Rupert Murdoch said recently that he’s planning to stop Google News from indexing his publications including the Times of London and the Wall Street Journal. Murdoch’s idea is that Google News and the like make it too easy for Internet users to sample news for free rather than paying for it as God and Rupert intended. Mark Cuban, who is very clever but with whom I rarely agree, thinks this is smart on Murdoch’s part, because Twitter is changing the way people find news, effectively disintermediating Google, but not the News Corp. publications, themselves.
It’s funny how Murdoch’s statement made Cuban think of Twitter while it made me think immediately of the A&P.
The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, or A&P, was America’s first national chain of food markets. Hell, it was America’s first self-serve market, first to have store brands, first to advertise nationally, first to have a customer loyalty program (in 1912!), first to publish its own magazine (Womens’ Day, which is still around, though no longer owned by the A&P), and for most of my childhood back in Ohio A&P was the big Kahuna of grocery chains. With $5.4 billion in sales in the mid-1960s, A&P was at least 20 percent bigger than any of its competitors.
But after 105 years of setting the pace for the grocery industry, A&P peaked in the mid-1960s and went into a decline that lasted for at least 15 years and, it can be argued, continues even to this day. A&P, which has had German owners (the Tengelman Group) since the 1970s, is more of a super-regional chain today and doesn’t particularly vie for industry leadership on any measure. What happened in the mid-1960s to hurt A&P was it opted out of being indexed by Google News.
Well not literally, but close enough. A&P management, which back in the mid-60’s was still chosen from the founding Hartford family, decided at that time to abandon shopping centers — retail aggregators as Google is a news aggregator. They reasoned that in most shopping centers the anchor store was an A&P. In their view their supermarket was the main draw for a shopping center and didn’t need any of those other shops or stores to provide traffic. The rest of the shopping center was seen by A&P management as being purely parasitic. The company could get cheaper real estate down the road with a standalone store, which is why today most A&Ps aren’t in shopping centers. It’s also why A&P is a shadow of its former self.
You see the Hartford family (and Rupert Murdoch) were wrong. The flawed assumption at A&P was that shopping centers would somehow do without an anchor supermarket, which they didn’t. By withdrawing from the common location A&P was not only walking away from significant customer traffic, it was in each case simply handing that traffic to a Safeway or a Kroger store. It was a supremely stupid move.
Which brings us back to Rupert Murdoch, who is brilliant in his own right but in this case can’t find his own URL with both hands. If Murdoch abandons Google News, then those hundreds of millions of reader referrals per day will simply go to other publications or maybe even to guys like me. It’s not like Google can’t fill the space.
Murdoch wants readers to pay for news. I’d like folks to be paying for my words, too. But pulling out of Google News isn’t the way for either of us to accomplish that. And Twitter isn’t a factor with enough of the audience (yet? ever?) to make a difference.
Giving Murdoch the benefit of the doubt, then, I’m guessing he simply doesn’t mean what he said. Perhaps he just wanted to sow a little confusion, get some publicity and maybe a concession or two from Google.
It won’t work.
Interesting.
However, some argument by anecdote: I subscribe to your RSS feed, which I read through Google reader. I also get your Twitter feed. Since subscribing to your twitter feed it is the way I get to your new articles. I go and mark them as read in google reader. I don’t get news through google, increasingly I get it through twitter. For me the change is starting to happen naturally.
When something is “happening” I’ll look at twitter and then maybe facebook or a news site.
For “old” stuff (that is: something not happening now), I’ll look at google.
So: I think Cuban is right in that Twitter is a new and relevant aggregator. How big a factor is twitter now, and how big a factor will it be? I don’t know, but I do know that timeliness is important and that is the twitter feature.
Twitter is big and growing, but it will take a generational shift (10-15 years) for it to achieve market dominance. My Mom uses the Internet, subscribes to the Wall Street Journal, but hasn’t even heard of Twitter yet.
Bob, most Twitter users are roughly your age, or at least GenX age and above. Ask teenagers about Twitter and they’ll tell you it’s for “old people.” This does not bode well for Twitter’s future. No disrepect to your mom, but her generation won’t be around that much longer. In 10-15 years Twitter either won’t exist (having been abandoned by the 35-50 age group after growing bored with it and having been ignored completely by teenagers turned 20-somethings) or it will be a small shell of itself, integrated into some other service not yet invented, and it will be largely forgotten about. This will eventually happen to Facebook too, as it collapses under the weight of Facebook “apps” and bad UI redesigns that most companies can’t stop themselves from doing.
