Manage updates with the Download AppJanuary 31, 2006 5:14 PM PST
Newspapers want search engines to pay
- Related Stories
-
The new name of the media game
November 16, 2005 -
Study: Online newspapers flourish
November 15, 2005
Web search engines, such as Google and Yahoo, collect headlines and photos for their users without compensating the publishers a cent, according to the World Association of Newspapers (WAN), which announced Tuesday that it intends to "challenge the exploitation of content" by the Googles and MSNs of the Web.
The Paris-based group, which represents 18,000 newspapers, isn't discussing what action it may take. WAN executives said in a statement that they want to explore their options and added that they understand search engines help them in one way: aggregating content and packaging it for consumers. But WAN noted that Web companies also "built their business models in large part on taking content for free."
Agence France Presse has already filed suit against Google, alleging that Google News offers its photos and stories without permission.
The move by WAN comes against a backdrop of layoffs, falling profits and shrinking readership at the world's newspapers. Huge numbers of companies have shifted their advertising dollars over to the Net and polls show a growing number of consumers obtain their news from the Web.
On Tuesday, Knight Ridder reported a 22 percent drop in fourth-quarter profit from the same period a year ago. Deep-pocketed newspapers, such as The New York Times and Los Angeles Times have reduced staffing.
At the same time, the search engines have flourished.
"The irony is that these search engines exist, largely, because of the traditional news and content aggregators and profit at their expense," WAN President Gavin O'Reilly said in a statement.
36 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
nothing else. You want all content to be free. You want no part
of paying for any kind of service/publication/etc on the internet.
I think this thinking is flawed, actually.
The problem is that, in general, you NEED some fee-based
services. This is the basis of competition. Yes, I know there are
some sites out there that are successful AND free (Wikipedia
comes to mind). However, these types of sites do not make up
the bulk of the internet. I think you are fooling yourself if you
think that everything on the internet can be totally free and that
everyone will live happily ever after.
Like it or not, people like to get paid. This goes for people
providing a service (garbagemen, store checkers, etc, etc) AND
people providing their opinion (newspapers, magazines, books,
etc). You see, when you pay for a magazine in a bookstore, you
are not just paying for the physical material that goes into
producing that work (paper, ink, delivery); you are paying for the
intellectual material in that publication, as well.
That's just my two cents, anyway. So to answer your question --
I have no problem paying for access to news sites (IBD, WSJ
come to mind here).
Sounds fair to me...
This "WAN" sounds a like the RIAA, to afraid, slow, or ignorant to change their existing buisness model with the times. Than they complain when they stop making money.
Just look at NY Times online demanding a fee to view their articles when 1000's of other website offer the same information for free. If when the internet boom began NYT's offered all their content online, and free they could have established themselves as the online place to go. Than they could ohh.. I dont know... SELL ADS! but instead we will see the fall of the NYT's of the 20th century and the rise of the google's and yahoo's of the 21st...
RIP stuburn, old buisness model's...
RIP buisness that refuse to adapt...
We dont need you anymore
There, was that so hard?
think these companies can possibly do the same.
The problem is they WANT the exposure. It's like they want it both
ways -- exposure and money.
Stop trying to suck the teat of search engines when you see your model of doing business going under.
This all stems from the idiots at the top. The CEOs, the CIOs, the CFOs, and the army of useless VPs. They are far too out of touch with reality and do not understand technology. They are too old to do so. Even though these people at the top "say" that they are all about the Internet and support it, they are so quick to revert back to their antiquated past.
We, the Internet generation, will just have to ride this kind of lame BS out until we put these relics in rest homes. Only then, will the full potential of the Internet be realized.
Take heed you old farts, your day is fast coming to an end.
Americans are always complaining about ISP fees, but it's just a handful of countries that have better rates than the US has. Most of the world has much worse rates. And some have rates that would make you want to sell your computer and go live in a farm.
How many people could recite the names of the 18,000 or so newspapers that are resisting this? This is where Google News is necessary---to bring them general exposure.
I use Google news on a daily basis, but I wouldn't be willing to pay for any of the content. If a newspaper wants to charge money to view their article online, I'll just go somewhere else and obtain the same information.
Just as there are certain newspapers on Google News that require registration in order to view their content, newspapers that desire having their content paid for will not be successful online---people will avoid them, and go elsewhere for their content.
Maybe the problem is that in the Google News results, you have 1,500 newspaper sites duplicating the exact same AP and Reuters stories instead of doing any real journalism, so people aren't picky about where they get that story.
To me, this is not all that different from stupid WRAL wanting to prevent people in its media footprint from being able to purchase an episode of CSI from Google or iTunes or whatever. Or Home Depot trying to demand that Ryobi not sell its products on its website because they wanted to sell them on the HD website and couldn't sell them as inexpensively as Ryobi could.
