I had an argument with my dad on the phone last night. However, this was not the usual drill “You need to stop spending money!” No, this was about newspapers. The future of print media and the perils of the online world and the talk of pay walls by Rupert Murdoch.

My dad trying to get his head around online content

My dad wanted to be a journalist himself and I imagine if he had taken that route he may be one of the journalists today who refuses to get on board with the online world.

He argued that he didn’t think people actually read the news online and that by putting the content on-line in the first place newspapers were damaging themselves. He did not see my argument that newspapers had no choice but to start putting content online because of the rise in citizen journalism and user-generated-content.They had to compete and move online.

Newspapers online content

I found it interesting that I had had this discussion with my dad the night before our lecture by Robert Andrews, the UK Editor of Paid Content. Today he spoke to us about the boom in advertising revenue online and explained it was better than traditional forms of advertising because it is more measurable so there is no wasted expenditure. He also discussed the possibility of pay walls, a route which Rupert Murdoch is trying to push through. He had some interesting insights on whether people would pay for certain content and suggested that perhaps not all newspaper content online would have the same level of difficulty getting people to pay.

The video below is an interesting interview with Rupert Murdoch about pay walls.

Paid Content’s PCUK/Harris Interactive poll on consumers willingness to pay for online news showed some quite worrying results if Murdoch is serious about trying to make readers pay for online content.

74% said they would find another free site if their favourite news site began charging for content.

Just 5% said they would pay and continue reading that news online.

If readers were forced to pay it was found they would pay as little as possible with 72% saying they would pay less than £10 for a yearly subscription.

Compare this abysmally low price to the annual fee charged by The Guardian for a seven-day subscription which is £308.69.

These figures do not appear to support pay walls.

Encouragingly though they also found that 48% would pay for online news if it included a free or discounted newspaper subscription.

The argument Robert Andrews made was that it may be speciality content that people will be more willing to pay for, news that is different and not just what everyone else is churning out.

The Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal already have partial pay walls on speciality content people are willing to pay for in the business and financial world and they offer subscription deals such as standard online, premium online, just newspaper or newspaper and online combined.

They can get away with charging people because of the high quality reliable reports they produce which are written by respected journalists who are experts in their field.

What about content that is not quite so specialised, will people ever pay for this content?

Perhaps pay walls will make journalists improve as they realise that in order for people to want to read their articles or even pay for them they have to be of a certain quality that you cannot get elsewhere.

The argument with my dad was not brought to a conclusion. He said he would step off his soapbox but would not agree that people were moving to online news.

Perhaps we will always have newspapers. Going into the industry I would like to think so. But then again as Robert Andrews said, have some savvy editors like Alan Rusbridger already anticipated the death of the newspaper?

When the Guardian moved to the Berliner format and they bought a new printing press, Alan Rusbridger is to have said that this would be the last printing press they would buy.

A reflection on the future of the industry or did he really believe in the longevity of that printing press?

The future of the print industry is an intriguing one. Economic figures so not look promising but for me the future without newspapers does not either. I think I may agree with my dad on this one point. Newspapers will never disappear entirely.

What I will add to his comment is that newspapers will, are and have to adapt to a world which is moving online.

As for pay walls.

Watch this space….

Catch Robert Andrews on Twitter @RobertAndrews

Dopo l’articolo firmato dal Direttore di Monocle, Tyler Brulè, uscito sul Financial times dello scorso settembre, nel quale il celebre giornalista portava Torino come esempio di città modello grazie agli intelligenti investimenti nel campo della cultura e del commercio, capaci di attrarre talenti e capitali, è ora la volta di Rachel Spence, dalle colonne del prestigioso mensile del FT, How to spend it, a tessere le lodi della nostra città, portandola ad esempio a livello internazionale.

Certamente un riconoscimento importante, che premia i grandi sforzi fatti in questi anni dalle istituzioni e dalle aziende private del territorio per far crescere la città e renderla finalmente una meta appetibile per turisti non solo italiani ma anche esteri.

A testimonianza dell’importanza della portata di questa notizia, certamente in controtendenza rispetto al trend negativo dettato dalla crisi economica, il fatto che il servizio di Rachel Spence è stato ripreso non solo dalla cronaca locale, ma anche dal TG nazionale.

Continuiamo così!

Per leggere l’articolo clicca qui

If Rupert Murdoch imposes paywalls on his newspaper websites, will the public pay, or just click elsewhere?

“Quality journalism is not cheap. The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive distribution channels but it has not made content free. We intend to charge for all our news websites.”

Rupert Murdoch aims to put paywalls on all his newspaper websites

So said media mogul Rupert Murdoch back in August. This week’s online journalism lecture featured ex-Cardiff alumnus Rob Andrew who spoke to us about business models and paying for online content. Bearing in mind Murdoch’s recent plans for all the newspapers under his command (The Times, The Sun, and The News Of The World to name a few) to introduce paywalls, this lecture couldn’t have come at a better time.

