Newspapers Still Fail To Recognize That More Traffic Is A Good Thing
from the life-was-so-much-easier-before-this-internet-thing dept
Google News has done a great service to online news readers by making it easy to find stories from a vast network of sources -- many of which people would never otherwise visit. It's hard to see exactly how a site that sends new readers to newspapers' web sites, and makes their content more valuable, could be a bad thing, but plenty of newspapers don't see it that way. This isn't the first time the papers have made a stink about it, and the AFP newswire even went so far as to get itself removed from Google News, cutting off a bunch of traffic -- and pissing off its customers. The problem, really, seems that Google isn't paying the papers anything -- even though they're not monetizing Google News (hey, unreasonable demands for revenue-sharing from Google -- that sounds familiar). An exec from one paper in France says: "I don't say that Google News has to die, but we prefer to have a contract with services like Lexis Nexis to give us money and audience. Google News just gives us audience." So Google serves them up readers on a plate, readers to whom they can show ads or monetize however they want -- just like readers that visit the site directly -- yet Google should pay for the privilege? The fundamental difference, of course, being that Lexis-Nexis is a subscription service that charges users -- Google News doesn't. With newspapers struggling to compete in the changing digital world, you'd expect them to be grateful for any and every reader they could get, but it seems like the Google name creates this giant expectation that it should pay for anything and everything it touches, even if it's making other people's content more valuable and more readily monetizable. Perhaps Google should just yank the complaining sites from its index, since its wide reach means that it could likely serve up plenty of competent replacements. It's pretty obvious that the newspapers have far more at stake here than Google.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Brand
It also makes it seem like some small newspaper reprinting wire stories has the same "weight" as New York Times with its teams of journalists. In other words, Google News destroys newspaper brands. They are right to see it as a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brand
What they DON'T want to do is compete for customer loyalty based on quality. A really good news site could very easily attract a huge loyal following from random google news viewers. If people know paper X always covers the subject better, they will hunt that one down in the google news story list, if they don't just bookmark the newspaper homepage. But it's hard work! (Gasp!) That is the sort of thing with which cheap news wire regurgitation cannot compete! (eos w/ preposition, double word score!)
So rather than ask google to remove them, like the stupid papers would do, they try to force google, the culprit, to give them money to subsidize their outmodded existing business.
I guess I'm starting to view this all as business inertia. Legal action is friction, and it's leaving skid-marks all over the legal systems as the dead business models slowly grind to a halt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brand
But there is another component. I work for a Knight Ridder newspaper. KR makes a lot of money, so much so that they are WAY in the black. But recently they missed their revenue projection by $6 million I believe it was, and specifically I think it was advertising projections. Makes sense, since for a newspaper to make money, it has to be at the very least, 57% ads. Probably more since that number is from journalism school and I graduated in 1989. But still, KR is way in the black though. Shareholders went nuts. Now KR is for sale and KR is making cuts left and right to make the deal more attractive. So I'd imagine some shareholder group somewhere pondered as to why Google isn't subsidizing the model.
Another piece is companies like demographics. They just don't want you to come to their site. They want you to register (hence you can't access some sites unless you do) so they can track you and track your habits and generate that into some kind of revenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brand
Half the time I read an article out there - especially on The New York Time's website - it ends up pestering for a Credit Card number. Well, why bother? I can go to another site and see the same story or just listen to the radio or watch it on TV.
And in the end - as a matter of fact, MOST news feeds have more weight than the New York Times. I don't like half the biased garbage in there anymore. The Big media days are dead - CBS put the last nail in the coffin for them. No one trusts them any bit more than Wired.com
Loyalty was always a bad thing with news - I'd rather browse a number of sites and news services anyway, if I'm looking for the real, true story. You're better off reading a few different news sources than just blindly trusting one particular one.
Actually, I think the internet has brought it to the public's attention about how inaccurate the large news services really are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brand
The truth is that there never WAS a true loyalty anyways... Few are going to buy more than one paper, or watch more than one news show. We just went for what was easy & familar.
Now with the internet, whatever lands on top of a search is what we go for. Do we have favorite sites? Sure, but just as soon as something better comes along, we'll go there. No loyalty is involved just because we happen to visit the same site twice... or buy a newspaper twice.
If there is anything that the 'net has taught us its that there is more than one way to look at something, and then its easy to find differing viewpoints quickly, something neither the TV or newspapers can do.
Face it, for the majority, newspapers are for killing time getting to work, TV is just background noise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brand
Oh and newspapers, they have always been crap! The paper, the ink, and damn I hate skipping through pages just to find the rest of one interesting article that was on the front page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brand
The Internet also encourages truthiness over truth. But then, so does Google with their 'I feel lucky' function, as do the ABC, BBC, CBS, CNBC, CNN, NBC, MSNBC news services, by moving their lips. I left FoxNews out of that list as they have yet to be caught gaffing on anywhere near the level of the others: strapping explosives to a truck's gas tank to 'illustrate' an unbiased safety test, red-handedly hiding mulitple war-related news stories, and so on and so forth.
