Newspapers Should Ask Google If Linking To Other Sites Is A Good Business
from the it-is dept
It's no secret that newspapers have had to be dragged kicking and screaming onto the internet. Many of their more ambitious online undertakings have simply been attempts to apply the old model of distribution to the digital space. And while some of their moves, like closing off access to archives, seem downright baffling, it's interesting to get the perspective from those operating inside newspapers. A reporter at a paper in Missouri writes to Poynter Online, discussing an internal debate that her newspaper had over whether to include external links to stories in other publications. Ultimately, the higher ups decided against it on the view that they might confuse readers, or imply some sort of free advertising for a competitor's content. Needless to say, this is the attitude that holds newspapers back. The ability to link to another source is what makes reading content online more dynamic than reading it on paper. And while some may see links as offering free publicity to another site, it's should be viewed as a way of making the originating site that much more useful to readers. What's funny about this debate is that newspapers won't hesitate to link elsewhere on a reporter's blog, as if somehow the ideas of good online journalism are totally different when done in blog format. Ultimately, newspapers need to realize that there's no contradiction in acknowledging useful content elsewhere and making their own sites valuable.
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
Practice what you preach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Practice what you preach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Practice what you preach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Practice what you preach
Since we focus on short blog posts, we link back to previous stories to add more background without having to rewrite that background info. However, we *always* link to external sites, whenever appropriate -- and usually as the main thrust of a story. So, it's hard to see how you could claim that what we're doing is in any way similar to newspapers refusing to link to other sites at all. Almost every single post here links to other sites. Count the number of external links on the front page and then explain how that's similar to a newspaper refusing to link externally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Be invisible on teh intarweb- let me show you how!
This is especially useful for catalogs.
What are they thinking... if it's not google-able
it doesn't exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hrm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hrm...
quit reading that damn latin and take an intarweb course already. The word is INTAR not intra.
And yes, people say it cause it makes them happy. No other reason. Don't tell them to stop, they're not hurting anyone or anything.
Except for language nazi's, noone is confused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hrm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: hrm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: hrm...
TEH INTARWEBS.
All caps .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hrm...
"Interweb, sometimes deliberately misspelled intarweb, intraweb, or interweeb "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interweb
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
can you read, Jake?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
newspapers online
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jake
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not bitching about pay, but this is just absurd.
Newspapers _are_ struggling to adapt to challengers when they've been local monopolies. But I'm not seeing unions as holding back the transition. Print may be declining, but it isn't going away. Certainly not overnight. The challege then is to keep the print product compelling _and_ develop a viable online strategy. That's still being figured out, it'll take time to figure out. And yes, adjustments have to be sold to (or negotiated with) employees.
What I'm not hearing in our newsrooms (anymore) is "the internets are out to get us." It's "how to we build from here?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hey now
look it on the intraweb..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You make an ass out of u & me! I just learned that the other day, ain't I smart?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
newspapers linking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And while some of their moves, like closing off ac
The reason for cutting off access to the archives is that the large db vendors like lexus/nexus pay more for the rights to archives if they are not available to the public for free. Just last year it was said that the NY Times Digital Division would have a loss if they didn't count this Lexus/Nexus type revenues. Probably it is still that way.
Why smaller papers are following the lead of the NY Times is what is really baffling, they get nothing from Lexus/Nexus. Our small newpaper customers charge for the current edition and leave the archives open to the public. This protects their newsstand sales and print subscriptions (people have to pay for NEW news in print OR the internet) but they get the advantage of assuring when people use google to research issues they cover, they'll find stories in the archives.
See "New Subscription Method"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ummm...what was that subject line, Stephen?
Now lets see, ok, if we can next get past the self-promoting portion of your post, maybe we can get to the heart of this.
The reason smaller papers should not leave their archives completely open to the public is:
1) There is often great profit to be made in selling archives, both in print and online contexts. Whether they are the NYT or one of your "small newspaper paper customers", please do not diminish the value of their content. As you must know, archive searches are one of the most popular functions of the newspaper website. Considering this, how many subsciptions are you losing for your customers by giving this away?
2) There are ways to have the site be google friendly without giving away the shop - literally.
3) Unfortunately, the money being made does not justify relinquishing all control of all archives across the board - simply to offer value in the new media. This is not only unjustified, but simply dangerous, as it implies, BOTH AT ONCE, that a) their current content is not valuable enough to attract online readership so you must give the rest away, and also b) that their past content is not worth paying for.
In order to best serve this industry, the inherent values of the internet must be harnessed and capitalized upon.
Using the above criteria, it sounds as though your company is instead using the medium to amplify the danger of diminishing the value of content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ummm...what was that subject line, Stephen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ummm...what was that subject line, Stephen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]