Comments on: Freudenstein: ABC boss Scott’s paid content claims are laughably inaccurate

By: Warlach

Warlach — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 02:49:19 +0000

Just what we need… more business models built like the bottled water industry

By: Kimota

Kimota — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 02:10:07 +0000

It’s a muddy debate – no doubt about that, but the attempts by Freudenstein to belittle Scott’s “ABC content is free” argument do seem like a stretch.

Sure, the ABC is government funded. Sure I pay my taxes. And yes, I access the ABC website. But that does not mean I paid for the content any more than me buying a coke means I paid for the News website when a Coke advert appears on it. Indirectly, money ends up flowing through, but it’s wrong to directly link the performance of one to the payment of another.

Of course a plurality of voices should exist as well. I don’t think anyone’s arguing against that. But putting up a paywall actually hampers that plurality. Fewer people will have access to that particular voice and will default to the free alternatives – one of which will be the ABC.

If Freudenstein is pulling a James Murdoch and advocating the government restrict the ABC’s ability to provide free content so as to allow paid competition in this space, then a real argument is about to kick off!

By: Aaron

Aaron — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:47:40 +0000

Just what we need … more social networks.

By: Chris Walton

Chris Walton — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:08:47 +0000

There is alot of grandstanding by people stating they will never pay for news content and will happily source it for free from wherever they can. That may be so, but that is not to say there is not a sustainable (and profitable) business model in selling news content. I am interested to see the details before forming a view.
And for those of you that say it simply won’t work on the grounds that you can’t make people pay for something that once was free, go and have a word with the chaps in the bottled water industry.