Slashdot Log In
Newspapers Reconsidering Google News
Posted by
Zonk
on Mon May 28, 2007 01:24 AM
from the i-guess-they-hate-traffic dept.
from the i-guess-they-hate-traffic dept.
News.com ran an article earlier in the week talking about the somewhat strained relationship between newspapers and Google. Google's stance is firm: 'We don't pay to index news content.' Just the same, newspapers with an online presence are starting to reconsider their relationship with Google, the value of linking, and the realities of internet economics. Talk of paying for content, as well as ongoing court cases, has observers considering both sides of the issue: "While some in newspaper circles point to the Belgium court ruling and the content deals with AP and AFP as a sign Google may be willing to pay for content, Google fans and bloggers interpreted the news quite differently. To them, it was obvious that the Belgium group had agreed to settle--even after winning its court case--because they discovered that they needed Google's traffic more than the fees that could be generated from news snippets. Observers note that with newspapers receiving about 25 percent of their traffic from search engines, losing Google's traffic had to sting."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Not a big concern. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not a big concern. (Score:5, Insightful)
Kinda makes you wonder about the "journalism is hard" comment in the article.
Re:Not a big concern. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not a big concern. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not a big concern. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh I'm sure that real journalism is quite hard. There's just not very many real journalists.
"Wall Street Journal" is the right model. (Score:5, Informative)
However, Google has no legal obligation to do so. Google is not causing the newspapers to lose money. Google is just a pointer to the news. The news organizations are the ones who actually provide the news -- for free.
So, the solution is obvious. The "Wall Street Journal" (WSJ) has already implemented the solution: charge for news. The readership of the WSJ has declined little since the start of the Internet Age. Revenue has also been relatively stable.
Now, look at the "Los Angeles Times". Every bit of news and opinion at the "Times" is free. Why would anyone subscribe to the "Times" when she can get the news for free?
Re:"Wall Street Journal" is the right model. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, look at the "Los Angeles Times". Every bit of news and opinion at the "Times" is free. Why would anyone subscribe to the "Times" when she can get the news for free?
Bingo. I think you've also touched, indirectly, on the bigger issue: original content. If you don't have any original content, then you can't well charge admission! Papers that basically just re-run the same wire service reports as everyone else, can't adopt the WSJ's business model, because there are lots of other, cheaper (free) sources for the same thing.
What we are about to see, is a big contraction in the newspaper market. Honestly I don't think this is a bad thing. It's been a long time in coming. Most newspapers -- and I'm not talking about the LA Times here (I don't have a clue about them) -- have long been a 'news dissemination' service, and not a real 'news reporting' service. They don't really make any content themselves, beyond pretty basic local stuff that a smart highschool Junior could write up. Everything else is just wire service stuff. These are the papers that aren't going to make it, or are going to have to radically change shape in order to survive.
The Internet makes the dissemination of information relatively cheap and easy. What it doesn't do is change the cost of creating the material originally (well, in some cases it might, but not as dramatically as it affects the distribution side). If you're nothing but an information distributor, you're in trouble. But if you're an information creator, then you still have something you can market.
Everyone talks about newspapers going under, but you never hear anyone (seriously) talking about the AP or UPI going under. They're not going to, and neither are the big papers that actually do some serious reporting and content-creation -- although they might have to become more like wire services themselves, less "newspapers" and more 'information brokers' or 'content assemblers' (taking lots of raw data and presenting it in a format that people find pleasing and useful, and are incidentally willing to pay for).
There's no shortage of demand for news, and that means there's always going to be money for the people who are really in the core of the business. It's the ancillary stuff that's going to go down, and well it should.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
UPI went bankrupt years ago and has changed hands several times. The company that now owns the UPI brand actually is an agent of the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Whether (or how) the online presence of newspapers generates profits is the subject of the article. It's
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"Wall Street Journal" is the right model. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not like Magic Stupid Rays get emitted straight from the Internet and into your brain, despite what the BBC may say.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, here is the correct link Volkischer Beobachter [wikipedia.org]. It should be noted that that particular paper was the newspaper of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, i.e. the Nazi party, whilst Al-Jazeera isn't and has never been related to either th
Do no evil, despite a monopoly? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not being listed in Google means that your competitor gets all the hits you might have gotten.
Can you then dare to stand up against Google? What if Google decides to take the stance of "play by our rules or we'll make sure nobody finds you anymore"?
Not really a comforting thought, when someone can dictate how the internet has to run...
If a tree falls, but Google doesn't index it... (Score:2, Interesting)
If a webpage is published online, and Google doesn't index it, does it still get found?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't tell you if it made a sound, but I bet I could find it with Google maps.
Think about what you are saying. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Think about what you are saying. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hm, what a black-white stance. Oh wait, I get it, it's because of the slogan, right?
Heh. Kids. When will you grow up.