Having previously freelanced for The Guardian and Wired magazine, Rob Andrew is currently responsible for the UK part of paidcontent.org- a website that was started by entrepreneur Rafat Ali back in 2002. As well as its UK counterpart, paidcontent.org also features moconews.org- a website that deals with mobile content, and contentsutra.org- the Indian equivalent. Paidcontent.org has three fundamental aims- to provide breaking news, to act as an aggregator of current and topical issues and also to provide a layer of analysis and expertise. The structure of the website takes on a blog framework, and the writers increasingly use social media tools, such as RSS feeds and Twitter, to get the information they need for their posts. Andrew explained how Ali has been seen by many in the media industry as the “poster boy for career independence from global media companies.” Ali appears to be seeing the future of the journalism industry clearly and realistically; he has said from the onset that all media will become digital media, and the fact that the website was set up over seven years ago highlights how this issue of paying for online content is not a new idea.

Although the idea of paying for online content is not entirely new, the fact that it has not been an integral part of online news consumption means that it is going to be very difficult to persuade people to pay. Paidcontent.org teamed up with Harris Poll earlier this year and conducted their own research to see how much, and for which types of content, people would be prepared to pay.  The survey found, contrary to Murdoch’s plans, that only five percent of people would be prepared to pay for online content, whereas a massive 74 percent would look elsewhere. Over all ages almost three quarters of people polled would find a free alternative if their favourite news site starting charging. Surprisingly though, the results found that people in the 16-24 age bracket were 13 times more likely to pay for content than those in the 35-44 and 55-66 age groups.

The same survey also found that out of the five percent of people who would be prepared to pay for content, three quarters of them would want to pay less than £10 a year. Which isn’t exactly going to make up the increasingly huge drop in newspaper sales over the last year…

Yet despite the bleak support for paid content, Andrew made one point very clear; if news organisations are going to start charging their consumers for reading news on the internet, they are going to have to make huge improvements to their online content. Competition will be fierce, and if news organisations are going to attract, and keep, customers, their online material will have to be unique and interesting. If not, people will find an alternative. He used the example of B2B magazine Farmers Weekly. As this publication provides unique information on a niche subject, more people are likely to pay for its content, as it is not information that readers can find readily available elsewhere.

The FT is already successfully charging its readers online

Andrew also put the issues of paying for online content into the context of media advertising. He explained that there are two main reasons why companies are much more willing to invest their money in online resources. The first is that advert visibility can be counted on the web, unlike its print counterpart where advert views can only be estimated. This therefore allows companies to make informed decisions when choosing which websites to sponsor. Secondly a KPMG research survey found that 60 percent of people polled would rather have to watch an advert before accessing news than pay for it. Although this level of advertising does make up a large volume of revenue for the news organisations, the selling of online adverts does not make up for the loss of revenue from dropping newspaper sales.

There are, however, a few news websites that are already charging for content through subscription. Currently The Financial Times’s website FT.com has 1.6 million unique unpaid readers a month. It also has 128,000 paid-up subscribers who pay £90 a year to read the full content of the website. Although The FT has successfully demonstrated that people will pay to view their content, it is also important to note that this publication typically has a wealthy readership, and therefore would be more likely to purchase a subscription than forego reading it at all.

Will newspaper sales increase if online news has paywalls?

A point was raised towards the end of the lecture concerning Murdoch’s possible motives for creating paywalls on his news websites. As well as his frustration towards free aggregators such as Google, there is also the possibility that in the whole scheme of things, perhaps Murdoch is secretly hoping that by forcing people to pay for online content, people will eventually revert back to their old habits of nipping to the corner shop to pick up a newspaper. Only time will tell if paid content will become the norm, and whether it will force the five percent figure to increase as access to news sites are denied to those who want their news without cost…

Full results of the paidcontent.org and Harris Poll survey can be found at paidcontent.org.

The print industry is in a rapid decline, online news is more popular than ever and  Rupert Murdoch is proposing making people pay for his online paper’s from next year.

Are we just waiting around for the end of print – or will Murdoch’s plan actually push people who are unwilling to pay for online news back to their newspaper?

Online news is growing rapidly but in a lecture with journalist Rob Andrew, editor of Paid Content.co.uk, it became clear that at the moment people are unwilling to pay for it. A yearly subscription to The Guardian can cost around £350 but in a recent PCUK/Harris Poll, it was found that only 5% of people asked were willing to pay to read news online.

Newspapers rely on advertising but unlike with online adverts – there is no guaranteed return – and more and more advertising companies are moving away from print for this reason.