Those teenagers will most likely turn into 35-50 year olds sooner or later and they will outgrow facebook’s narcissistic, preening cultural meme.
With a little tweaking of Twitter’s social interconnect geometries it could become a useful freeform RSS feed. The lists are a good start. Perhaps collaborative tweet topics would help?
Anyway twitter will probable be replaced by Google wave/wavelets as they can serve up all the same social communication geometries with more variations and the added feature of built in persistence. Kind of like standing wave of collaborative social debate and outcome that are societally actionable as a cultural/political meme blue print element. Wave/Wavelets woven into a neural net of other wave/wavelets could form the substrate of an organically emergent media ecology genome(meme).
As far as anecdotes go, Google didn’t help me find my way to Bob’s column today either; I have it on my RSS list. What does that prove? I still use Google for lots of other things. twitter seems like noise.
He “can’t find his own URL with both hands.” Brilliant. Simply brilliant.
I agree that any news media company that opts out of Google News or any other popular news aggregator will be replaced very easily by any existing or new media company or news source. News agrregators are too popular and very popular – to opt out is financial suicide. When an RSS feed is broken and not fixed quickly by a blog or news site, traffic goes to hell and doesn’t ascend until problem is fixed. Some people will have bookmarked site but most are lazy and already reliant on RSS, Atom , etc.
Doing this voluntarily will cost News corporation billions down the road. It’s their neck.
I read an article a while ago that said that Murdoch isn’t very tech savvy, apparently he doesn’t even use email yet. I reckon that with the internet he is trying to play a game that he doesn’t understand.
His empirical position was always going to be weakened by the internet but he is going to make it weaker by withdrawing from Google and charging for his online newspapers. I think that will be a good thing, especially here in Britain where he has such a stranglehold.
Like information in general, news wants to be free. By now, people are so used to getting their news for free that unless you can offer some very special added value, getting them to pay for it is just out of the question. I also happen to be a professional writer, or used to be, until I understood how the Interwebs work. Now I offer my writing for free as a download. You can still pay for it if you want hardcopy; after all, it’s cheaper and easier than printing it out yourself. But where we make our living these days is in added services: guided learning situations (also known as online courses), counseling, community memberships, etc. That allows us to leverage content aggregators like Google and YouTube into acting as free advertising. Works for us! But then we always were a little different.
Rupert has been talking about removing his papers from google for over a year. I really wish he would just shut up and ask someone to add google to the robots.txt file of his websites.
Its a simple job, can be done at any time and would within a single day proof what a totally stupid idea it would be.
I wish Rupert Murdoch would do this as well. Since I have in intense dislike for the man because of how he has destroyed real news with propaganda, I would love it if all of his web properties simply disappeared from Google News and search results. It would help me avoid accidentally visiting a site of his that I did not know he owns. No, I won’t pay for his content and no, I don’t even want to generate ad revenue for him either.
I also think this issue has been blown up far more than Murdoch intended – I suspect it was a throwaway comment more than a real intention. But I do fully agree – this would hurt his properties far more than Google. No chance would it work.
Nah, it isn’t a throwaway. Murdoch believes his own press, he’s bigger than all of us, you see. Must guide the sheeple through the gates to drop their coins in his collection.
Abject bunk, but that’s what he believes. Murdoch is a shrewd arbiter of the human condition, that’s why his English tabloids made so freaking much money that he could buy businesses across the globe.
But in the Internet age, his ideas are pure Citizen Kane. He has a billion competing page views, depending on how you word your question to the search engines. It’s not ten titles on the front of the news stand, where you can shout the loudest with color or type or scandal. It’s the same size and font of text on the search engine.
This is what gives wackos equal access to minds. It also dilutes brand power. And in my personal humble opinion, has contributed to misinformation by presenting quality journalism on equal or lesser footing to pinheads’ sites.
And ol’ Rupert is not in the game if he’s not in the page ranking at all. Dead tree editions are a diminishing business. Murdoch is on the wrong horse, and now determined to race straight across the turf and into the parking lot.
He could look up the history of Hearst Publications if he cares.
Does anyone have any doubt what Wall St. would do to Murdoch’s stocks if Google came out tomorrow and said that *they* weren’t going to aggregate Murdoch sources any more?
Good point. I think they no doubt would take a dip, and would be a talked about news item on TV.
Murdoch is used to being the “center of gravity” for all news and now Google is, and that’s why he is so upset.
Murdoch could easily stop Google indexing all his sites, but to do so would be business suicide.