Google is so huge right now, you'll find people with all sorts of agenda inside. And the funny things is, many of them, at all levels, worked at Microsoft at some point. Some of them worked in Apple. Some of the people in Apple worked in Google. Some of the people in Microsoft worked in Apple or Google.
A corporation has no face. But, if it makes you feel better, you can keep putting faces on it. It makes it all so much simpler...
Corporations DO have faces and souls (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, as to the ppl at Google coming from MS, yes, some did. Hell, some of them came from Iraq. How much influence do any of them have? NOT MUCH. The do no evil is a top down mandate. Likewise, the MS approach to win at all costs is a top down approach. That is why e-mail gets "lost". Likewise, you see MS slaes throw their weight around (still) by telling re-sellers that they will do what MS wants. MS also tells politicians that if they bring in Linux or OO, that the next policitian will be from the opposite party. That is EVIL.
Does Google do any of that? Nope. Not at this time. But if the top execs change (or perhops does not change), then they will slowly become "evil".
Re: (Score:2)
And second, how about you not enjoying the idea of Google keeping your outdated pages in Cache?
I'm sure, with a bit of ponde
Re: (Score:2)
As to them having my data in cache, great. I say go for it. It means that it is one more way to reach my site. Likewise, they can use my content if it br
Re:Think about what you are saying. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to be listed in Google, you play by their rules. If you don't agree to those rules, you block them. It's simple.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Robots.txt
LoL *chuckle*... Everytime someone comes up with that "the search engine is stealing my content" thing I cant help
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With respect, I think that's short-sighted. While MS has done some shitty things
Re:Do no evil, despite a monopoly? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the reason why I do believe it'll be nice to see Yahoo and Microsoft work (or merge?) together better, so they can compete better against Google.
I do use Google today, it has the best search results, undeniably. But it also has a huge market share, which makes content producers very nervous, for a good reason.
Google may delist you overnight, after an algorithm tweak, for something completely innocent, and not SEO related at all, that you did on your site. It's unavoidable, even if Google was run by shiny white angels with halo above their heads, an algorithm for a search engine isn't an exact science, and so anybody in any moment can end up as an edge case that Google doesn't handle properly.
If we have 2-3 major search engines with equal market share, we gain the following benefits:
1. Spammers will have hard time scamming all engines at once, as they use wildly different backend processing, and as a result receive less traffic (i.e. if half the traffic comes from Live, and half from Google, cheating one of them gets you half the possible traffic, not all of it).
2. If you happen to be an edge case on either search engine after an algorithm tweak, it's much less likely both engines did the same tweak at the same time, so while your traffic will decrease, the other search engines on the market will still provide enough traffic for you until this is sorted.
3. When either search engine does something inappropriate, or questionable (ok, for the simple folk out there: "evil"), people will have easier time going to court to defend their rights, because if the search engine provider becomes abusive and threatens blacklisting, that'll have much smaller effect if the engine isn't a monopolist (in this case they'll mostly hurt themselves).
4. Innovation, innovation, innovation. Just imagine the kind of innovation we'll see from both Yahoo/Microsoft and Google if they had equal market share. Microsoft would have much bigger revenue and thus much bigger incentive to support their position on the market. Google, likewise.
I mean, what's the best we saw of Google as of late? A week ago they changed the layout of their home page which made it JavaScript dependent and harder to work with. That's not innovation, that's regression. As for the rest of their new offerings, they mostly come from companies they bought recently.
Yahoo's holding on to their "portal" strategy since this is where the most of their income comes from so their search acceptable but certainly not good enough or innovative. They can't risk spending too much money on search R&D alone.
As for Microsoft Live, they're apparently trying to come up with interesting interfaces for search, but they are quite young on that one market, their search results aren't really good, and need the experience of Yahoo to give them a boost and incentive to spend more research in the area.
So, bottom line: monopoly is never good, even when it's supposedly "not evil".
Re:Do no evil, despite a monopoly? (Score:4, Insightful)
As to some of your following rational, let me take a shot at it.:
- Right now, Google is aware of scams because so many attempts are made. It is far easier for Google to see it, when they are bearing the brunt of it. The interesting thing, is that spammers will now be able to make even more use of them. MS has a long history of poor security and will almost certainly miss what Google has done with this. MS will try to copy such items as the cache, and it will be used by spammers.
- Good point, but you assume that you are high in all. Chances are that if you take a hit in Google (you were almost certainly on a edge in the first place), then you were probably not at the top on the others.
- I doubt that Google would de-list you because you sue them. That would invite a looksy by the feds.
- Google is already extremely innovative. In fact, Yahoo was as well ( a decade ago). Sadly, MS is not. To be nice, they are copiers of other people's work with a one-off. If you want innovation, then keep all 3 companies seperate.
