Tag: News Corp.

The Murdoch Factor in News Corp.’s Split Personality

Rupert Murdoch’s move to split News Corp. into entertainment and publishing businesses may unlock the value he seeks. But the big imponderable in that shift could be Murdoch himself and his tainted legacy, say Wharton management professors Lawrence Hrebiniak and John Kimberly.

“Murdoch overseeing both companies actually may be a drag on performance,” notes Hrebiniak. The phone hacking scandal involving News Corp.’s defunct newspaper, News of the World, and other group publications has “definitely hurt Murdoch’s image and perceived effectiveness as a leader,” he adds. The newspapers’ employees were accused of phone hacking and bribery in publishing stories between 2005 and 2007.

Hrebiniak says Murdoch’s “past mistakes still are fresh in many peoples’ minds.” He refers to criticism that News Corp. overpaid in its August 2007 purchase of Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones from the Bancroft family for $5 billion. “As head of both companies and CEO of the entertainment division, [Murdoch] could easily stifle and overwhelm the creative thinking, influence, and strategic autonomy of the chosen head of the publishing business when these capabilities or skills are most needed to turn the business around,” notes Hrebiniak. “Murdoch should take a step back and reduce his active management role.”

Murdoch could still oversee both businesses, Hrebiniak adds, but needs to appoint new CEOs for each of the two divisions, and become a hands-off executive. Those CEOs could then focus on strategic opportunities and challenges “with a fresh vision, without excessive Murdoch influence or interference.”

News Corp. also has to contend with the overhang of Murdoch’s legacy, and two key components of that are unclear, according to Kimberly. First, he wonders how history will view the man as a business leader given the stain of the hacking scandal and the questions it raised about Murdoch’s personal integrity. Second, how well would Murdoch’s empire fare once he is gone, Kimberly asks. “Arguably, the most important challenge facing any leader is building an organization that can thrive in his or her absence.”

The phone hacking scandal has “severely tarnished” Murdoch’s personal reputation, and its economic consequences will not be known for some time, Kimberly notes. The fallout from the incident also led Murdoch’s son and heir apparent James Murdoch to step down as chairman of British satellite and broadcasting company BSkyB (of which News Corp. owns a 39% equity stake) this past April.

Unshackled by the Murdoch style and legacy, News Corp.’s split will bring some obvious benefits, experts say. For one, it allows for separate strategic attention to the two very different businesses of entertainment and publishing. “Each business can focus more directly on its own industry forces, competitive problems and opportunities,” Hrebiniak says.

Hrebiniak also suggests that with a more sharply focused entertainment business after the split, Murdoch could revive his attempt to complete his ownership of BSkyB, which is the biggest pay TV broadcast company in the U.K. and Ireland. The phone hacking scandal forced Murdoch to withdraw his bid last year to buy the remaining equity in the firm. Hrebiniak points to the immediate increase in the stock value of both News Corp. and BSkyB shares after the split announcement as indicative of the value investors see in the move and what might follow.

But News Corp. still faces major challenges after the separation, which is expected to be formalized over the next year after regulatory approvals. Hrebiniak notes that not all of its entertainment businesses have high growth prospects and profitability. The company’s cable business is doing well — much better than broadcast and satellite TV. “But the split won’t guarantee increased growth and profitability for the entertainment side of the business; serious strategic and execution issues won’t be overcome automatically,” Hrebiniak says.

In steering the newly separate publishing business, News Corp. will need major efforts to reduce costs and avert further slippage in already thin profit margins, according to Hrebiniak. He doesn’t see that as an easy task, given the many competitive challenges to publishing.

The split, in fact, raises more questions about the future of News Corp.’s publishing business than the entertainment arm, according to Kimberly. He notes that the publishing business is the “historical core” of Murdoch’s empire, and that he is understandably very attached to it. “By spinning it off, and by painting an optimistic picture of its future, he is playing a very risky game,” says Kimberly. “If he wins, his judgment is vindicated and some reputational capital will be rebuilt. If he loses, he loses big.”

Featured Professors: ,
Posted in Knowledge@Wharton Today, Leadership and Change, Strategic Management | Also tagged | Leave a comment

Subscription Prescription: Who Will Pay — and How Much — for Online News?