Rob, worringly, but accurately, describes newspapers as being in a perilous state and compares this to the music industry.

Music is now accessible free online and the only way to make money from it is through live performances – as the experience of watching live music can’t be replicated online.  The industry tried to introduce copy protection to stop music being shared online but abandoned this after sites like Spotify and We7 have made music instantly available for free.

Newspapers are looking for a short-term answer to this crisis to appease shareholders but what they should be doing is finding a long-term solution.

Specialist papers like the Financial Times and European Wall Street Journal currently charge a subscription. The FT has 128,000 subscribers paying approximately £90 a year. I find it highly unlikely people will pay for The Sun, News of the World or even The Times – but Mighty Murdoch is dead set on introducing these charges and if they are no longer available in print form the only option may be to buy online.

Surely if one paper charges online, people will just go to a free newspaper’s site instead? It would be impossible to implement a pay wall system unless all the papers agreed to do this. People do not want to pay for online news and most public opinion polls go directly against Murdoch’s plans.

The Guardian has a different ownership model to papers in the Murdoch News International empire and this allows it to put more into being innovative and exploring and developing it’s online version.

The future of print is very uncertain – if Murdoch does introduce charges will other paper’s follow? or will this backfire completely and will people just go somewhere else for their news?

Microsoft is reportedly discussing a deal that would see News Corporation remove its Web sites, such as the Wall Street Journal, from Google’s index. The effect “de-indexing” would be that News Corporation content would not be available via Google Search or Google News. It would be available to Bing users, however. Find out more about this deal, here.

C’est bien ce que pourrait engendrer l’attaque de Microsoft et de News Corp. à l’encontre de Google. En effet, le Financial Times a annoncé que News Corp. proposerait à Microsoft de le payer pour le déréférencer du moteur de recherche Google. Rupert Murdoch avait déjà menacé de bloquer l’accès de ses contenus aux moteurs de recherche dont Google News, leur reprochant de “prendre tout ce qui les intéresse, de voler nos informations, nous affirmons qu’ils volent nos informations car ils se servent sans payer”. Au début du mois News Corp. avait aussi annoncé qu’il comptait rendre payantes les éditions internet de ses journaux, parmi lesquels figurent notamment le New York Post aux Etats-Unis ainsi que le Times et le Sun en Grande-Bretagne.

De son coté, Microsoft aurait commencé à contacter d’autres grandes maisons d’édition afin de les convaincre de se déréférencer de  Google. Ce qui apporterait une grande valeur aux contenus de ses maisons si les moteurs de recherche sont prêts à les payer pour les référencer. Le secteur de la presse, qui peine à rentabiliser ses activités internet, pourrait sortir gagnant de cet affrontement.

L’objectif de Microsoft n’est pas pour autant de sauver la presse mais surtout de s’attaquer au modèle économique de Google afin de réduire les marges impressionnantes que génère celui-ci (en 2008, le groupe a dégagé 29,7% de marge brute et plus de 19% de marge nette). L’efficacité de cette stratégie dépend en grande partie, du nombre d’éditeurs qui suivront News Corp. dans sa démarche mais aussi du nombre d’internautes qui migreront sur Bing, le moteur de recherche de Microsoft.

Notons cependant que la rentabilité de Google ne se fait pas principalement avec les sites d’information comme le souligne la direction de Google “Economiquement, ça ne représente pas une grosse partie de la façon dont nous gagnons de l’argent”, en évoquant le sujet de la valeur ajoutée apportée par le référencement des articles de presse. En effet, la rentabilité de Google provient en majorité du pourcentage des recettes publicitaires qu’il reverse aux sites web partenaires appelé le « cout d’acquisition du trafic » (ce coût représentait 5,9 milliards de dollars, soit 28% du chiffre d’affaires de Google en 2008.). De plus, le moteur de recherche n°1 souligne que tout journal est libre de ne plus apparaître sur Google Actualités ni même, s’il le souhaite, dans le répertoire général du moteur de recherche. Cependant, il rappelle également qu’il envoie 100.000 internautes par minute vers les sites d’information. Qui voudrait s’en priver ?

L’unique site qui a réussi jusqu’à maintenant à se faire payer pour donner accès à son contenu c’est Twitter, grâce à l’exclusivité que représente ses tweets. Or, ce qui marche pour Twitter ne marche pas forcément pour les sites d’information puisqu’une information exclusive a une durée de vie de 30 secondes sur le web, souligne TechCrunch. Cela remet donc en partie en cause l’efficacité de la stratégie de Microsoft.

Attendons désormais de connaître la réponse de Google, qui représentera un grand changement du web si celui-ci refuse de payer pour publier le contenu des sites d’information de Rupert Murdoch. Cependant, est ce qu’un déréférencement de Google empêchera vraiment une information de ne pas retomber dans les résultats de recherche de celui-ci ?

Microsoft ferait mieux de se concentrer sur la qualité de ces résultats de recherche pour combattre son concurrent plutôt que de payer des sites afin de réduire le contenu de Google.

Sources : e24.fr ; france-info.com

Según el artículo publicado el 23/11/09 por el periódico El país de Barcelona España:

‘’Microsoft y Rupert Murdoch, presidente del conglomerado de medios News Corporation, negocian una posible alianza que supondría la retirada de los diarios de Murdoch de las búsquedas de Google. El buscador de Microsoft, Bing, pagaría a la compañía por ofrecerlos en exclusiva, según el diario Financial Times”.

Murdoch ha afirmado en diversas ocasiones que le interesaría que  los internauticas pagaran por acceder a sus noticias. Posteriormente acusa a la compañía Google de hacer negoción con el contenidos sin compensa.

Por lo cual Microsoft ha hablado también se ha comunicado con otros editores vía online sobre su retirada de Google.

Google aseguro  que su modelo de negocio no se basa en la búsqueda de noticias, en Europa, sin publicidad.

En la semana pasa Murdoch anuncio que The Times cerraría el acceso abierto para el próximo año.

De concretarse el acuerdo por parte de Bing, en el mundo de búsquedas se cobrara por hacerlo. ‘’En octubre, Google recibía el 65,4% de las peticiones de búsqueda en Estados Unidos mientras que Bing tenía una cuota del 9,9%”.

En de la ABC.ES (periódico digital líder en España, ofrece noticias en español sobre el país y el resto del mundo) se publico un nuevo artículo el 25/11/09; que redacta que mas  periódicos se suman a la cruzada de Murdoch contra Google, el cual lleva este mismo título (el articulo).

Según lo redactado en el mismo; los editores del Denver y del Dallas Morning News habían anunciado también  al magnages del News Corparation. Que Bloquearían el acceso de estos en los buscadores de Google.

La noticia ha provocado una serie de conjeturas y diagnostico sobre el problema que enfrenta Murdoch ante Google. Entre algunas de las opiniones “se vaticinan que bloqueando el acceso a su contenidos del primer buscador de Internet del mundo, los periódicos pueden perder clientela”. Debido  a que el público puede reaccionar ante el mercado publicitario negativamente y simplemente acaparar su audiencia en otros editores más accesible, es decir sin prohibición de acceso.

Pero le reitero que esto aún está por verse ya que la polémica de estas discusiones entre periódicos y editores; todavía esta manejándose en la palestra. Sin embargo, como  es lo habitual cada parte manipulara su información ante la audiencia para atraer consigo el publico a su favor.

Mientras tanto les dejo con los tres artículos encontrados que pienso les ayudaran a corroborar mejor opinión al respecto:

El artículo original publicado el  el 23/11/09 por el periódico El país de Barcelona España; bajo el nombre ‘’ Murdoch negocia un pacto con Microsoft para vaciar Google de sus contenidos’’:

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/tecnologia/Murdoch/negocia/pacto/Microsoft/vaciar/Google/contenidos/elpeputec/20091123elpeputec_9/Tes

El articulo por la ABC.ES periódico digital líder en España, ofrece noticias en español sobre el país y el resto del mundo) se publico un nuevo artículo el 25/11/09; bajo el titulo ‘’ Mas periódicos se suman a la cruzada de Murdoch  contra Google:

http://www.abc.es/20091125/medios-redes-digitales/periodicos-suman-cruzada-murdoch-200911251913.html

El tercer articulo por la ABC.ES también; bajo el titulo ‘’Lo que perderá Murdoch si se alia con Microsoft”:

http://www.abc.es/20091124/medios-redes-digitales/bing-murdoch-200911241028.html

El último artículo mencionado le proveerá de una grafica promedio de la cuota de mercado de Bing debajo de la de Google .Redactando también las perdidas y riesgos a que se exponen los editores al abandonar Google.  

Para más Información:

Sobre la página Web del diario Financial Times acceder:

http://www.ft.com/home/us

Sobre News Corporation su página oficial:

http://www.newscorp.com/operations/newspapers.html

A couple of days ago, the Financial Times reported that News Corp might strike a deal with Microsoft and de-index its news websites from Google.  I’m in the news business myself (as a programmer-journalist with two #1 paid iPhone (news) apps) and I’m also an avid consumer (who has a daily subscription to two (printed) newspapers and reads several news websites). From that perspective, I think that this is an interesting business plan, but that it will inconvenience some search-engine users.