As to Google's innovation, not all of it is visible. Wait. I have no doubt that Google has some interesting things coming. They have been hiring true best and brightess, not wanna-be's. As it is, you point to search as being their innovation, when in reality, it is data mining for their ads that they are true experts at.Yahoo is also interesting in that they are moving towards changing their infrastructure to make it easier to change. They are hoping to have the nimbalness of Google, as well as the ability to control their ad space.
MS is throwing more than 10x the money that both of the other company combined are currently throwing at it. Give MS time.
If you want true innovation, then disallow such a merger/partnership. MS has never used a merger for information. It has always been market share that they want. In addition, MS already has a monster monopoly that they can (and apparently are ) using to help themselves. They would use this to shut out Google, not compete against them.
Google home page, javascript dependant? (Score:3, Informative)
The "communications revolution" goes on (Score:4, Interesting)
But the world turns and the new replaces the old. Such is how it always has been and always will be; try to feel just a little sorry (if you can) for those who become irrelevant in tomorrow's world. One day, it'll be your own chosen career or industry that slips below the horizon.
Even the (rightfully) hated RIAA and MPAA are simply trying every angle they can in hopes of propping up their dying organizations for a little longer. The damage they do as they thrash around in their death throes will take years to clean up - but they will die, and the mess will be cleaned up.
Against this background, why be surprised that some newspapers think that Google should pay them for the privelege of indexing their web pages? If they could make that pig fly, they could compensate for the loss in subscription revenues for - maybe another year or so. Google chooses not to pay, and chooses rightly. These companies are doomed and there's nothing for Google or anyone else to gain by delaying their demise.
Re: (Score:2)
If independent news pages, who depend on the revenue of ads and sponsoring, cannot cover their costs anymore, they will have to go. The large news media still have their revenue from good ol' newspaper or other offline pub
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If anything, Google is encouraging variety in reporting.
Re: (Score:2)
They should be paying Google (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They should be paying Google (Score:5, Interesting)
Look, like most I just don't have time to visit a couple of hundred sites to keep up on things. I want headlines and leads with enough information to let me know whether or not it is worth the effort to visit the news source. They should be thanking Google for providing the opportunity to garner more readers and subsequently increase their ad revenue.
You're biased. They should be paying Google just as much as Google should pay them.
Google isn't a charity organisation, there's no need for anyone to thank them. They are in this business to profit from other people's content. If there's no content, there's no Google. If there aren't search engines, the content can't be found.
The balance in this relationship is closer to the middle than strongly going on either side.
Failing to adapt (Score:3, Insightful)
The old media who fail to adapt will be driven to extinction. The traffic driver now is Google, in the future it may be something else, and so on.
There's a good example here of a new mass media company in Indonesia. They provide the news for free, with RSS feeds and so on. But instead of just that, as many old media company trying to move into Internet --- they also have a web store, ad-service via SMS, resell their incoming traffic, sell web-development & consultancy services,
sell exclusive contents paid by simple premium SMS, successfully built an online community AND capitalize on it to make their Web 2.0 websites successful, and many other creative inventions.
The old media on Internet have very high "hit-and-run" traffic. People came, read the news, and went away.
The new media company I mentioned above, however, is able to capitalize on their incoming traffic; people will linger on for longer, actually do transactions with them; bottom line, more revenue streams.
Again, this is not the fault of Google. The fault is at those who fail to adapt.
Excuse me? (Score:3, Insightful)
I had a reasonably high-ranking UK blogger link to a blog entry of mine. He even cited a bit of it. So, he entertained some readers a little. At the same time, the hyperlink saw my traffic (and my tiny adwords revenue) double for about a week after.
What I could have done is taken the same stupid attitude as the papers "stop using my content" and sat back in the satisfaction that he wouldn't be leeching off my content. He'd have maybe had less to interest his readers. But I would have lost some revenue.
Don't these people get this?
Not to encourage such things, but... (Score:2)
This is like a major newspaper asking (Score:2)
newstands to pay a fee to them because the presence of the newspapers attracts people to the newstands.
Maybe the managers thinking about this should just leave the media business. They don't seem to know anything about it.
What about Drudge? (Score:3, Interesting)
if it was opt in. (Score:3, Insightful)
What a moron (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh-huh.
Mr. Zell, have you ever looked at Google News? You'll notice something -- it doesn't run any ads. Not one. How, then, do you think Google is making money off "stealing" your content?
You're a moron, sir.
(Okay, technicality people, yes, now Google is adding news results to their "universal search". Do you really think that Google would take a major revenue hit if it reverted to the business model it had back three weeks ago?)
Now it is more difficult to not get indexed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So don't click on it if it offends your sensibilities so greatly. Personally I like being able to see a variety of perspectives, even propa
I disagree... (Score:3, Insightful)
I subscribe to print editions of TIME and Economist purely for the joy of reading the views.
The way in which it is presented also matters, not just the bland headline stating "Lohan