What the papers are angry about is that before the Internet, but more specifically the Web, they were able to con-text their readership in a manner consisten with their particular socialist view. Being able to [previously] guarantee a particular herd of sheep to advertisers and social engineers was worth ALOT more money then than it is worth now. The shortfall has to be made up somewhere.
The 'progressive' media is rarely if ever that. They are as entrenched in their narcissist point of view as the music executives are in theirs when it comes to online sharing of music.
The puppeteer is pissed! The strings were already rubbery and unresponsive. Now they are being cut altogether. How upsetting! How sad!! Soros must be having a maid mix up a Bromo as we speak!!! ;O) -Joe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Micropayments
I think when you get down to it people are willing to pay for the news they read. Someone just needs to find a way to collect the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Micropayments
Wrong.
I read A LOT of news, and I wouldn't pay a cent for it. If one paper charges, i just move onto the next paper.
Why would I pay 5 or 10 cents to read a 1000 word article? I mean unless every single online paper is going to charge the same for the same story, maybe you'll get a few schlubs to pay, but the moajority of people will simply resort to watching the TV, or spending a quarter at a newsstand. Now instead of seeing 1-15 different newspapers a day, i will only see one. maybe thats great for that one paper, but the rest are missing out.
I mean its a paper for crying out loud, no one is going to pay a premium for something they look at once and then throw away. I mean I won't even sign up for the papaers that make you register.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Micropayments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Micropayments
Obviously there was some value gained by publishing their news stories on the Internet or they would not be there now. These are businesses who need money to survive. Therefore it should come down to a simple business decision. If they are losing money by publishing stories on the net then stop. They should not change the medium to suit their needs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Micropayments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Micropayments
Anyway Google is rich enough, why would you want them to get richer? I'm not understanding this world...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
I do enjoy articles from certain newspapers more often than others... ft.com, wsj.com, csmonitor.com.. and wouldnt mind compensating them for the information and entertainment they bring me. But I am not going to subscribe to all those guys. If I could pay $5/mo and be sure that I am compensating all those guys, I would be glad to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow...
Can we just get rid of democrats? Please. Through violence, plague, whatever the hell it takes? We'd see a lot less of crap like this, garunteed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow... is right (head up ass)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow...
Can't we just debate this stuff without somebody trying to use it as an excuse to bash the other side's political affiliation as if they were somehow to blame?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow...
If the news were apolitical, it would knock the legs out from under most efforts to spin it ala-politik.
Truthiness at its finest.
Cowardly Lion (or whatever the crap it is calling itself) is probably correct if not 'right' - Bush has comported himself in his spending and social agenda so much like a Liberal as to have forced a search for a genuinely Conservative or [at least quasi] Libertarian candidate.
-J
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
French arrogance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Turn off the Spigot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
one more thing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
google news links
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: google news links
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
duh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the Money!
Ingrates!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google shhould take the requests literally.
Google News is a very cool service and I have loved it ever since it launched. It's the easiest way to see all the News at a glance and have access to multiple points of view all at the same time.
As for the Coward's comments above that the bandwith costs are an issue, I'm sorry, but you're way off base. I have multiple sites on the net, and I'd gladly pay Google to send me the kind of traffic they send the News sites. My LOWEST revenue producing page has a banner ad and a Google adsense ad block on it - it earns .00115 cents per page view ,on average (incredibly small). It costs me about .0000001 cents, in bandwith costs, to serve that page - far less than 1% of the revenue. If a News site with hundreds or thousands of people can't figure out how to make money off any and all traffic - they should just shut down....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Calm Down
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't get it
These signs are made by the papers to get readers, even those that aren't "loyal", but just interested in the frontpage stories.
Isn't that exactly what Google or any other newslinking site does? Show the headlines and if you're interested, they will send you to their newspaper.
If the paper does not make enough money from their web sites, they need to reconsider what they're doing instead of blaming the signs/newslinking sites. Without them, they wouldn't even have a business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't get it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newspapers don't pay
So why should Google pay the newspapers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
make google pay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hey
As for some way of making revenue...I also tend to shop with the advertisers I see on these pages, much like I did when looking through the ad circulars in the paper. Can they not see the similarity? Actually, I think it's the difference they cant' see- Good content is the key, not being the only game in town
They should be thanking Google instead of blasting them. It's amazing how so many companies are going after Google for some reason or another...they must be doing something right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]