I don’t think this is about Google “stealing” Murdoch’s content, I think this is about Murdock losing power, control and relevance to Google.
Excellent article – beats most Times online op-eds I’ve read recently. The idea that Twitter will somehow help Murdoch out of this blind alley seems absurd – things only spread virally on Twitter if they’re quickly and easily accessible to the next person along the chain. By definition this won’t be the case for the majority of users, unless and until a huge proportion are already signed up to Murdoch’s pay-per-view system.
The only possible way I could see this working would be if Murdoch could get monopoly ownership on some content that lots of people, really, really want to see. He certainly managed to do that with pay-per-view TV in the 80s/90s when he bought the exclusive rights to show live Premier League football matches (previously shown for free on terrestrial TV) – but it’s hard to imagine anything the Times or Sun or NY Post could publish that people would be that bothered about – especially as there’s now so much more excellent content available for free than ever before.
[…] have. Jeff Jarvis had a right old pop at Murdoch yesterday on Twitter, and today Cringely has a really stretched metaphor for why Murdoch has got it completely wrong. And they’re just the most famous ones. […]
[…] I, Cringely » Blog Archive » News Corp to Offer Plaid Stamps … […]
[…] News Corp to Offer Plaid Stamps! – "Giving Murdoch the benefit of the doubt, then, I’m guessing he simply doesn’t mean what he said. Perhaps he just wanted to sow a little confusion, get some publicity and maybe a concession or two from Google." […]
I am curious about where these 3 comments come from in the Replies.
I’ve Said Too Much » Sneering is not argument says:
the box movie review | Research Here says:
My delicious.com bookmarks for November 6th through November 10th ~ This is ZX81.org.uk says:
Twitter gone rogue?
[…] News Corp to Offer Plaid Stamps! | I, Cringely […]
I like the analogy. Great analysis of A&P. But if all the “big boys” started locking up and charging for their content, there would be a quality of news that google can’t get. Sure there would be stuff to fill the holes, but it would be lacking a certain tier of news that people would have to pay for. Not as many would, but those that did could (perhaps) make profit for the sellers.
It would be illegal for Murdock to collude with the owners of the NY Times and others in that tier of news, and do this en mass, but maybe by him speaking out in public about it, he’s hoping to get everyone on board. It’s not like any of his peer group are in a financial position to take advantage.
Here is where you are delightfully wrong. Google News doesn’t index I, Cringely, yet I consistently have items weeks or months before the Big Boys you mention (THEY read ME). I’m not indexed because of an arbitrary Google decision not to include publications that have only a single writer, viewing me as a hobbyist even though this is how I make my living. If there was an exodus of mainstream media out of Google News all they’d have to do is rejigger the algorithm to pick up people like me, with the result that results and customer service would only improve. I’m hardly unique. Maybe it would be good if Google News stopped trying to mirror the news industry and, instead, chose to mirror the news.
Does “3” = “e” ?
heh, his own site and he has to ‘leet his screen name to get on. there’s a story there, I’m sure… .
“THEY read ME”
ooo!
“It would be illegal for Murdock to collude with the owners of the NY Times and others in that tier of news, and do this en mass, …”: really ? In Belgium (and Europe), it’s apparently not: french speaking newppapers collude (or ask) together to refuse to be indexed in google news. See my post below (and sorry for my free-style english).
Very interesting – good analogy. I hope you’re right.
In the UK, where News Corp has a very strong presence already in TV & newspapers, this paid-for-news strategy is playing out as a series of pre-emptive strikes against the BBC (eg. https://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/28/james-murdoch-bbc-mactaggart-edinburgh-tv-festival).
The Murdoch family are getting plenty of encouragement on this subject (https://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/19/wed-abolish-bbc-trust-hunt) from the Conservative party – who are very likely to form the incoming UK govt after next year’s election, and who already have Murdoch papers lining up behind them (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8281859.stm).
Even a man of Murdoch’s evident ego doesn’t believe he can take out the BBC single-handed. He needs political help also, but it seems like he has it.
Your last paragraph has either a typo or a Freudian slip suggesting that Mr. Murdock is being a bit of a pig. I’m gonna bet on the latter.
2nd to last.
Please specify the typo? (Or has it been fixed?) Thanks. 🙂
It isn’t a typo. sow means “to scatter seed” as well as “a female pig”. Your thinking of “sew”, meaning “to repair with thread”. The former is the intended meaning.