I’m not sure how effectively the proposed plan will help News Corp’s goal of creating a “market place for digital journalism”. However, some of the reactions to this news were over the top. As an example, there was a call to boycott Bing and News Corp (I found out about it through a retweet that went to more than a 100,000 people). Several others have been critical of the plan and suggested that News Corp’s move goes against the “share with each other” culture of the internet and that News Corp is trying to control the flow of news and that it is wrong for News Corp and Microsoft to negotiate a pact that restricts access to news.

While the marginal costs of distributing news over the internet to an individual user are low (and somewhat close to zero), the costs of setting up and running a news organization are not zero (especially if you’re going to investigate corruption in Washington or report on atrocities in Congo or the war in Afghanisthan). So it seems fair to stipulate that journalists and publishers should be compensated for their work and that producers aren’t required to provide “free” services to consumers.

Then the question becomes one of how the news industry should make money online. Many critics would say that the news should be available “free” to consumers and that a third party (“advertisers”) should pay the producers. I think this is a good business model for many news websites. As an example, one of our company’s proposed product plans is to build a mobile-news platform that newspapers can use to publish their news on the iPhone (and other mobile devices). The free-with-ads model will be best suited for most newspapers who wish to use our platform.

However, the critics are wrong in asserting that free-with-ads should be the only revenue model for news publishers. From a business standpoint, Christoper Kimball (in a recent op-ed ) made the case for a 100% subscriber-financed model by pointing to the demise of Gourmet and the success of Cook’s. It is perfectly legitimate for news publishers to offer services with a paywall through a website. It is equally legitimate for a news publisher to choose one particular search engine as their search-distribution-channel  and get payments through that distribution channel.  

Critics can still make the argument that (because of the abundance of news content) a NewsCorp/Bing partnership will harm News Corp by reducing its page-views and its ad-revenues. However, News Corp is obviously better placed to decide whether or not increased revenues from the Bing partnership outweigh the impact of reduced ad revenues. They can also consider whether or not a paid-website (getting money directly from users) is better than both the free-with-ads model and the exclusive-search-engine model. Attempting to coerce news organizations into adopting a ad-based revenue model by calling for a boycott isn’t right.

Critics can also question how effective the “de-indexing” will be and whether search engines will find other ways to link to this content (e.g. though a third party website that links to individual WSJ news items).

Critics can make the argument that a Bing/NewsCorp partnership may set a precendent and that other news organizations may also close their content to some search engines. I’m sympathetic to this argument and believe that news consumers will be inconvenienced by not having a single index or search engine for the web. However, I also recognize that there is no such thing as a free lunch and I would rather have quality newspapers survive than have a single web index without quality newspapers. If critics believe in the abundance of content and see news as a commodity, they shouldn’t really be concerned about the inability to find some of this content through a search engine.

There are far more serious issues around search engines and around search news organizations. As an example, major search engines (Google, Bing. Yahoo etc.) have all agreed to obey the Chinese government and censor search results on a wide range of topics ranging from Tibet to Tiannamen Square. A few years ago, they all defended it on the grounds that obeying the Chinese government was the only way for them to operate in China and that operating in China was more important than principles against censoring news. Very few people hold the search engines to account on the censoring. A few months ago, the Washington Post got into trouble over its plan to sell access to its journalists and to administration officials for $25K-$250K. Ironically, a health-care lobbyist felt that it was incorrect for the Washington Post to sell access to its “Health-care reporting and editorial staff members” and reported it to other media outlets. Shortly thereafter, Marcus Brauchli (executive editor at the Post) released a memo stating that their news-division was unaware of the dinner “flyer” and that the language in the Post’s flyer precluded their participation because “Our independence from advertisers or sponsors is inviolable”. Ultimately, the Washington Post had to cancel that particular dinner, but questions around conflict-of-interests exist for many news organizations.

There are real issues around ethics that we need to watch for in search engines and in news organizations. Search-engine exclusivity isn’t in the same league as those issues. I recognize that this is an unpopular position, but I’ll say that that it is a legitimate business plan for news organizations (though I’m not sure how effective it will be). The news industry and its consumers will be better off if we focus on real,critical issues and not on issuing calls to boycott news organizations because of revenue-plans around search-engine exclusivity.

While monopoly media power has to be curbed, it is also imperative that Government also ensures that it does not interfere.But this is followed more in the breach.
Story:
The BBC has been holding discussions with City advisers about floating part of BBC Worldwide, its commercial arm, in response to pressure from the government and commercial rivals to dilute its media market power.

As Sir Michael Lyons, chairman of the BBC Trust, told the Financial Times on Tuesday that he had “an open mind” about the future ownership of Worldwide, people with knowledge of the matter said a partial flotation was one of several possible outcomes, including no change to its status.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e5f8c2b8-d93c-11de-b2d5-00144feabdc0.html

For a good update and analysis of the lead-in to the Copenhagen conference, and with respect to the work done by the World Bank, see www.ft.com/green-technology-2009  especially November 24, 2009.

