If Google Visitors Are Worthless, It's Only Because Newspaper Execs Don't Know What They're Doing
from the turning-away-visitors? dept
Once again, Danny Sullivan is ripping to shreds the arguments being made by newspaper execs who are talking about how Google is a "parasite" on their content, despite sending tons of traffic. In this episode, Danny looks at the silly claim that visitors from Google are worthless, by comparing the situation to a regular shopfront and how they handle browsers vs. requiring a fee to get inside in the first place. He also goes on to look at how the Wall Street Journal (to which he is a subscriber) tries to monetize him online, and the only clear conclusion is that if News Corp. execs think that traffic from Google is worthless, it's only because they're making it worthless by doing an incredibly poor job capitalizing on all that free traffic.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyoneā€™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
Filed Under: newspapers, traffic, visitors
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The Masnick line is -naturally- that they should give away the stories they have invested so much in, and use that to advertise something else, a position that assumes that advertising is so efficient that effort and money devoted to advertising will always pay off, the reality is very different .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We get it. No money can be made online. Too much free. I've got a great idea! If everybody charges then everybody wins! Except the consumer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, you're condemning the whole concept of the analogy as worthless? Wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i can't imagine mike or the author of that article proposing that advertising is THE revenue solution. i can imagine them both proposing that advertising is PART OF a revenue solution.
and on the subject of advertising, it seems plain to someone who read the entire article, that the focus was on targeted advertising, or rather the wsj's laughable lack thereof.
and stealing from the masnickian line, as it was alluded to in the comments of the article, is the idea of building a community. you know, using the internet as it was designed to be used: as a communication tool.
trying to force your centuries old one-way broadcasting models onto a many-to-many communication tool will surely hasten your epic fail. as we are witnessing atm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
plus no suggestion of "giving it away" just realising that income streams come in various guises, to charge for what others provide for free is plain silly when you look at consumer choices (ie taking the free over the costly).
your reference to how advertising doesnt make enough to sustain the online business model is old and frankly wrong. maybe some links to back up your troll-a-like comment would be handy.
or alternatively maybe you could just be honest and admit that you work for the very people who are being referred to in the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think analogies are a great way to prove a point.
The Masnick line is -naturally- that they should give away the stories they have invested so much in, and use that to advertise something else, a position that assumes that advertising is so efficient that effort and money devoted to advertising will always pay off, the reality is very different .
I love how critics have to try to redefine what I say rather than responding to what I actually say. It's got nothing to do with "should." It's got everything to do with what's actually happening in the market.
And yes, we're talking about reality, not the imaginary world where people magically pay for stuff despite the competition giving it away for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually analogies can't prove anything. But I guess a lot of techdirt consists of making up an imaginary story and then assuming the point is proven.
"...It's got everything to do with what's actually happening in the market."
What is actually happening is that none of the news organizations making a whole lot of money by giving away stories for free.
In reality the current situation can't last indefinitely. You should pay more attention to Mr Murdoch even if you would prefer him to be stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hmm. Actually plenty of news organizations are doing exactly that. I don't know who you've been paying attention to lately, but there are lots of websites that are profitable, despite not charging for admission.
In reality the current situation can't last indefinitely. You should pay more attention to Mr Murdoch even if you would prefer him to be stupid.
I pay plenty of attention to Mr. Murdoch. I've yet to see him explain how this will actually work. Would you care to enlighten us as to why people will pay for news when others are giving it away for free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's not that News organizations "should" give away their articles. They have to. Because everyone else is doing it. Trying to charge for what everyone else gives away will make your company go broke even faster.
If the current situation "can't last indefinitely", as you said, then how does a handful of news organizations charging for content change anything at all?
Pay-walling for information only works when that information is not freely available. AKA, news paywalls will only work after everyone has gone broke and closed up shop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fine, if that's what they want. But let them not complain when their advertising revenue tanks because all their former customers have gone somewhere else rather than pay toll to get through their stupid paywall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The "problem" that news organizations are having is competition. They can charge whatever they feel like for content, but as noted in previous comments, the news happens no matter who's reporting it. That people other than the news organizations have found a way to monetize traffic by "giving away" news is a boon to the consumer. If news organizations can't adapt, then c'est la vie. That's how capitalism works.
In reality the current situation can't last indefinitely. You should pay more attention to Mr Murdoch even if you would prefer him to be stupid.
No, the current situation can't last forever, and that is a product of time. The reality of content delivery is changing drastically and rapidly, and businesses need to adapt. A person would be a fool to not pay attention to Mr. Murdoch, but they would also be a fool to emulate him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The actual reality of the situation is that there are hundreds of independent newspapers all over the world giving away the news for free IN PRINT. And making enough money in the process to stay in business, even as the big newspapers charging for the privileged to advertise to people are failing.
So, charging for news = failure. Giving news away = successful.
Check out Metro International (http://www.metro.lu/) which has several dozen local editions of free print newspapers in major cities across the world. For a news organization that is only 14 years old that GIVES AWAY THE NEWS IN PRINT FOR FREE, Wikipedia has this to say about their distribution:
"As of October 2009, there were 56 daily editions in 18 countries in 15 languages across Europe, North & South America and Asia for an audience of more than 17 million daily readers and 37 million weekly readers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_International
A multinational news organization servicing almost 40 million people ... with not a single one of those people paying a PENNY for the news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Just Imaginary
And, how they fail to do this even if you come to the WSJ directly, not just from Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Paid minions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Paid minions
So cute. Kind of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I like it
It's a very nice "imaginary story", just a little to close to the reality to call it an analogy. My favorite bit:
At the store, the news exec owner greets visitors by asking them what the hell they want. Perplexed, they visitors say they heard about these stories and wanted to know more. The exec shouts at them. "Get the hell out of my store, you freeloader! This is for members-only. We don't need riff-raff like you in here."¯
Oh yes, a perfectly reasonable and intelligent reaction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I like it
Well, its closeness to reality isn't the biggest problem. The analogy breaks down in my opinion at the following point in the post...