The only way news will work on a pay/subscription standpoint is if there is some type of value add that the subscribers get that the non-subscribers don’t. “Custom” news or better access to reporters are two that come to mind. Im sure there are others smarter than me that can invent something better. Bob, I’m sure you have thought of creating a Premium Member section of your website. I’d pay something for that. Answering our personal emails has some value to us. …
Bob, don’t Wall*Mart, Target and K-Mart tend to prove that A&P was right? They are big box retail stores that are not in malls, pay lower rents by setting up shop down the road out of town limits, and have expanded to include everything A&P used to sell plus all sorts of electronics and dry goods.
(interestingly, all 3 were founded in 1962!)
Murdoch is right – he’s being disintermediated. His play should be to grab the layer one step up from his content and monetize that. He should be buying the real estate to make money on the traffic to all the eyeballs his editorial attracts.
Ryan Dancey
Those 3 department stores attracted customers with better pricing. Murdoch is proposing to do the opposite!
WalMart has shown you can prosper outside of strip malls. A&P had the right idea, but implemented it poorly.
All the Wal-marts I’ve been to around here (TN) are effectively in strip malls. Sometimes they aren’t physically connected, but they are always surrounded by other, smaller retailers and restaurants.
Bob I’d pay ya $0.99 per blog post. Just don’t do more than 5 a month.
Really?
The book “Good to Great” by Jim Collins examines the A&P vs. Kroger issue.
He concludes that A&P’s downfall was ignoring current and developing conditions.
http://books.google.com/books?id=9Ogzl-3k1eoC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=Good+to+Great+Kroger+A%26P&source=bl&ots=pDIaQrFiz2&sig=HlJrSg3R0juH28PH-MtvXFcD-oE&hl=en&ei=qY35SqSnDIemMZLm2doK&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Good%20to%20Great%20Kroger%20A%26P&f=false
In the ’50s when I was a teenager, I worked in our small town A&P. Very likely the “corporate management” of the A&P never went off to WWII and Korea. The A&P had no meaningful financial control in the local stores. Groceries, Meat and Produce were independent fiefdoms at war with each other in the local store and at the regional office. “Business as usual, according to tradition.”
That A&P store (as described in the referenced book) was/became dirty and drab.
One block away in a town of 15k, a local grocer built a “food land” market, with “choice”, bright decor, variety, flowers, beer & wine, photomurals, etc. That standalone INDEPENDENT store is STILL there, but the A&P decayed and blew away four decades ago.
Bob: Rejection of mall & anchor store concept? Nope, that’s not the real reason. A&P in nearby college small city went into a strip mall, NAKED fluorescent lights, drab, dirty, black paint, unchanged product range, just BIGGER & CHEAPER. Store closed in a few years.
Even though I have an account with NYTimes and Slashdot, I access them through my iGoogle page. I also have CNN, BBC, Huff Post and a bunch of bloggers on there as well.
I really don’t want to be having to make the rounds of my news sources, I want it all on one page.
And when it’s some breaking news thing, first thing I do is hit google. Go figuh!
Murdoch sells trust/familiarity – not newspapers.
If the brand is not reinforced continually you will start assigning that trust to a named writer in Google news.
And you definitely wont think of buying the newspaper or going to the website.
I think it is too late for newspapers to turn public habits back. As RC said, young people do not usually buy newspapers
– well, not for news but they do for entertainment (the Sun in the UK and National Enquirer in the US) and this may be a way out for him.
I do subscribe to the economist in print because it has long interesting articles and they are easier read on paper.
I read the headlines and the news on Google, but am not sure how useful twitter is given the necessary brevity.
On the other hand, looking at Google news, the headline + strapline is about 160 characters!
I thought I’d mention Bob, that your Ad’s on your site are out of control! I know you’ve got to pay the bills and all, but tone them down a bit. That too much to ask?
It’s starting to look like one of those bogus sites that make money off people who miss-spelling a domain name, only to bring you to a site packed with ads. It’s especially bad when the ad covers up your article until you click the x to close it.
I thought you had more class than that. Apparently not. If it’s money your after, at this point it would be less pathedic for you to beg for it via pay pal donations.
You can remove many ads by editing your hosts file. I haven’t tried that here since they havn’t been that annoying. Also, my screen res is so small that I can’t see the whole ad, just enough to see the close button. Once closed it seems to stay away for several days.
Yeah the ads are very bad.
I normally don’t see ’em because I usually
surf with Firefox with the Adblock Plus extension.
but the other day I came here using Google Chrome
and was shocked to see what looked like an ad for
softcore porn!