Presa internațională analizează rezultatele alegerilor prezidențiale din România, prestația candidaților dar și impactul scrutinului asupra situației economice a țării.

„Dacă Băsescu câștigă în decembrie, va urmări mai mult ca sigur formarea unui guvern care va conduce la niște reforme fiscale dureroase” titrează Deutsch Welle. Jurnaliștii germani menționează de asemenea că analiștii consideră formarea rapidă a unui guvern necesară în România ca și membră a Uniunii Europene.

Ziariștii francezi de la publicația Le Monde apreciază că votul va reuși să limpezească peisajul politic al României și va reda țării elanul pentru reforme care se află în acest moment într-un punct mort.

Publicația Financial Times expune faptul că „viitorul președinte al țării va avea o influență redusă asupra politicilor financiare extrem de necesare țării.”

L’accordo con Microsoft per far fuori Google. Tattica o strategia?

Cliccando sull’immagine è possibile, se d’interesse, proseguire la lettura sulla “saga” che anima il mondo internazionale dell’editoria.

Microsoft is holding talks with News Corporation and other media-companies to convince them to remove their news content from the Google search engine while continuing to feature their material on the Microsoft search engine. One source told the Financial Times that this initiative had originated with Keith Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. and that talks are in their initial stages. News Corp and Microsoft representatives refused to comment.

A Microsoft tem mantido negociações com a News Corp sobre uma aliança que faria o império mundial de mídia ser pago para tirar seus sites de notícias do Google, informou uma fonte próxima do assunto no domingo (22).

A News Corp, que controla jornais como o “Wall Street Journal” e o “Sun”, iniciou as negociações, e as conversas estão em um estágio preliminar, informou a fonte.

O presidente-executivo da News Corp, Rupert Murdoch, tem afirmado que quer fazer as pessoas pagarem para ter acesso aos sites de jornais de seu grupo. Outras publicações que incluem o “New York Times” também estão buscando maneiras de cobrar por seu conteúdo, convencidas de que não devem entregar as notícias via mecanismos de busca como Google e Yahoo.

A Microsoft também tem conversado com outras empresas de comunicação sobre a remoção de seus sites do Google, segundo publicou o “Financial Times”.

“Isso se trata da Microsoft atingindo as margens do Google”, publicou o “Financial Times” citando um editor que foi contatado pela gigante de software.

A Microsoft, que relançou seu mecanismo de busca Bing este ano, está buscando maneiras de desafiar o Google no segmento.

Representantes da Microsoft não puderam ser contatados pela Reuters para comentar o assunto no domingo. A News Corp não fez declarações.

Fonte: Reuters

It’s late on Sunday Night in the US but once again the lights are burning bright after the Financial Times published the “breaking story” that Microsoft and News Corp are eyeing a web pact in which they quote Steve Ballmer, chief executive of Microsoft, as saying that “the company is prepared to spend heavily for many years to make Bing a serious rival to Google”.

They also quote James Murdoch: “We think that there’s … potentially a wholesale market place for digital journalism”

The article was supported by John Gapper’s piece on Murdoch barters Google links for Microsoft cash in which he suggests that Murdoch “has looked at the figures and decided that Google traffic is not worth very much“.

This “breaking news” story from the Financial Times is of course the latest piece of the puzzle first canvassed by Mike Butcher in Microsoft woos newspapers by funding their stick to beat Google .

In response TechCrunch’s Erik Schonfeld suggests that Microsoft “is literally trying to buy the news, or at least exclusive access to the news.”

Meanwhile the SMH, Business Insider, The New York Times and paidcontent.org have all posted similar articles based on the “Microsoft is now in the business of buying the scoop“  theme of the Financial Times article.

From what I have read so far it looks like most commentators are getting a little tired of the subject. Last weeks analysis was far more informative, incisive and diverse. I guess everyone is looking for a bit more action and a little less rhetoric on the subject from both News Corp and Microsoft.

Having said that I have found one interesting piece by Danny Sullivan, the editor-in-chief of Search Engine Land. Latching onto  the idea of the “wholesale market place for digital journalism” he thinks that Ideally, what the AP or Murdoch want is an OPEC for news. A consortium of digital publishers who control the online news pipeline.

Admittedly, he acknowledges, in both this article and in a separate piece, that the strategy doesn’t makes much sense as Hitwise put Google News at 1% of Google’s overall traffic but perhaps it does provide us with some additional insight into the ideas that are driving News Corp’s hard-line position with Google.

Having already canvassed all the permutations in my previous efforts I have little more to add to the discussion at this time.

