Will Consumers pay Murdoch's price?

"Although response is never likely to be positive to such a move, ultimately this could be of benefit to the consumer"

Rupert Murdoch's decision to charge for online content is certainly not one that has been welcomed by most web users. The move is being dubbed as a make or break strategy for the industry who can no longer rely on plummeting advertising revenues to run a productive service. The real problem Murdoch is facing is how to justify a fee for something that has been free since the dawn of online content. It is strange how people will happily give up 50p for a morning paper but react angrily to the same news carrying a charge elsewhere. It's still being produced at a cost, and you don't see Amazon giving away products for nothing just because they're online.

Although response is never likely to be positive to such a move, ultimately this could be of benefit to the consumer. With fees come a responsibility to produce quality and Murdoch has proven with Sky that people will happily pay for ground breaking concepts and ideas. It's exciting in a way to conjure the possibilities for online content with this format. Of course there will always be news available for free (just look at the BBC service) and News Corp is likely to lose readers who will prefer content to be priceless, but this gamble is bound to have casualties along the way.

The project, without question, is a game changer. For years, monetizing the web and it's huge wealth of potential consumers has stumped even the best of them. This change could have big repercussions for the entire structure of online content. Will it work? What is certain is that, with cost comes pressure to deliver, and a shift in power to a customer who wants personalization and news relevant to them. Companies such as Artesian are already proving that this is possible, so what seems like a gamble now, could end up being one of the business moves of the century.

Read Artesian CEO Andrew Yates' analysis on UTalkmarketing.com