"Now one of those old fashioned newskids comes along. You know, the type that you'd see in movies selling papers on the street. Let's call the kid Google."
The problem of course is that if it really was one of those newskids, they wouldn't be sending the customer to the store; they'd be selling them a paper themselves. In fact, this is actually an awful analogy because this is exactly what the newspapers are accusing Google of doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I like it
In fact, this is actually an awful analogy because this is exactly what the newspapers are accusing Google of doing.
I think I missed that part, what exactly are the newspapers accusing Google of? Sending them to the store or selling them a newspaper? Right now Google is sending them to the store. That's ... bad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I like it
From the newspaper's misguided viewpoint, Google is freeloading off of the newspapers content by "stealing" customers that would otherwise be going directly to their sites.
Right now Google is sending them to the store. That's ... bad?
Of course it's not bad. But that's why the analogy is flawed. Because newskids never called out the headlines just so they could send them to a store to buy a newspaper. The underlying point that Sullivan was making is still valid; it's just that the analogy doesn't make any sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I like it
Most publishers don't seem to want Google to host their content. Most of them seem happy that Google says hey, you want to read something cool, go over here -- and does this for free. In past models, if you wanted that type of referral, you would have had to pay for inclusion.
A few publishers seem to think Google should pay for the right to actually refer them traffic. We wait to see if Google feels referring people to their content is that worthwhile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, the Masnick line is that if they put up pay walls, readers will go elsewhere, where news is still free.
The papers are on a slow, steady decline today, but forcing readers to pay will put the papers into a nosedive.
And "investing in stories" means sending a reporter to a location to experience a situation first hand, interviewing multiple people, doing research, and commenting on the situation. Few papers do this today.
Now, papers wait for the story to come to them, hit record, then transcribe what they have. This is not reporting, this is gossip and press releases masquerading as reporting; and from my perspective, as a consumer of 'news', it is not worth paying for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand...
So how is that pay-wall paying off? Are they really making enough money from it?
IMO the WSJ should, at the very least, make the current day's content free and charge for things like access to past articles, and other features that may be worth paying for. When I find myself on WSJ.com, it is usually because I followed a link from somewhere else and as soon as I browse to a locked article, my next click is on the little 'X' on the tab that contains wsj.com. I avoid wsj.com mostly due to their paywall. It's up to them to figure out how to capitalize on traffic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
to simplify- less production expenses, more ad revenue, more happy customers getting what they want and more. someone tell me its really all not that simple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I will give this away for free...
Monetize what is scarce. Not the bull that everyone has access to. In the internet age access to information is very wide and deep, so don't charge for what someone can get elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No sympathy for old media
However, in reality, the days of quality journalism were already pretty much over when the Internet emerged to fill the gap. Most of the regional newspapers had already killed the quality of their papers by going overboard with advertising and by killing off their original content. When I finally cancelled my newspaper subscription, it wasn't just because the Internet provided much more real-time news, it was because the paper had become crap. The content was no better then on the Internet and it was a day behind.
Old media has the right to move forward with whatever business model they want, but if I were Rupert Murdoch, I'd be getting rid of all the leadership in place and retooling the empire with people who are capable of leading a transition to the new world. Resistance is futile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No sympathy for old media
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No sympathy for old media
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No sympathy for old media
Also, Ive noticed that the highest volumes of nay saying and ass backwards logic,are from anonymous coerces..
strangely convenient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i use google for most of my news in one way or another (google homepage with rss feeds all over it, search google news for stories relevant to what im looking at). i am sure i am not the only person that does this. all i can say is if you block google (which as has already been pointed out is rather easily done with much less fanfare and noise than you are making) i will probably never see anything off your site again. which also means any of your hard publications? most likely not ever going to buy one of them either. by blocking my search engine of choice, you have effectively lost me (and quite possibly everyone like me) as a customer forever.
have fun alienating potential customers and pretending they dont matter to you as youre business slides into obscurity!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few suggestions - Let's try it and see
I have a few suggestions I wish I could see in real-life
1. Papers who think Google is stealing from them, or sending
them worthless bums - why don't they simply prevent their
pages from being indexed? They don't need anyone's
permission, and hey- we stopped the theft, and kept out
the bums. Hurray for us.
2. I wonder what would happen if Google "By Mistake" has
a glitch that either cause content from a specific
newspaper from to not show up at all, or not be a link
- just the text, and users can go to the original if
they want by directly pointing the browser there.
I bet the affected paper will very quickly ask Google to
fix the bug, and fast.
3. I wonder what would happen if Google were to tell each
paper "if you want to be included, you have to pay us"
and it can either be a symbolic sum, just to establish
who is providing value to whom, or a symbolic value
per click-through from Google to the content site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what's the solution? Advertising?
You have to tie that free traffic to something. Who is going to just give you money because you have traffic? Advertisers and ... umm ... *scratches chin* ... people who like to give away money? Selling T-shirts for the Times?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good luck in the future!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google a parasite?
Bet they'd change their minds real fast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]