The SurveyHead ads are also in extreme bad taste.
BOB! This is not a good look mate.
Surely there is some other way?
I’m siding with Rupert Murdoch on this one. I think Google has gotten way too big and is regarding itself as too big to be held accountable (Like AIG).
Copyrighted material is just that, and just because Google wants to index it (or anything else for that matter) doesn’t give them the unilateral right to do so. Simply because they are the 800 pound gorilla doesn’t mean they get all the bananas in the jungle solely by acclaimation.
While I’m all for Net neutrality, some things don’t fall under that umbrella. Google needs to own up and get permission first before they send out their little search engine spiders and snag the work of others. It simply a matter of title and ownership and Google has to play by the rules whether they like it or not.
I like to see Murdoch sue the pants off of them.
The Google spiders are readily excluded by a webmaster making a plain text file at the root of their web site that says
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
Google does respect these and will not aggregate that site. It’s not a case of Google evilly stealing Murdoch’s content.
file to be named robots.txt
It seems to me you must not have been around in the 90’s when the Internet was useless and Microsoft could sell Encarta. Plenty of other search engines existed but they each had their own agenda and were not simply based on popularity.
I hope Murdoch continues to listen to his ego. It’d be nice karmic payback for the way that Newscorp has circumvented and neutered FCC media ownership laws by market. Plus, he is the, ahem, gold standard of yellow journalism, so this would probably have a positive impact on the dissemination of real news.
I thought Piggly Wiggly was the first self-serve market chain…
+1 for Piggly Wiggly being the first self-service grocery. Replica of the original at the Pink Palace in Memphis, TN: https://www.memphismuseums.org/sub_exhibit-2590/
(yes I remember see this as a 3rd grader right after the exhibit opened).
Love the analogy. The AP is taking a similar tactic, right?
Murdoch’s plan is double edged. Indeed he is going to keep his brand integrity but will lose the impact of many human communities discussing that which is his content.
The sites that scrape/link off a aggregators’ index is where normal people can begin to talk about what ever the content was of the important story new story (a good thing) or gossip (which I don’t support).
It can be plainly seen in the Galleon Group LLCand -founder Raj Rajaratnam scandals. Google is able to index various headlines worldwide from different sectors -banking/finance/law/culture. Consumers don’t have to shop every media outlet to get a comprehensive view of the situation nor are they locked into a single producer of news.
An independent blog becomes just as much a place to understand and to share the impact that event – when people feel safe to post comments. The Moffet story here brings this to mind. How many former IBMers voiced their experiences at that situation. Most news papers wouldn’t have allowed it as they are already into the next news cycle and don’t have the desire to allow the event to play out.
If one were to think that there are 365 days x 24 hours a day a year for Murdoch’s empire to fill with things to care about that’s actually overwhelming and sad. Most working joes can track maybe 8-16 world events? Maybe they actually want to know more about 3-6 over the course of the year?
Already the US Financial Crisis is awash in to much sound bite competition and too little time to digest what it really is going on.
Unfortunately Murdoch’s empire is not selling to us the wheat, eggs, milk and yeast for us to make solid bread to eat. It’s selling us the junkfood like soft buttery sugar bread that while edible daily is not really good over a lifetime
You might be right if A&P was what a walmart and target are. A&P from what I know of them was strictly groceries. Growing up in maryland in 70s, virtually every shopping center had a grocery. Not one of them was an A&P. They missed that the convience of one stop shopping was more important than thier brand loyalty.
What walmart has done by comparison is to make the the shopping center obsolete by offering most of it’s goods under one roof
The flaw in Murdoch’s logic is that he thinks his is the only news outlet covering any particular story. Wrong. Dozens/hundreds/thousands of independent journalists cover stories from all over the world, most of which News Ltd doesn’t even hear about until they read it on someone else’s web site. In-depth analysis, OpEd, and investigative journalism will also all happily continue without the Murdoch’s of the world. I say, go ahead Rupert, charge like a wounded bull. It will sink a conservative backwater news outlet, encompassing Fox Noise and the WSJ, et al.
[…] search index. Cringely said that News Corp would be denying themselves valuable traffic, handing them to competitors. Mark Cuban, on the other wrote that Twitter is heading to be THE news search site, leaving Google […]
uh, let’s put the boot to this right now. “news” may be, but is not exclusively, 140 or less. 140 or less is even shorter than a radio news story. it’s a headline with a subhead, is what 140 or less is.
a typical ho-hum space filling news story is 6 to 10 column inches in traditional dead tree format, likely 400-500 words.
when you get to extended stories, think pieces, analysis pieces… NYT Magazine pieces… you’re multipage, multipart, multireporter. the valuable stuff for backgrounding and learning exactly what is happening and why.
you can’t Twitter that. Twitter is factoids. Twitter is three bells on the Teletype, alerting you that you best keep looking for a real story soon to come.