• What’s on the News Corp Radar?
• If you think the internet is responsible for the decline in newspapers you are wrong
• Why newspapers need to get sticky
• Farewell to the Ribbons of Gold
• If Rupert Murdoch does build a Pay Wall will anyone want to play in his garden? 
• While Google and Apple sail off into the sunset, News Corp and Microsoft walk hand in hand down the boulevard of broken dreams.
• More speculation on what life may be like on the Boulevard of Broken Dreams
• News junkie or the future of journalism?

Other than to suggest you take a look at Scott Karp’s earlier piece on Content Doesn’t Matter Without the Package.

For the Financial Times
Published: November 13 2009 23:56 | Last updated: November 13 2009 23:56

Hands-on design
A new exhibition focuses on ergonomic design, from the humble tape measure to vast and complex transport systems. Ergonomics: Real Design celebrates the relationship between man and machine in an increasingly technological society. Interactive displays will demonstrate how the principles of ergonomic design are applied to create usable items, with prototypes and examples including a television remote control and the control room at Cern, the European nuclear research group. The exhibition, a collaboration between London’s Design Museum and Brunel University, is being staged to coincide with the 60th anniversary of the Ergonomics Society.

‘Ergonomics: Real Design’, Design Museum, London, November 18-March 7 2010, tel: +44 (0)20-7940 8790, www.designmuseum.org

First for art in UAE
Abu Dhabi Art is the first government-organised platform for modern and contemporary art in the United Arab Emirates. The weekend will run as a boutique-style art fair and will include five design workshops in collaboration with Germany’s Vitra Design Museum. Attendees can participate in day-long events exploring contemporary design methods. Furniture designers Huda Baroudi and Maria Hibri of Bokja Design, Lebanon, will also participate as part of a presentation dubbed “Design Movement”.

Abu Dhabi Art, Emirates Palace, Abu Dhabi, UAE, November 19-22, tel: +971 2-406 1501, www.abudhabiartfair.ae

A winter’s sale
Now in its 17th year, the Winter Fine Art and Antiques Fair attracts 20,000 visitors and about 150 exhibitors to Olympia, west London, each November. With exhibitors approved by a panel of experts and official advisers on hand throughout, experienced and new collectors alike can buy with confidence. The weekend will offer an array of investment opportunities in reputable names such as Chippendale, Cartier, William de Morgan and Fornasetti.

The Winter Fine Art and Antiques Fair, Olympia, London, November 16-22, tel: +44 (0)871-230 5592, www.olympia-antiques.com

Today (technically, yesterday) I ran into www.FTOpinion.com, which seems to have been set up by Wijeya Newspapers Ltd, the publisher of The Daily Mirror and it’s Financial Times supplement. They’re on a mission of their own to gather public opinion about FT going solo as an independent standalone newspaper, rather than playing baggage to the Daily Mirror itself.

To me, it seemed very Interesting to note that the publisher has utilised, or at least shown some interest in leveraging social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter (@ftsrilanka) and a web-based forum to achieve its objective.

In short, they seem to be showing some serious consideration to social media, which is relatively new among the critical mass in this part of the world. I think it’d be fair to assume FT to be among the first major Sri Lankan brands to embrace social media in a fairly serious manner. This is in no way to say that consumers in Sri Lanka are new to the concepts of SM. In fact, they’ve done it pretty well, despite the lack of business/commercial push, that is until now. FT just seems to be among the first few to tap into this potential gold mine of opinions.. Which makes me wonder how many more businesses or brands will now follow suite…

It would be interesting to watch how FT’s efforts materialize into conversations and ultimately a follower-base for the brand. Most importantly, I’d love to see how they would apply the feedback they receive towards their product.. (which is ultimately what a brand leveraging SM would be expected to do, right?)

Let’s wait and see..

Watch my tweets for more on this. Thank you for following!

ih

(Written off my phone while trying to doze off… Please excuse the grammar or spelling errors, as there would be many…while at the same time, if you’ve reached this far into reading, please share your views about Sri Lanka and its Social Media space. Thanks!)

Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan was recently voted Europe’s worst finance minister. A variety of factors had been taken into account in forming a performance table for the EU ministers for finance. However, it is claimed the overriding reason that Minister Lenihan is languishing at the bottom of the table is due to his disruptive nature. His recent behaviour has caused a great deal of concern for those close to him.

Sources close to the Minister expressed concern when Mr. Lenihan was spotted out with a number of friends in his local pub; He came under criticism as the father of one of his friends holds a position in a bank. The Minister was later seen ‘shamelessly’ withdrawing cash from an ATM, and it is claimed he’s setting a bad example for other finance ministers, and shouldn’t be allowed to hang around with them anymore. Peer Steinbrück The German Minister for Finance was recently caught smoking by his wife and it is claimed that he just wanted to fit in with Brian Lenihan and his friends.

