Rupert Murdoch and Micropayments, a Futurology

Let me begin by apologising unreservedly for having no cartoons and illustrations here, there will be lots on the next post, to compensate; promise.

Rupert Murdoch is launching a pay-for-view model for all his newspapers, over the next few months. For me, and for many other magazine cartoonists and syndicated strip producers, it looks like an inevitable step forward, and I would imagine that particular paradigm is the way of the future. At least it is if the pay-for-view method is intended as a business-model, and not simply as a tactic employed to drive people away from the web and back to newsprint.

Of course we won't know how it will play out at first, because in order for this pay-for-view paradigm to be seen to its best effect, or its worst, every other online-newspaper has to follow suit. As Andrew Neil, a former editor of The Sunday Times, has pointed out, it is a good idea "that will work better if all the main competitors do it". That is, of course, the rub, if all the other "main competitors" do follow suit, then that at least throws up the possibility that this business model could be used as a method of coercing people back to buying print newspapers; if those newspapers were considerably cheaper than the cost of reading online. Not that I think that is the Murdoch plan, mind you, because Mister Murdoch has had a team looking at the viability of this business model for more than a year.

So, what might this mean for online newspapers? Well, that depends on what you think a newspaper is. I prefer to stick to Noam Chomsky's definition of a newspaper as 'a device to sell customers to advertisers'. It is a definition that holds true and is best illustrated with the phenomenon of the 'free newspaper', a newspaper that costs the reader nothing to buy, and is paid for by the vast amount of advertising it carries. Newspapers that are not free are simply a more refined, more demographically-targeted, and less scatter-gun, version of the same.

The Guardian online, and The Times online, and the Sun online, will all attempt to sell their usual clearly-defined demographically-pigeon-holed consumers to the advertisers they will attempt to attract to their sites - advertisers who have, bear in mind, partly as a result of the recession, stopped buying space in the print editions of these papers. So how will they do it, how will they attract the readers they need to attract the advertisers they want?

You know, this is not an easy question for the papers to answer. It used to be. If you had to picture a typical city worker, a decade or so ago, dressed in pinstripes and brogues, carrying a newspaper under his arm, you wouldn't imagine the Sun being tucked under there. You would picture a broadsheet, and the particular broadsheet might depend on his political point of view, with the more liberal reader carrying the Guardian. It was, as much as the tie they wore and whether or not their hat was worn at a rakish angle, part of their uniform, a signifier of the tribe to which they belonged. I did it myself, on the way to catch my train every day, I picked up my extended uniform of a Coke and a Guardian. On some days I had a migraine and I knew I wouldn't be reading the paper that day, but I still went ahead and bought it anyway. It was so much a part of me, that if I was racing for my train the newsagent at the station just threw my paper to me, and collected the payment the following day.

Today though, picturing the newspaper the worker surfing at home might virtually tuck under that arm, is fraught with difficulties. That percentage of the readership that collected its paper to brandish like a self-defining badge, no longer needs to do so. At home, no one can see you read, and you can get the same news from a different, a cheaper, and even a free-source of news gathering. Bear in mind that for decades now these same people have been consuming The News of the World on the QT; reading online means they no longer have to buy a broadsheet to wrap around and hide the newspaper they really want to read. It would seem though, that Rupert Murdoch's futurologists have anticipated this problem, and as a result many news items, those that are simple reportage of events, without any editorial filter or slant, will be free. It is the more 'in -depth' or specialist items, and the info' and entertainment that will be pay-for-view.

This focus on specialist items is the area that should be of most interest for cartoonists, because it means that for a newspaper to survive, and especially to prosper, it needs to house exclusive content that the reader will not mind paying for. It is unlikely that the reader will want to shell-out for 'generic', ubiquitous, comic strips like Garfield, because the reader who wants to read Garfield can get Garfield from the cheapest online source. And, with the exception of a timely Halloween or Xmas storyline, it really doesn't matter if you read Garfield's adventure today, for a penny, or with a one week delay, for free. The smart online-publications will surely realise that with every online-publication carrying the same news items, and the same gossip, the same sports features, and the same comic strips, the only way they can proclaim any individuality, that will encourage the reader to choose them, is the amount of exclusive content they provide. So, star columnists will feature heavily in the new online-publications, and so too, if the newspaper's have any sense, will exclusive comic strips and cartoons.