It’s complex – and you’re making it sound too simple here.
Google indexes newspapers … but most “newspapers” these days carry very little real news … most of what they carry is either opinion pieces, seeking to justify one political view or another, or else – well reality TV level articles. How many people here look at the Google News page and find more than one or two links to anything or real interest? The real news is not carried on Google News but instead by small US papers like Mother Jones and The Nation, and non-US papers … and, of course, real opinion pieces from people like Robert.
Losing the London Times and the Wall Street Journal from Google is not a big loss – Murdoch has basically gutted both papers at the Internet level of any real reporting in his search for the same level of exposure that Google offers everyone. Google and Murdoch both seek eyeballs – without worrying too much is the eyeballs are connected to anything. My guess is that Murdock is probably right – pulling his papers out of Google will not change his core readership much and let’s face it, the inability of newspapers to monetize Internet news viewers has been a big factor in their current sorry state. What’s happening here is that Murdoch has probably noticed that the people who pay for his papers aren’t reading the stuff that Google is indexing.
What Murdoch (and other newspapers) need to do is find a way to get paying readers back again – publishing on paper is expensive compared to publishing on the Internet yet paper monetizes the news in a way the the Internet does not. In the end it’s all about controlling who reads the news and knowing who reads the news – both generate income … and Google and the Internet are not helping them do this.
I’m living in Belgium, the tiny country around Brussels in Europe.
In this country (10 million people), 6 million people (the flamishes) speak dutch and 4 millions (walloons and brussels people) speak french. If you go to news.google.be (dutch speaking), you will have a lot of links to flemish newspapers but if you go to news.google.be/?hl=fr (french speaking), none of the links point to newspapers because they collectively refused that. The main reason was that google news help people to bypass the home page of the newspapers sites. You may want to know the consequences of that ? I don’t know, I’m not a specialist but this country seems one of the rare country where newspapers sites are the most visited news websites. On the other hand, those sites are not profitable which is their main concern. As a reader, I would prefer to have all the news links in google news but that’s not that embarassing : there are no more that 4 interesting newspapers in frenchspeaking belgium. For the rest : french (from france), english and US news, google news is my pet 😉
“deep linking” is insurrection and murder to the newspaper sites. Reason is that if you get dumped on the main page of the website, you deliver more clicks getting anywhere. You might get distracted and look at other things.. even more clicks.
Clicks are money. Page hits are one measure they use to sell and bill advertising, and the currency for the sales force. In rough times with barely any advertising about, the newspapers want to gather every damn click they can.
One click to a story, and you back-button to Google News or another aggregator site, you are a thief in the eyes of publishers.
That’s why AP does not permit direct links at all, and why many newspapers fight to stop one click entrance to deep pages of the web site. Newspapers as corporations are facing extermination in this ad climate.
It’s more of a reaction to Google’s liberal bent. I doubt he’ll ace out Drudge.
Twitter serves a pointing function. If our content needs can be satisfied by a few dozen characters, we’re all in big troub
[…] News Corp to Offer Plaid Stamps! "What happened in the mid-1960s to hurt A&P was it opted out of being indexed by Google News." leave a comment « DC Tech Events for the Week of November 09 2009 […]
Anything that hurts Murdoch’s media empire is good for humanity. Since opting out of Google’s indexing will hurt, I approve.
[…] News Corp to Offer Plaid Stamps! "Murdoch wants readers to pay for news. I’d like folks to be paying for my words, too. But pulling out of Google News isn’t the way for either of us to accomplish that. And Twitter isn’t a factor with enough of the audience (yet? ever?) to make a difference." (tags: google business journalism) […]
I agree entirely with the suggestion that Murdoch simply doesn’t get the net.
I’ve worked with News International (the UK paper subsidiary) in the past and my contacts seem to suggest that the whole point of having a paywall is for something that we’ve just not considered before. Murdoch sees the papers’ websites as being a value-add for the newspaper. It’s all about driving newspaper sales and subscriptions: buy the paper and get access to the site for today.
I guess this is really what you should expect from an 80 year old who simply doesn’t get the web and can not see how anyone could live without their Sunday paper.
