Just Because TechCrunch Can Not Charge For Content Doesn’t Mean The WSJ Can’t
TechCrunch in their mind boggling large ego thinks Rupert Murdoch is crazy for taking on Google. The concept that everything must be free and instead rely upon an advertising model for all things web delivered is just a bi-product of liquidity. It makes financial pundits, who should know better, make less than intelligent statements.
There are so many companies with the free business model on the web that are supported SOLELY by equity funding. Just because someone can con another out of their money does not mean that their business model is solid.
The other phrase you hear from these self appointed geniuses is: "If Murdoch makes them pay for it, they'll just go somewhere else." Umm, if your product (in this case news) can be produced by anyone else for free, good luck staying in business. The Wall Street Journal actually has content that you can't get anywhere else and people (over a million) pay for it each year.
Bottom line: Just because the content that most people produce on the web has $0 value, doesn't mean that such content doesn't exist.
Share on Facebook