However, there is a danger that for two reasons the online-publications will simply be a PDF version of their counterpart in print. The first reason would be that some publishers will attempt to pay the contributors no extra payment because it is simply an exact copy of the print publication, and the second is that the people behind the online-publications are trapped in a particular mindset that imagines news in only one fixed format. Simply putting a print publication online and then tacking a comments box onto a page does not 're-imagine' the newspaper as we know it.

It is probably time for a radical rethink about what a newspaper can be, and to be honest I can't think of anyone better placed than Rupert Murdoch to define the possibilities. The Murdoch organisation has the resources, and can place news feeds, live reports, and even animation on its sites. It is probably true that the old static magazine cartoon and editorial cartoon and single-column cartoon and comic strip will have to become something else, something closer to animation, or they will cease to have a platform. If that is the case then we cartoonists will have to be prepared to meet the challenge.

To be honest I had always envisaged a publication that the advertisers would hate, if they had to advertise in it, because it wouldn't exist, except in my head. I had always figured I would mix and match my own perfect newspaper, with articles by Charlie Brooker (it is damning him with faint praise to say his writing is better than his cartooning - but it is so much better) and Caitlin Moran on modern culture, Anthony Horowitz on literature, Mathew Parris on politics and current affairs, and a comic strip series like those run recently by the New York Times (Chris Ware, Jaime Hernandez, Megan Kelso, et al), but with comics by British cartoonists, or to be more precise, by me. Of course it would not be impossible to make a pick-n-mix publication because the advertisers could target me, the empirical me, not the virtual me, me the individual, not the publication. It is coming I suppose.

Rod McKie, futurologist.

Addendum:

It has been pointed out to me by literally hundreds of people (see earlier posts to discover exactly what that means) that I have not been as transparent as I might have been, so I'll summarise:

I see pay-for-view as an opportunity for local cartoonists in markets that have previously stopped taking cartoons or have used only syndicated work in the past. There will also still be a demand for syndicated work, though.

The paper I have always imagined allows me to 'create' my own personal publication at the point of sale. Instead of subscribing to 'The Times online', I subscribe to 'News Group' and within certain parameters I create my own newspaper with a section from here and a section from there, and featuring the contributors I want to read. And it had better have a good comics section. It is my own personal publication, so the adverts that will tag along with it help to profile me. That's the price I pay for being able to compose my own publication.

In addition, it may be that I, and the other readers who create and Arts and Media publications similar to mine, create a demand for some columnists and a lack of demand for others, even some from rival publications, so News Group can either syndicate in their material, or pay them to create more.

I suppose it goes without saying that if I don't get a good comics section and much as I love Peanuts I'm not including that, or Garfield, in mine; then I just won't be subscribing. And if we are simply talking about a PDF of a print publication, you can forget it - the www deserves better than that.

Dear God, Look at that Photo.

Over there, on the profile. Ye Gods! I usually avoid any recent photos, I haven't taken a good photo in years. But that Wilbur wanted me to put my goatee out there after I told Steve Bright that he and I were sort of generic-looking cartoonists with our goatees and our specs, and I did it as a sort of madcap show of solidarity - and also because I claimed my goatee was really distinguished. But it was late and I had the lights turned down and then I fired the camera at me; and well, it's hard to believe, but that is the best photo of the three I took. Nightmare! As Nigel Sutherland kindly pointed out I have little piggy eyes in that photo - well actually I have little piggy eyes all the time, what can you do?


Actually, I wanted two things while I was growing up, I wanted a round window, like Doctor Strange's window, and I wanted gray hair at the sides, like Doctor Strange. I mean I also wanted to be able to do all the magic and stuff, but I wanted the gray hair more. Well, I've got it now - two out of three ain't bad.

Not To Do List:

I swore I would stop watching TV ahead of schedule after I raced ahead with Dexter Season 2, but I didn't. I've watched Weeds Season 3, (Did you know that cartoonist Tony Millionaire's wife is one of the stars of Weeds? She's really good, very funny) which has the greatest season finale in TV history, and 4 now, which is anti-climactic, but then how could any ending compete with the ending of season 3? And I've seen the Dexter Season 3 preair because I couldn't resist it. I'm really annoyed with myself for doing this. It's just that I really want to see the things and they get here so late, you know, we could all be dead by then.

I've been a Mary-Louise Parker fan for ages. I've admitted that I watch chick-flicks and I have a copy of Fried Green Tomatoes, but whilst I like her performance in Boys on the Side, it's a very sad movie and doesn't work as a background piece while I work. She is utterly fantastic in Weeds and it's such a sustained performance over all those hours. Actually the entire cast is brilliant.

