GOOG could lose more than Murdoch
Summary: Surely Google has more to lose from being blocked by the newspaper industry. It's index is key--it cares little if content is free...
The accepted wisdom is that if Rupert Murdoch and other newspapers block Google then they will suffer and die.
But is that really true?
These are some of the facts:
- The value of Google search traffic to the newspapers is low. Its loss wouldn't make much difference to the newspapers' already poor online revenues. They can't monetize the traffic anyway so its loss makes no difference to their future.
- Wouldn't the damage to Google be much greater?
If it is locked out from being able to index a large part of the Internet, it would be very bad for business. It would strike at its very core of its mission: "To index all the world's information."
Google users would question what else is missing?
Google's index is its Achilles' heel. It will do everything it needs to do to protect its ability to index content.
And itt doesn't matter if the content is free or not. As Google's Josh Cohen recently told SearchEngineLand: "...people will say ... 'I have to make this content free or Google won't index it,' and that's not the case."
So, who has the most to lose if News Corp and other large publishers block Google?
Newspaper online revenues won't be affected much at all.
But Google's reputation as having the best index would be seriously harmed. It would have a large hole in its index.
And that hole would be made up of missing content - new content - the most valuable thing for search engines. People search for new content. That's what brings them back to Google.
Surely Google has far more to lose than the newspaper publishers from being blocked.
And that's why it will do whatever it needs to do in order to preserve its index, including possibly paying for access.
Rupert Murdoch may have very well have found the weak spot in Google's business plan..
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Thanks, this was insightful
a (more desperate) Google competitor - and
blocked Google. That would be a <i>very</i>
real threat. If users suddenly finds that
Google returns fewer quality results than
competitors, Google could lose search share,
fast. That would strike <i>directly</i> against
Google's only real source of income. It would
be naive to think that Murdoch does not
consider playing that card somewhere down the
line.
A revolt against race to zero may be brewing.
At first I thought payed content would be
stillborn. However, while I like to have
everything for free, I do believe that those
producing prime content should get payed. Maybe
they have just not found the correct way of
offering it yet. Until now it has been too much
hassle.
Maybe content providers could agree to offer
"packets" like satellite TV where I buy the
right to use from a number of sites and the
sites agree on some way to share revenue based
on usage statistics. I certainly would not want
to have to subscribe to individual sources.
That would "lock" me into a single (or a few)
sources. While I would be willing to pay for
news and analysis, I will not accept to do so
only from a single source.
It may end up hurt Murdoch and not Google
The one that maybe be affected greatly would be news.now.co.uk, which has the best news site.
News papers are the past, some large ones will survive, the rest mean nothing.
Re: It may end up hurt Murdoch and not Google
I agree 100%.
People are not stupid and after they get the sensation that the sites A, B and Z may/will start charging they'll just find another site. And they will do that using Google.
It's a win-win situation for google.
Google = Goldman Sachs in the IT field
No problem
</sarcasm>
Now seriously, Google better get their act together fast or their future will not be as rosy as their past.
Exactly. But it depends on multiple factors
together fast or their future will not be as
rosy as their past.</i>
Yep. But to be credible Murdoch and the other
media outlets have to
1) have an alternative to Google. They still
need their content indexed to entice new
"subscribers".
2) act in concert with all major media outlets
who could otherwise threaten this move. This is
the classic "prisoners dilemma".
Re: 1) if Microsoft with Bing could grow to
25%-30% of Google, they would be within
striking range if <i>they</i> were to land a
deal with Murdoch et al and Google didn't.
Threatening to go with an alternative index
which holds only 9% of the search market is not
going to cut it.
Re: 2) If Murdoch establishes himself as the
rallying point and at some point bring in the
news agencies as well, he may hold some
leverage. If he cannot bring in the "discount"
news outlets, he may be able to convince the
major news agencies (the suppliers of the
discount media outlets), and convince them to
change the licensing terms, e.g. disallow
unpaid use on the internet, or use a tiered
approach.
The plan is not without risks and weak points.
But I agree with Tom Foremski that it just may
be the weak point of Google. If Google couldn't
be relied upon to find up-to-date information
about everyday subjects that would be a major
dent in their reliability.
Murdoch and Steve Jobs would make good partners
Their reliability?
content or we'll sue!"
How is that a problem with the search engine's
reliable? It is solely Murdoch's fault, no matter
what way you look at it.
"Their" act?
engines from indexing content. How can you blame
that on Google?
Separating men from the boys...
Google has a knack for making things happen and this is no different.
rubish
the only thing that will happen is that google users will see news from independant news media.
f u c k murdrock and his paying for news, his new world order idea.
it is the basic human right today to be informed.
Nope
press nowadays. It's all going to get locked down
soon at this rate. Search engines won't even be
able to index websites.. hurray for bull-shit
legislation!
I wonder what next.. will they make it illegal for
a browser to render a webpage? LOL!
It seems to me that
Are the ad revenues so bad that delivering printed media is out of the question and the online paper cannot pay for itself? If that is the case, Bing will not help much, unless MS is willing to lose a lot of money to gain market share.
RE: GOOG could lose more than Murdoch
Simple business at play. If a good percentage of the news organizations get
little revenue stream that they did not have before. They
want a cut of the money Google makes on search ads, and
will probably get it. Google might end up paying a lot of
content generators for the right to index.
RE: GOOG could lose more than Murdoch
RE: GOOG could lose more than Murdoch
RE: GOOG could lose more than Murdoch
Search engines are not the best methods for linking to content
All that is needed is for a different and better model for linkage to the content.
I know of a product which could take away a large percentage of Google's traffic. It's not out there yet and I'm surprised that the big players haven't thought of it yet. But, it will come. And when it comes, Google and MSN and Yahoo and all search engines will be rendered practically useless when it comes to providing the "access" to that content. And in a very major way, so would the media outlets themselves, such as Murdoc's publications; other major publications would also be heavily affected, such as the NY Times and Washington Post and the BBC, etc. In a major way, it could be a boon to content providers, and it could actually revive
Also affected would be the major discussion sites and web logs. But the weblogs and forums would be big beneficiaries. The major publications, including Murdoc's, could also benefit if they were to go along with the model in question.
The model I have in mind is mostly a different way of creating and presenting and accessing the news and the information, while at the same time providing easy access to discussions of all the news and information.
With the model I mentioned, there would be no need for search engines to get people to the news and to the information and to the discussions. The loss of that huge part of internet traffic would dramatically affect the bottom lines for Google and for MSN; the beneficiaries would be the discussion sites and the blogs and the information and news providers. Search engines which depend upon content providers for a large portion of their searches and revenue will shrink in size.
RE: GOOG could lose more than Murdoch