Facebook Sends Lots Of Traffic To News Sites... Will They Start Demanding To Be Paid?
from the just-wait-and-see... dept
With a new report coming out suggesting that Facebook sends more traffic to news sites than Google News, folks like Mathew Ingram are asking if Rupert Murdoch, the AP and others will be complaining about Facebook "stealing" their traffic and demanding to get paid. Given their reactions to Google, it does seem like a reasonable question. Or will that only happen when Facebook is making much more money from its other lines of business, and those news execs get jealous?
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
mmm interesting
proving as you say it is jealousy not to protect there copyright.
perhaps google ad facebook should get together and charge the papers for sending traffic their way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google on the other hand is doing the opposite, they are taking news traffic, and "getting in the way", hoping to profit from the traffic in one manner or another.
it is a night and day difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://news.google.ca/news?q=copyright&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1GGGL _en___CA350&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn
Links off to web search, photo search, to add gadgets to your desktop (selling the Google brand) etc. There are about 20 links off the page that are not news.
Google gets in the way, trying to give you a "google" experience, and thus get you to also use their other (income earning) properties.
It's a good business model, but in the end, Google doesn't give the news for free, just at no apparent cost to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Look at it the other way: for the majority of my non-tech, non-movie news, I tend to browse 2 sites - BBC and The Independent. I sometimes go to Google News to get a quick look at any breaking stories those sites don't have, or to read from a differing perspective. That is, Google directs me to sites I would not otherwise read.
On the Google News homepage right now (a modified UK layout, if you're interested), most of the main links take me to a site other than the two I normally read. So, by displaying the link to me, there's a chance that the site in question will get a visit they would otherwise have had.
Again, tell me how this is bad for the news sites? Especially since I constantly use Google's other services anyway, how is my click through onto, say, Reuters' site a bad thing for Reuters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If each one of those links represented 0.5% of all clicks on the page, and you have 20 of them, you suck 10% of the traffic off the page. It is important that Google is very much into spreading their brand, and so they do push things like RSS, gadgets, desktops, google start pages (as you mention with your "modified UK layout") etc. They get you to spend more time on their site, and when it comes time for you to do something that would make someone money, google can get in the middle of it.
If you need someone to point the bricks on your house, you might search in google, because google gave you such nice news, and allowed you to use their stuff for your start page.
Try not to look at things so literally, look at them in overall "experience". Look at your own activities, as realize that Google has pretty much sucked you in with other people's content. They offer you a service, but that service is never truly free, just without apparent cost to you.
If you want to have some real fun, check how many google ads you see in a day. It is shocking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you really arguing that Facebook is intentionally driving traffic to the news sites?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If nobody linked to the news, facebook wouldn't send any traffic to news sites.
Intent is key.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You said: When you look at any google page, there are almost always links off in other directions than the news.
Reality says: Facebook "almost always links off in other directions than the news.
Result is: You fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
These links are not obtrusive, not directly paid for, and do not take revenue away from the news sites unless a person chooses to go to, say, Google Maps instead of CNN. In that case, then surely CNN's content was not that compelling in the first place? If I do choose to click on to CNN, that's a hit (and thus extra potential for ad revenue) that they would not have had if Google's page did not exist.
Again, I fail to see the problem with this. Google are no more taking away the news sites' revenue than the BBC are taking away CNN's revenue if their links happen to appear side-by-side.
"as realize that Google has pretty much sucked you in with other people's content"
No, they didn't. I happen to use Google as my primary search, maps as my primary map application and GMail as one of my major email platforms. My being on Google News has nothing to do with the content there apart from the fact that it's a handy addition. If it wasn't there, I would still use Google's other services in the same proportions I do now, but CNN/Fox/Toronto Star/Reuters/etc. would not have gotten the clicks/ad revenue they received today through my Google News clicks.
The reason I started using Google as my search provider was the same as many others over the years - they offered a better service. Yeah, you can argue it's built on other's content (i.e. they have to have something to search), but the reason I use Google is that their service is still superior. Ads get to pay for that service instead of my direct payments? Great, If another news aggregator is out there that offers a better service, I may use that. But, even then, I'd continue using GMail until such time as a superior email service comes to my attention... and so on.
"If you want to have some real fun, check how many google ads you see in a day. It is shocking."
Not really. I'm a seasoned internet user so ads rarely register with me unless they're annoying. The chances of me clicking through to them are minimal, so I don't really care. The question is this: why have so many content providers chosen to use Google Ads as their ad services rather than its competitors. By that, I'm referring to the sites themselves, not advertisers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Really?
"In reality, what they are going is taking non-news traffic (people visiting facebook) and turning them into news viewers.
In the anti mike reality.
"It isn't like people are cruising facebook to get the local headlines."
yet
"Google on the other hand is doing the opposite"
are they turning news viewers into non-news traffic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If its the former then it would be stupid beyond belief for anyone to attack Facebook for this. As Anti-Mike pointed out it is taking a non-news viewer and linking them a news article which is precisely what the papers should want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
share content
[ link to this | view in chronology ]