“… who simply doesn’t get the web and can not see how anyone could live without their Sunday paper.” That sums it up pretty well!
If Rupert were REALLY smart he would block Google from Fox News as well.
My mother always got Green Stamps at the A&P.
May interest you…
http://ydr.inyork.com/ci_13470567
I think that somebody will have to pay for news but what Murdoch does not realise is how little he can charge. This is a crucial market for micro-transactions.
If feeding from Google is free but, seamlessly, your ISP takes one tenth of a cent for each article you read, it is likely you cannot read enough to make any serious damage to your daily budget, but a news organisation savvy enough to supply news to the whole internet can probably make a good living.
At the moment a subscription is a real financial decision and a nuisance that gets in your way, it is no kind of a test of peoples willingness to having some token extracted simply.
Ultimately, he’s trying to make money…and if he fails in that we’ll see them change pretty quickly. I believe you are right with your A&P analogy, which is brilliant because it’s not entirely natural to link the two. Consumers want convenience. When you shake up the box and count where everything settles, there will be more consumers on the convenience side. Although Murdoch is a very smart guy I think he may be missing the obvious – but I wouldn’t necessarily bet against him.
[…] – I Cringley explains much better than I ever could why Mr. Murdoch was just kidding. And BTW, did you know why A&P […]
I agree about twitter being irrelevant but your example of grocery stores isn’t that great. Many Wal-Marts or the like do situate away from shopping centers today and I don’t see much crossover traffic from impulse buying at other stores to the regular buying of groceries. If you actually read what Murdoch said, it’s clear he may not be familiar with how even paid articles at the WSJ are free from a google search (Try it: find a paid article, google the title, then read it at the same WSJ link for free). What they’re likely to do is simply tweak this strategy a bit to make the content less accessible without paying, though still searchable from google in the same way. They’re unlikely to remove their content completely from the google search monopoly as you two seem to assume. It’s clear that you and Mark are writing about this to stir things up and get some traffic rather than provide any real analysis.
Who reads or watches anything put out by newscorp anyway? Only people incapable of independent thought. It’s all crap, propaganda and trash entertainment. I can’t wait for him to move it all to a subscription based model so Murdoch’s cancerous empire can hurry up and die already.
[…] that was the lesson behind Cringely’s story about A&P. Poor A&P decided back in the 1960’s that it did not need to connect to a growing […]
drudge is my aggregator 🙂
Um, it’s not The Times of London, or The London Times it’s just The Times. UK newspapers do not include city names in their titles – that’s an American convention. You wouldn’t say the Paris Le Monde or the Hong Kong South China Morning Post would you?
In America, it is almost always referred to as The Times of London, or The London Times. That’s to distinguish it from The New York Times, or the Los Angeles Times, or the Moscow Times, for example. In America, with it’s fifty states, and its plethora of newspapers, many of which have similar names, you do need to distinguish between them by including the name of the city where the newspaper is published.
And of course, as you would probably be the first to point out, Americans frequently need to be reminded of which international city publishes which paper. Although even Americans might figure out that Le Monde is perhaps some sort of French newspaper, and Pravda is a Russian paper, other international cities have a far smaller profile in the States, and it is a convenience for readers to include the country or city where the newspaper is published. Simply referring to “The Morning Post” does not immediately provide most Americans with any frame of reference, and leaves them puzzled and wondering if this is a reference to a blog, or a short hand reference to The Saturday Morning Post.
The Times, The Time of London – who cares? It’s irrelevant.
Why not just go with the Masthead?
The Times of London calls itself “The Times”
The New York Times calls itself “The New York Times”
That, as they say, is all.
Maybe Murdoch is just laying the ground for a good deal with Microsoft…
Murdoch is right in that he won’t make much of a profit putting news on the net for free. Bob is right in that most people on the web pick up the news from aggregators and only read what’s free.
The middle ground is for Murdoch to give away yesterday’s news. People can still send out links – they just might have to wait to tomorrow to read them. And who knows – people might like what they read.
Reg – great idea on selling news freshness and giving the older stuff away. They’ll of course still lose traffic – the great majority of people want to read today’s news and if they can’t get it from WSJ they’ll go elsewhere.
Funny how must news websites are the other ay round – giving away the new stuff, but charging for archives materials…
[…] X Cringely considered just that in his blog post a few weeks ago, News Corp to Give Plaid Stamps! Cringely considers the situation from several not-so-obvious angles and concludes that a News Corp […]
[…] X Cringely considered just that in his blog post a few weeks ago, News Corp to Give Plaid Stamps! Cringely considers the situation from several not-so-obvious angles and concludes that a News Corp […]
As I recall, Murdock talked about this 1-2 years ago and still nothing has happened.