This is a bunch of scared chickens with their heads cut off trying to protect outdated models.
Maybe the opt-in process should be more manual. There are plenty of sites that would get more coverage than they do now -- and maybe even pay Google for the honor of carrying them.
Or, Google's system can each week randomly select 20% of its sources and omit them from the aggregation. In no time at all people will be returning, hat in hand begging to be reinstated.
This is no different than my next door neighbor looking in my window, seeing my big screen TV and then conspiring to steal it.
They are spending a lot of time trying to push a big snowball uphill. Let them keep wasting their time so we can take advantage of their stupidity.
Sorry guys, I still like to read the newspaper but I'm turning 50 soon and I don't see the next generation cozying up to the newspaper at all.
Instead of discouraging this, newspapers should be providing RSS feeds etc. and using this as a selling point to their advertisers.
This reminds me of the inability of the record companies to embrace downloadable tunes back in the mid 90s. They spent so much time fighting the future that they missed the boat; if they had simply spend their time and money creating an iTunes model they'd be making billions by now online.
Bruce
Part of the problem is that news gathering is an expensive
proposition. Media companies spend large sums of money (a
basic investigative piece cost tens of thousands of dollars). That
was OK for a long time because media outlets controlled the
delivery vehicle and could make money.
Another part that releying on the advertising model to underwite
news didn't instill value in readers/viewers.
So now they have lost controll of the distribution and the general
public doesn't want to pay for site subscriptions beacuse they
can get a newspaper for 25 cents.
One of two things have to happen for newspapers to survive on
the internet. 1) The advertisning model has to catch up the
internet as a medium and prove itself successful (most Web
advertising currently follows old models applied to the Web) or
2) A distributor has to pay (like iTunes)
search_engines.html>...
Yes, search engines are in the same business as newspapers in
many ways these days, and they are being designed more and
more around being the hub of the browsing instead of passing
them off to the newspaper and letting them be the focus. Think
how Google handles a search for Madonna when you're looking
for music, you get a huge tout for Google Music, you're offered
album info and prominent links for purchases, and Google
makes a good share in partnerships for those promoted links.
Which online stores did you not browse? Did you ever make it to
the artist's site? Search engines are no longer in the business of
pushing you to the most accurate match as quickly as possible,
they want a share of your interest in the subject.
Looking at this hypothetically...
People who want a New York Times article will always know to
go to NY Times to search for it. For people *like* the NY Times,
they have the rep and the desire to make the Times a news
*destination* as much as Google News might be.
So the truth is if all 18,000 papers pulled out of Google, they'd
lose traffic, but they may just get more revenue per user
because users would commit to the site more PLUS the
newspapers would also get to screw with Google News'
relevance on news stories by pulling most of the "quality"
articles out of the system.
Of course, that means that Google would be left with only small
and medium-market papers and citizen media to pull from --
people who need the attention and don't mind the search
engines taking some of the share.
Which is why (and here's the prediction part):
* All search engines will ultimately create original content
* Big, well known media entities will wall themselves off
- Google :: L.A. Times :: AOL
* Syndication will devolve into promotion-only content for
commercial entities.
* RSS and feeds will be left only fully embraced by free media.
* Technorati's got a better shot at being the next Yahoo/Google
than we thought :)
Nothing like big money to make people throw up borders on
previously open spaces!
It has nothing to do with age and everything to do with mental flexibility and ability to adapt.
I know some 50-something techs who could run circles around any average 20-something you'd care to name. As a 35 year-old software developer, I know that some of my coworkers consider me too old (I even heard one "joke" that anyone over 30 should be "put out to pasture"), and yet I find myself -- with alarming regularity -- having to slow down and explain to them in small, careful words, why my software "just works" and works *RIGHT* the *FIRST TIME*, unlike theirs (which may incorporate many exciting "edgy" new techs, and yet still be a bloated, bug-ridden piece of doots).
Just because you spend most of your monthly income to support your "texting" habit doesn't mean you actually know jack about technology. Using it and creating/supporting it are two completely separate things. Those of us over 30 who are still doing tech are usually too busy actually doing the work that keeps the rest of you functioning to spend as much time bragging about our prowess as you young'ns do. We're usually too busy fixing your bugs.
Rather ironically, most of the heads the conceived of most of the Internet had quite a bit of gray on them.
On your other parts, about how most of this being about bloated, overpaid execs looking for an excuse for their salaries, I wholly concur.
Heh. You're right -- to quote Stewie... when they least expect it, their uppance will come.
It seems that today the motto is "sue first, adapt later."