Oh here's a to-do, it is 1.10 am and the pea-brained morons working on Fettes Prep school are using a buzz saw. If they are lucky the police will get to them before I do. This is the front of Fettes, the half-wits are working on the Prep-school round the back. The fictional James Bond went to Fettes and the non-fictional Tony Blair did too. I think the people who refer to it as 'the rich mans list D' are just unkind. Hopefully the students have better manners than their ignorant parents who think they can park wherever they wish - they are the most ghastly people. If this night-time nonsense keeps up I'm going to knock-up the Bursar wearing my jimjams and bellow, 'shut the fuck up - I'm on night shift'.



Oh yeah, do something about My Life as a Life Obstacle. Hmmn, I'm kind of bored with it, but it's a weekly so it won't kill me. I actually have a real strip, just about finished. By which I mean I've done the first 50 strips and I've inked the first 24 of those. I don't know what I'll do with it. I may go the conventional route because I think it is really good - much to my surprise. I say that because I didn't plan it out at all, I just sat down and started drawing in. Hmmm.


Oh, and King of the Hill. Comedy genius, brilliant, fantastic, suuuper. I buy the box sets over here but we are at season 4 or 5 or something. I've been watching season 12, it's funnier than ever. It has to be one of the best things on TV and there is some stiff competition.


And then there's the BBC series, Pulling. You know, I've been watching the entire thing again and they are all completely awful people. The series is utterly brilliant. They are frighteningly real and way, way too convincing as drunks. It was co-written by Sharon Horgan and Dennis Kelly and stars Sharon Horgan as Donna, Tanya Franks as Karen, Rebekah Staton as Louise and Cavan Clerkin as Karl. Can't wait for season 3.

Before I forget, yesterday's Times had a couple of articles that caught my eye, one was about University students being "taught to get up in the morning". Give Students Lessons on how to get up in the Morning, Business tells Universities, by Times Education Editor, Alexandra Frean; Sounds daft, right? It's not, I went to University 40 miles away from my home and it cost me more than it should have in terms of time, sleep, energy, and, importantly, money, because the majority of students are lazy bastards and the staff of my university in particular, Stirling, were thick. Here's what used to happen when you signed up for classes, you added your name to the note on the tutor's door, and of course the first names on the list were the people who stayed on campus, and the people who stayed on campus avoided ALL the EARLY classes - except on Fridays. If they had to turn up on Friday, they took the earliest classes, so they could get drunk sooner. People like me, who chose not to live on campus, had to attend all the 9am classes which meant getting into Stirling Town in time for 8ish, which meant getting, at the latest, a 7.30am train, which meant having to pay the most expensive train-fare and not the reduced cost for travelling after the 7am to 9am peak period. And on Friday, well on Friday's people like me had to attend the latest classes on offer.

Stirling University is probably one of many that unfairly favours resident students by its policy of a free-for-all when it comes to attending classes.

So here is a thought. The students who have to travel to University and not just fall out of bed and roll into a classroom should get to join up for classes first and the students who live minutes away from the classrooms should get second dibs, and should be "encouraged" to attend the morning classes. I mean its not rocket science, if you spend 4 years avoiding getting up in time for 9am classes actually having to get out of bed at 6am will be a bit of a culture shock.

The only time the lazy shits are "expected" to get out of bed is for exams and of course they also get unfairly advantaged on those days because while the travelling students are jammed-up on peak-hour trains and buses, the campus sloths are getting extra cramming time. To say the University staff were always unsympathetic and unhelpful would be an understatement. Honest to God, the lunatics are running the asylum. I can't link to the article because the Times online search engine is useless.

The other article was a paragraph by Mathew Parris from his My Week column (I can't believe it, I'm on to the cartooning part at last) where he talks about the 5am fire alarm that caused the Royal Bath Hotel to be evacuated at 5am on Monday morning. It's the Liberal Democrats conference of course, so the place is crawling with journalists and apparently the Times Editorial cartoonist Peter Brookes, who unlike the barefooted journalists and pyjama wearing hacks, Mathew spotted wearing a "theatrical black Fedora". Well, what the Editor of the paper should do is take that "theatrical black Fedora" from Peter Brookes head and thrash him soundly with it because his cartoon in yesterday's Times was pointless, lazy, unoriginal, uninspired and stupid - and frankly, a waste of paper. Again, I can't link to it because the searches don't make sense. Put it this way, it's not quite as bad as the Gordon Brown in a Damien Hirst fish tank cartoon that was so unoriginal that the Edinburgh Evening News's "cartoonist" Frank Boyle (very embarrassing work), and others, also used the same dull motif.