Google, the great destroyer of value?

In a recent series entitled "The Future of Newspapers," Wall Street Journal managing editor Robert Thomson made some provocative (but insightful) comments about the Web's effect on journalism and the newspaper business.

One comment in particular stands out:

Google devalues everything it touches. Google is great for Google, but it's terrible for content providers, because it divides that content quantitatively rather than qualitatively. And if you are going to get people to pay for content, you have to encourage them to make qualitative decisions about that content.

Google Page Rank supposedly makes qualitative distinctions between content by measuring quantitative links to content, but in reality it doesn't work that way--not enough of the time, anyway.

I can see this from my own posts: sometimes I want to find a previous post of mine among the thousands that I've previously written. So I start digging through Google using keywords that I think will unearth the post. What I end up finding much of the time are my most popular posts related to those keywords, and often not the actual content I'm seeking. Given that some of my best content hasn't necessarily been the most linked-to content, I struggle to find it.

Even so, Thomson points out one area in which the Web actually has the potential to accelerate revenue potential for content, reminding his audience that the "beauty of the Web is that you can repurpose (content) many times" and therefore "generate revenue several times over." The key is figuring out how to monetize that content, repurposed or otherwise.

While I think advertising is one way to manage monetization of content, I think there's something more profound and more closely linked to the abundance of Web content. I don't know what that is, but I suspect someone smart will unearth it soon. It needs to take into account the short shelf-life of content--even good content--but also the critical importance of original source material, as Nick Carr recently wrote.

Perhaps we can figure out ways to put a premium on original content--journalism--and then pay lower rates for add-on commentary like this blog?

Follow me on Twitter at mjasay.

[JustMe222]

You are automatically presupposing that all "journalism" is of higher value than commentary or non-professional journalism. Therein lies the beauty of Google, it democratizes information and gives everyone an equal voice. ...and that loss of control is what infuriates corporate power mongers. Ya gotta love it!

[rapier1]

Journalism does, in broad strokes, tend to have more value than commentary. Everyone should have a voice - that's true without a doubt - but its silly to argue that all voices are of equal worth.

[Penguinisto]

Yes and no.

Professional journalists often have better writing skills, have an adherence to some sort of ethics code (though how well they stick to said code is always up for debate), and tend to get more facts into the story.

OTOH, I've seen instances where professional journalists will often misspell or misname individuals, will get facts completely wrong, or will have an aggravating habit of sliding their ideology and propaganda into their writings while pretending to be unbiased.

Then again, this is just as common among the amateur set as well... so maybe Google is onto something by making things equal. Amateurs are forced to get their facts straight and keep some sort of ethic code in order to gain respect, while jornalists are forced to either do the same or lose out.

[muzakaz]

I think people are tired of the National Media dictating the crap we have been forced to read in the past.

If journalism is having a difficult time making money on the net, then they should start writing information that people are willing to pay for.

Too often, the public is given the Mega-media-mogul's editorial opinion.

Well screw that.

[ctusmarsius]

I think this is an insightfully written article, and indeed, I think Google is trusting the popularity of content too much to reflect its value or legitimacy. I have often been frustrated by forum entries cluttering my search results when I am trying to find some trustworthy information for research.

However, I think this whole thing reveals a powerful underlying current in our society: the idea that information should be free.

[ghostofitpast]

One problem with a publication like the WALL STREET JOURNAL is that it tends to focus entirely on the newspaper as a provider of content (which can, of course, be monetized), thus sacrificing the old-fashioned idea of the newspaper as a public trust:

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/06/eric-schmidts-moral-imperative.html

Google is not particularly interested in this matter of the public trust, and I have gone so far as to suggest that folks like Eric Schmidt neither know nor care about just what that concept is. Nevertheless, Google has been instrumental in eroding this aspect of newspaper publication, just as they have eroded the role of health care as another public trust:

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/07/private-enterprise-trumps-public-trust.html

Now I am the first to admit that this concept of public trust had its origins in the nineteenth century. However, I find it interesting that it could survive many of the modernist innovations of the twentieth century, having on to our collective consciousness until Google rooted itself in our way of life. I do not expect that the sorts of responsibilities of public trust will return in my lifetime, but I fear that we shall be the worse for that lack.