On March 28, The New York Times launched its second online subscription model in nearly six years. And earlier this year, News Corp. launched a newspaper called The Daily, available exclusively on Apple’s iPad. The common thread between the two efforts: Both news giants are trying to test digital platforms, garner more subscription revenue and future-proof a content business that has been traditionally delivered via newsprint.

At issue is discovering the consumer threshold for paying for online news. “It’s an awkward period for content businesses,” says Kendall Whitehouse, director of new media at Wharton. “There’s the widespread notion that everything online has to be free, but that’s not sustainable. There has to be a way to pay for the work of professional journalists and photographers.”

What’s unclear is whether the Times‘s latest online subscription effort — the company tried charging readers in 2005 only to abandon the effort two years later — will prove to be a winner. News Corp., which owns The Wall Street Journal, knows the subscription model can work since WSJ.com has been a success for years. (According to paidContent.org, the Journal has 449,139 “e-edition” subscribers, including Kindle, app and online-only subscriptions — a 10% increase over last year.) However, some are perplexed by News Corp.’s decision to limit The Daily to one platform — the iPad — for now. “The Daily was a bad idea from the start,” says Wharton marketing professor Peter Fader. “The iPad’s penetration is tiny and consumers are used to a real-time news source. It would have made more sense to start on the web and have an iPad app, too.”

According to Fader and others, one thing The Daily does have going for it is its straightforward pricing structure: 99 cents a week, or $39.99 a year. Compare that with the Times‘s model, which charges $15 every four weeks, or $195 a year, for access to its website and smartphone app. For web and tablet access, it’s $20 every four weeks, or $260 a year. For access to all digital content, tablet, smartphone and web, the Times charges $35 every four weeks, or $455 a year.

Fader argues that the Times had a better model with its “TimesSelect” offering in 2005. TimesSelect pricing — a flat fee of $49.95 for the year — was easier to digest. “Instead of tweaking TimesSelect and sticking with it, the company threw it away,” he says. “The Times should have been more patient.” In a letter to readers in 2007, the paper said it was ending TimesSelect because “readers increasingly find news through search, as well as through social networks, blogs and other online sources.” The publication’s bet was that it could garner more traffic by remaining free and therefore bolster ad revenue.

The conundrum faced by the Times and News Corp. revolves around whether consumers will pay for news on various platforms. Subscription models are prevalent in media, but not all content has been treated equally by consumers. Users will pay for online music courtesy of Apple’s iTunes. They will also buy subscriptions to music services like Sirius XM and Rhapsody. On the video front, more than 20 million subscribers pay Netflix at least $7.99 every month.

But Fader suggests that successful subscription models are not dependent on the type of content. Consumers will pay for online journalism and news, he says, but the model has to be simple. “The main driver is the way the business models are managed. Netflix works because of Netflix. It has a wonderful service and a simple model.”

One of the reasons the Times‘s model may be confusing is that it works to meet multiple — and potentially conflicting — goals. For instance, the publication allows readers to access 20 articles for free to keep website traffic robust and garner referrals from sites like Facebook, Twitter and Google News. Meanwhile, a digital subscription to the Times can be more expensive than a print version. This multifaceted model creates some strange outcomes. For instance, a Times subscription for the web, smartphone and tablet apps cost more a year than the print subscription — $455 for digital vs. $384.80 for print — despite the fact that the company doesn’t have to pay for paper or fuel to deliver the newspaper. “It’s cheaper to get the newspaper and throw it away than to get the digital media subscription,” says Fader.

“This is all a big experiment to see what makes money,” says Wharton management professor Saikat Chaudhuri. “I don’t think anyone has settled on a model.” He notes that the Times, News Corp. and others can tweak subscription packages once they find out what people will pay for, adding that companies need to give online content subscriptions at least a year to bear fruit.

“Many people have written off the newspaper in the era of the Internet, but before it is written off completely, let’s find out what people will and will not pay for,” says Chaudhuri. “I applaud the move to experiment.”

Fader agrees and recommends that companies like Times and News Corp. keep trying. “But there will be a lot of tension and short-term losses until the right model emerges.”

Posted in Knowledge@Wharton Today | Also tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment