Media versus Google

by David Iwanow ON 20 November 2009

Tough question but, do we even need Google? The one topic that continues to be discussed in business and publishing circles has returned to centre stage with recent public tantrums from News Corp screaming they plan to block Google.

In September I blogged about how publishers appear to be flipping out over how little control they have over their online content with Google News. Since then, News Corp has made a public announcement it would be moving towards a pay model by June 2010 in an attempt to claw back falling advertiser revenue – without Google.

The interesting aspect to this stand off is that unlike many other publishers, News Corp does have a competitive advantage due to its worldwide network of websites, dominance in the media and established offline promotion channels. If any media company is able to survive without traffic from Google it should be News Corporation.

To give you an understanding of the scale of News Corp’s gamble, according to Google Ad Planner from its network of 54 websites, each month News Corp receive around 11.28 million unique visitors, serves around 846,000,000 page views and reaches around 65% of all Australians. According to HitWise, 25% of all WSJ.com (the Wall Street Journals’ web presence) visitors are delivered by Google. So how serious is News Corp with their against-the-tide future digital strategy.

To cloud the issue as to when News Corp will switch to its pay model, it now seems to be accepted by Rupert Murdoch that News Corp will struggle to reach the June 2010 deadline he imposed. So what’s the rush to block Google?

News Corp has apparently placed its trust in social media as a future source of visitors, but HitWise advise that currently Facebook and Twitter only deliver around 4% of visitor traffic. A likely issue is, compared to other publisher websites, News Corp is not even fully prepared for social media as sharing its news stories remains difficult in even the most popular platforms, such as Twitter.

I look at TechCrunch as an example of a media site that understands the benefits of making it easy to share content via social media. TechCrunch offers Facebook Connect for user comments, Trackback URLs for article referencing by bloggers and assists visitors by pre-generating a Bit.ly short URL.

The public issue between News Corp and Google appears to have started over several stress points:

Google launched a free real estate listing service competing with REA Group
Traffic drops for MySpace meant News Corp lost millions in revenue from Google
Google don’t pay enough to their AdSense partners or charge enough for content placement, and
Google News ‘steals’ publishers images, story snippets and even story headlines

So if we are to believe that News Corporation is serious, why are they contributing to Google’s revenue by buying traffic using AdWords? Also a majority of the News Corp network sites depend on Google AdWords for attracting better quality, targeted visitors and allowing them to top up website traffic to satisfy advertisers.

ews src=http://lh4.ggpht.com/_BgW7JrfFDwk/SwXWB0mrMMI/AAAAAAAAACk/riZa67Ui_8U/s720/google-news-adwords.png alt=
ews height=394 width=600 />

There are other solutions that News Corp could explore besides
throwing in the towel in its dispute with Google. Around the world
more publishers are either going head-to-head with Google or working to
drive as much traffic from search as possible. Brent Payne, SEO
director for Tribune Interactive, works to ensure they get as much search traffic as possible from every story.

The Tribune methodology focuses on following white-hat guidelines and working directly with search engines:

Best practice SEO training is run across the Tribune group
Continuous optimisation, measurement and improvement of content, and
Ongoing development of fresh content based on current events and breaking-news

All these steps could be easily implemented by News Corp – who appear to have worked hard to build non-optimised websites. News Corp could follow Tribune Interactive’s example to vastly increase the amount of traffic leading to increased online revenue.

The BBC is also on News Corp’s firing line because, according to Murdoch, their TV licence funding allows them to compete unfairly against News Corp. This challenge seems counterintuitive as the BBC is one of the few media companies challenging the growth of Google’s embedded YouTube player. The BBC is building its own solution which it has begun providing free to other organisations.

These are two different examples of how media companies are working to ensure they remain competitive, while focusing on providing quality content and solutions – not wasting resources on a shouting match over who is right.

As Slate contributor Jack Shafer points out, in the past Murdoch has been the first to drive down the price of newspapers if he can get the volumes to work in his favour. Is this a reverse strategy to try and drive up the value of his content so News Corp gets paid more be every advertisers?

The freesheet was another failed battleground, where Murdoch started a race to the bottom by giving away his printed content with the pure advertising-supported The London Paper. So can he really play the white knight in the argument over the value of content in a fast moving digital world?

What is interesting is News Corp’s web properties still have a large number of Google AdSense modules allowing them to benefit financially from Google’s AdWords business model. News Corp appears to be playing a game of bluff as they are not making use of robots.txt to advise Google not to index their network of websites.

The process to be accepted into the Google News program and ensuring you stay up to date with their processes requires resources so why haven’t News Corp just requested to be removed? I have even provided the links – there is no reason, if Murdoch was serious about blocking Google, why he couldn’t do it today.

Murdoch versus search saga continues

by Marketing ON 16 November 2009

News Corp’s chief digital officer has outlined the case against search indexing.

According to News Corp’s chief digital officer, Jonathan Miller, Murdoch is ready to block access to his company’s sites soon.

“There is real tension surrounding the free versus pay debate. It will play out in the next two years. We believe that the value of high quality content is not recognised online… so something needs to happen,” said Miller. “I don’t believe the media industry can continue to exist in this way.”

“The traffic which comes in from Google brings a consumer who more often than not reads one article and then leaves the site. That is the least valuable of traffic to us… the economic impact is not as great as you might think. You can survive without it.”

Miller admitted News Corp couldn’t make the change alone, expressing an expectation that other media companies will follow. He said without consumers paying for content, the financial reality was individual international news bureaus would close.

A spokesperson for Google expressed its views:

“Google News and web search are a tremendous source of promotion for news organisations, sending them about 100,000 clicks every minute. Publishers put their content on the web because they want it to be found, so very few choose not to include their material in Google News and web search. But if they tell us not to include it, we dont.”

Sir Rupert Murdoch last week announced a delay for his paid content model.

Publishing flips out

by David Iwanow ON 16 September 2009

One of the biggest changes to shake up online media consumption has been Rupert Murdoch’s recent announcement that News Corp will charge for access to all its websites from 2010. The current free-for-all model will expire at the end of this financial year and take on a Wall Street Journal style fee-for-access model.

This follows a very aggressive move by Associated Press to take legal action against websites and blogs that use Associated Press articles without legal permission. While these moves seem more focused at trying to slow the dependence on Google News and blogs, they appears similar to the music labels heavy-handed approach to piracy.

The issue around critical mass is key to any successful online platform and if Google News already offers 4,500 news sites to consumers why change? Part of the issue has been claims that Google News cannibalises potential advertising revenue and then further impinges on publishers through placement of ads next to their headlines and article snippets.

The recent move towards paid content models by large media groups has accelerated, with Journalism Online reportedly signing 176 daily newspapers as potential clients for its service (still far less than the alleged 500 expressions of interest). The Journalism Online business model is fairly profitable as it revolves around a commission of 20% paid on any subscription fees paid.

The twist to this happy ending is why would News Corporation move away from dependence on Google News to become dependent on Journalism Online? News Corp has the option of pushing towards the formation of its own content consortium because of its global operations and established regional nameplates. News Corp appears to have stayed away from US centric technologies such as Amazon Kindle, so what is planned next?

The issue here is not around if journalists should be paid for great content but should consumers pay for online access to that content? The problem is a mixed bag of complaints about revenue, from placement advertising not reflecting the quality of the content to maintaining total control of content. Some media groups such as Tribune Interactive have been very aggressive in trying to draw as much traffic from sources such as Google, while others seem to be giving up.

The only true media platform that has had the ability to attract large numbers of people willing to pay for music has been iTunes. Much of the success is around the simple ‘one-click’ micro-payment system they offer consumers demonstrating that such a micro-payment solution has potential but needs to be centralised.

A recent request from the Newspapers Association of America for proposals of how to best charge for content online received 11 submissions, including submissions from Google & Journalism Online. The interesting point is although Google will likely expand their checkout payment system to cover micro-payments, it still does not see this as the key driver of revenue.

The reason why Google doesn’t see micro-payments as a major source of revenue is because they have an established Adsense/DoubleClick platform that will likely continue to be the key driver of revenue sharing with the content providers.

The recent launch of a new Google Labs product, FastFlip, has re-ignited interest in how Google can deliver a better media product for consumers and keep media providers happy. The initial tests show the new product has only limited sharing options: a FriendFeed, a ‘Like’ rating button and a disappointing lack of customisation of news feeds.

FastFlip has already showed it is more suited to magazine and book publishers as the screenshots allow articles to be partially read, but the real issue is that the screenshots don’t allow the content provider’s client ads to be displayed. This method, used to present the articles, seems to ‘re-break’ the advertising model and place content providers back at square one.

The new format also shows the limitations of contextual placement of advertising, as those shown do not appear to be relevant to the article and only partially relevant to the category. The ability of Google to generate revenue for FastFlip at the cost of the publisher’s ads will likely require more generous revenue sharing agreements. The screenshot format will likely become a larger issue, as it may exceed the fair use claim used in the past to allow Google News to display snippets and article titles.

All this experimentation is healthy for the media industry as it seems to be moving toward a consolidated approach that combines display ad revenue and micro-payments as a long-term solution.

YouTube supports citizen journalism

by Marketing ON 2 July 2009

YouTube has announced the launch of a portal specifically designed for citizen journalism.

The channel is aimed at both accidental and deliberately captured video news. Called the ‘Reporters’ Centre’, the resource is targeted at aspiring reporters or citizen journalists. Offering tips from well-known reporters, YouTube is also encouraging users with news reporting experience to add their own tips.

The site launch included some big names offering their journalistic insight: investigative journalism taught by Bob Woodward; Arianna Huffington on why citizens are vital to news gathering; how to prepare for an interview by Katie Couric; and, Nicholas Kristof’s how-to on dodging bullets while reporting from a crisis zone.

In addition, practical and ethical tips are offered, such as how to fact check, avoiding libel and adherence to journalistic principles.

YouTube is expected to integrate the service with Google News.

“Though its the phenomenon of citizen reporting that YouTube is probably best known for, we also have hundreds of news partners who upload thousands of videos straight to YouTube every day,” wrote Olivia Ma, YouTube news specialist.

“We believe the power of this new media landscape lies in the collaborative possibilities of amateurs and professionals working together.”