As Cringely closes with…he “doesn’t mean what he says”. I think it’s a trial balloon he can talk about. If he really wanted to do it he could do it over a weekend by changing his robots.txt so I really believe he’s looking for a better deal with Google.
WSJ is probably the only property that could truly get away with charging and so if he really wants to do this he may use that as the ‘proof’ that it works but never actually pull the trigger with the other sites.
Funny, we used to get the WSJ and I love it. But it cost too much for morning delivery.
Then I worked at a place that got the WSJ every day and, again, I loved it. It has great articles. It’s timely. It seems to have the news, the non-breaking kind, first.
When the “internet” popped up, I found I couldn’t read WSJ there either. I couldn’t even find it in searches. So … I just gave it up.
I suspect I am not abnormal about this one thing.
Looks like Murdoch has now actually found a workable strategy – helped by Microsoft. Microsoft will pay him to exclude his publications from Google and index them on Bing only.
See
https://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/56446,business,microsoft-deal-would-pay-for-rupert-murdoch-news
Another reason for me to not use Bing
looks like Roopee is pushing on a string
I believe you actually, I believe! Would it become possible that will have your blog translated into Spanish? English is actually my own second language.
Замечательно Пишите почаще, еще непременно зайду почитать что-то новенькое.
Хорошо что удалось отыскать такой замечательный блог, а то последнее время уже начал думать что инет это мусорка сплошная.
Спасибо. Прочитал с интересом, и вообще полезный у Вас блог
мда , можно зделать маленький сборник
Е-мое, верная статья
Аноним толковый чувак
На каком-то сайте я уже встречал похожую статью!
Где-то я уже видел эту тему хотя пофиг
We are a group of volunteers and starting a new scheme in our neighborhood. Your post provided us with valuable information to help us get started|.You have done a great job!
Thanks a lot for using the time and effort to compose some thing which is thought provoking
radio news are very important and timely so i always listen to it.’*
asdsdasdasdfasdasdas
good thanks o/
good thanks o/
good thanks o/
Great stuff.You may want to actually consider a lot around the idea of graphic bomb. What are your thoughts?
Well written blog, well researched and useful peeing movies for me in the future.I am so happy you took the time and effort to make this. See you around
A few of the buttons on your site seem broken. You might want to fix them.
It’s really decent. Now i’m perched here in my own hotel room in Killarney studying most of these opinions. Many of them are good whilst some don’t make a lot of real sense in the first place. I’m on holiday but nonetheless , I just weren’t able to help myself from taking a look at this web site even though my hotel room now in Killarney charges cyberspace usage on an hourly basis.hotels in killarney co kerry,5 star hotels killarney special offers
Looks like Murdoch has now actually found a workable strategy – helped by Microsoft. Microsoft will pay him to exclude his publications from Google and index them on Bing only.
don’t make a lot of real sense in the first place. I’m on holiday but nonetheless , I just weren’t able to help myself from taking a look at this web site even though my hotel room now in Killarney charges cyberspace usage on
Apple now has Rhapsody as an app, which is a great start, but it is currently hampered by the inability to store locally on your iPod, and has a dismal 64kbps bit rate. If this changes, then it will somewhat negate this advantage for the Zune, but the 10 songs per month will still be a big plus in Zune Pass’ favor.
I’ve found a lot in your web site and I sit up for further updates and will likely be back. Maybe this can be a bit offf topic however in any case, I have been surfing about your weblog and it seems to be really neat. impassioned about your writing. I’m creating a brand new blog and onerous-pressed to make it seem great, and supply excellent articles.
Thank you so much, it has been bothering me that I couldn’t get this to work right. Thank you again!
Wow, this was very fun to read. Have you ever considered submitting articles to magazines?
Hello All, I just wanted to begin by declaring that the contribution here is simply remarkable.
tJPapw http://gdjI3b7VaWpU1m0dGpvjRrcu9Fk.com
Good stuff you have here, I was going to mention this to a good friend of mine
In the united kingdom, studies demonstrate that about 70% from the woman human population do not use the beats by dr dre headphones and rather straps on ill-fitting, not comfortable ones.
Your blog is really fun, this is a good post. I learned on a different blog each day more challenging. Read the contents of other writers and practice the little things from their store, it will always be exciting. I prefer to use my blog on some of the content is you do not mind.
I am just alone. 🙁