His reputation had plunged to even further depths when he was overheard in Leinster House ‘giving cheek to the Taoiseach’. Mr. Lenihan was also criticised in the Daíl Chambers by the opposition when it was revealed in his expenses the purchase of a James Dean box set and a leather jacket. The Minister was unavailable for comment this afternoon as he was sulking in his office. When contacted by Not the News Ireland Mrs. Lenihan agreed that ‘swift action must be taken’ and also stated that she was entirely unaware of her husband’s behaviour. Mrs Lenihan stated furthermore that ‘Brian will be dealt with sternly when he gets home’.

Vice Magazine covers music, fashion and current affairs with a unique, countercultural style and deadpan, sarcastic tone that offends at least as many people as it attracts. The company has always been marked by an anti-establishment approach that has infused its editorial and business approach. Vice Magazine specializes as a giveaway magazine but only in the coolest of downtown settings internationally. It’s “underground” appeal is what makes its success that much more interesting in light of whats going on in publishing industry today with decline in advertising and lost profits. Advertisers have been drawn to Vice precisely because of this countercultural attitude combined with its street-style identity, access to the latest trends and influential readership. Indeed, even in the recession, Vice has continued to maintain its premium rates across its range of advertising formats. According to the Financial Times, Vice expects to increase revenues across the whole business from $45m in 2008 to $64m in 2009, with earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation up from $11.4m to $16.7m.

The company has been careful to nurture this audience by never moving to the newsstand and continues to hand-pick each store that carries copies of its magazine to make sure it reaches the right kind of readers. These are students, hipsters and early adopters, Vice says, with money and influence not just on fashion and culture but broader social issues like the environment and politics. Next year, Vice will launch new branded content “verticals” or channels in non-core sectors solely at the behest of advertisers, including sports, music and news.

(Matéria em destaque no Informativo Semanal que chega esta quinta-feira, 19/11, nas caixas de entrada dos clientes Gradual)

O Brasil está na capa das revistas internacionais de economia como um bom exemplo para o mundo. Como você se sente em relação a isso?

A revista The Economist que tem data de capa 14 de novembro de 2009 entrou para a história. Pelo menos, para a história sentimental dos brasileiros. Poucas vezes na história, uma publicação deixou tão orgulhosa uma nação inteira. À capa, de rara felicidade, juntou-se um texto que diz com todas as letras que deixamos de ser apenas promessas para começar a entregar. Leia mais…

Il caso più eclatante di crisi economica: il fallimento dell’Islanda.
O meglio, il rischio di default, se non fosse intervenuto su richiesta del Paese il Fondo Monetario Internazionale, ad erogare un debito che sarà ripagato negli anni futuri.

Come sta andando l’inchiesta? E cosa comporta in realtà?
Partendo da quest’ultima domanda, come riporta un’indagine del Financial Times, si tratta della più grande investigazione nel crimine dei colletti bianchi mai fatta. Se avrà successo. Se fallirà invece, ci sarà da chiedersi se qualsiasi persona sia in grado di perseguire questi nuovi tipi di crimini finanziari. E se i paradisi fiscali, da cui dipendono, possano resistere a uno scrutinio da parte delle autorità giudiziarie.

In realtà nessuno sa con certezza quanto l’inchiesta possa essere vasta e ramificata. Gli intrecci finanziari si estendono sul globo intero.

Negli anni prima della crisi, l’Islanda si era trasformata in un centro finanziario internazionale. L’inchiesta si sta focalizzando su un punto: se il mercato abbia inflazionato il bilancio bancario islandese  fino a 10 volte la dimensione del PIL del Paese, mentre l’agenzia che lo stilava favoriva credito facile agli azionisti più grandi e a clienti esteri preferiti. In realtà come molti economisti hanno affermato a più riprese, l’origine della crisi non è stata la finanza di per se stessa, ma l’avidità che proviene da Wall Street e dalla City di Londra.

Tornando alla prima origianaria domanda, più di 40 sospetti criminali sono indagati, ma non sono state fatte ancora le accuse e nessun individuo è formalmente dichiarato indagato. Anche se sembra che niente si muova, in realtà l’indagine sta proseguendo, appunto per le varie ramificazioni. Un aiuto procuratore giunto dalla Francia, Joly, afferma: “E’ molto importante non proseguire finché non si ha la visione più completa”.
Il primo capo d’accusa si prevede che sarà dichiarato per la fine dell’anno prossimo, ma si pensa che l’intero processo durerà cinque anni. “E’ una cosa immensa. Riguarderà altre banche europee”, dichiara Joly, “dimostrerà che ciò che è accaduto in Islanda non è solo un problema islandese”.