: Tim Roth

The post: Rupert Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal

What he says: Tim Roth raises several concerns over how the appointment of a committee to make sure News Corporation or Rupert Murdoch can never influence the content of the news and editorial departments. He says the committee won't have any power to actually stop Murdoch and questions whether the committee is even independent.

"Appearances can be deceiving especially since Mr. Murdoch betrayed similar pledges when he bought the Times of London. Even if he has no intentions of meddling in the content of the WSJ, he is a businessman and likes to increase profits. Will this committee be able to stop him from cutting the budgets of the news division?"

Roth also ends by saying that "anyone who cares about the quality of the WSJ the health of our free press should be very concerned and anxious right now".

The Alpha marketer

http://www.thealphamarketer.com/2007/08/challenges_and_changes_if_the.html

Blogger: Gary Bourgeault

The post: Challenges and Changes if the Online Wall Street Journal is Offered Free

What he says: Now that Rupert Murdoch owns Dow Jones, Gary Bourgeault considers the benefits of making the online WSJ free while admitting that "one way or the other, Murdoch is going to get a lot more out of the Journal than just about anybody else on the planet could get".

"The first is a subscription versus an ad-supported model. What a subscription model does is offer a predictable stream of income that can be counted on over a period of time. If it ends up being free online, it will draw very quickly a huge audience. The question I have is who would these new visitors be? Will the more general readers dilute the current ad rates the online Journal commands which are far higher per page view than many other large media sites? It seems there's going to be a move to make it more attractive to general readers through having a stronger news element in the paper".

Silicon Alley Insider: Digital Business, Live From New York

http://www.alleyinsider.com/2007/08/news-corp-take-.html

Blogger: Peter Kafka

The post: WSJ.com Going Free, Not Needed For Fox Biz TV

What he says: Peter Kafka reckons that Rupert Murdoch "absolutely intends to set WSJ.com free" and that News Corporation doesn't need WSJ to launch its business channel because "it's locked up with CNBC for five years, and they don't seem inclined to fight for it".

"News Corporation already has the key element to launch the channel: Access to more than 30 million subscribers. How did Murdoch get those? Not by promising cable operators he'd have access to the WSJ's reporters and analysis. By leveraging the success of Fox News when that channel's carriage agreements came up in the last few years".

He also says that WSJ will be hiring and not firing, predicting an exodus of reporters who have been saying it's against their principles to work with Murdoch.

A Nancy Scola website

http://www.nancyscola.com/2007/08/slowing_mr_murdoch.html

Blogger: Nancy Scola

The post: Slowing Mr. Murdoch

What she says: Nancy Scola likened the five person board established to protect the WSJ newsroom from Rupert Murdoch's interference to "putting up a baby gate to keep a 12 year old out of the kitchen - it might slow him down, but not by much".

She also thought that appointing the brains behind the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project, Nicholas Negroponte to the five person board was a "strange choice" especially as it turns out that "not only is Negroponte a good friend of Murdoch's, OLPC recently got a $2.5 million grant from News Corp. This is how we're going to restrain Murdoch?"

"CEO Mr. A serves on the compensation committee for CEO Mr. B, and then when the time comes CEO Mr. A returns the favor. I set your pay, you set mine, and somehow some way soon we're all making $20 million a year while the company's stock tanks".