[muzakaz]

Maybe there is an age gap with the technology, but I have no problem finding the news that I want to read.
It's not just a matter of Googling your resources. It's a matter of finding the good resources and bookmarking them and building a library of content providers that work for my needs.

The old school media in news print, also has a problem discerning news from opinion. That is why they fail.
Advertisers want to advertise to people who are receptive. People want to read real news and are done with the Politiking of Media Moguls.

Advertising is obviously the perfect way to support good journalism - but first you have to have good journalists, Why would anyone want to advertise with a company that is more interested in forcing their political agenda down the throats of the public. This model no longer works.

If the Washington Journal is afraid of the future of media and wants to blame Google, perhaps they should look at changing their own political agenda reflected in their news.

Amen.

[edtmark]

I don't see traditional news sources as purveyors of some sort of 'political' agenda more so than bloggers and web-only news sources. In fact, most blogs I have encountered are far more politically biased than most traditional news sources. (e.g. DailyKos, Townhall, etc.)

Google at least allows people to read news articles on one topic from a variety of print/non-print sources in order to get a more balanced perspective. I do respect the credentials of many print journalists though particularly in contrast to "Joe the plummer" and others who frequently write so-called 'news articles' for other blogs/web-only news sources.

[Penguinisto]

"I don't see traditional news sources as purveyors of some sort of 'political' agenda more so than bloggers and web-only news sources"

The difference lies in who states as much up-front.

Trust me - The Washington Post will always have a leftwards-slant, and the Washington Times will always have a right-leaning one. The New York Times, as much as they protest otherwise, has a definitive left-leaning slant that is impossible to miss when viewed from centrist eyes (and it all starts with its current owner, Arthur Sulzburger jr.)

As for bias? One only need look up the history of "Yellow Journalism" to get a feel for just how ugly it can get - both in the past and up to today.

In the old days, and even today, papers (and TV shows) know that they can make or break a politician or public figure - and happily make no bones about doing so.

At least with bloggers, they're more often than not up-front about their biases, and I can appreciate them more for being honest about it, than I can a given paper who pretends to be unbiased, but is reality worse than any blogger could ever hope to get.

/P

[Daniel_Tunkelang]

To the earlier point about Google "democratizing" content, I think it's ironic that, by making it hard for users to differentiate among competing content sources, Google commodifies them all and thus does democratize content in the sense that Anatole France meant when he said, ""The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." (from The Red Lily, 1894)

http://thenoisychannel.com/2009/02/14/yes-virginia-google-does-devalue-everything-it-touches/

[meh130]

Google, Wal-Mart, and Dell are all in the exact same business: Monetizing the logistics of efficient product delivery.

Anyone who hates Wal-Mart, but loves Google, lives in a state of cognitive dissonance.

That said, I would love to see Google buy LexisNexis and make its content free and paid for by ad support.

[rapier1]

The problem with ad driven revenue is that you end up appealing to the lowest common denominator. Instead of focusing on what information provides the most value to the reader it ends up being what tidbit can generate the most ad revenue by generating page hits. We've all seen that here at CNet when some commentator uses a widely innacurate headline or gins up some false controversy to drag more people in. Of course, traditional media has similar problems but it can be mitigated by subscription revenue.

[eltoro2827]

its true,, google is gay.

[t8]

Oh yeah, and that mens you either have never used Google or you were gay every time you did.

Which one is it?

[plbyrd]

@Matt Assay

It is very, very true that "free" really does have a deleterious effect on the value of the superior, but more costly products with which "free" has to compete. If an advertiser decided to give away cars to be rolling billboards, but they only did so with really crappy cars with no service to speak of and gave you nothing but a list of tools you can choose to learn to use for your support, then that would still greatly devalue the automobile market because not enough people can see beyond the end of their own noses to realize that nothing is ever free and that everything must have an inherent value.

It's not just Google that is devaluing quality information and other products. What these advertisers fail to realize is that if you devalue enough of the economy then you devalue your own products you are trying to advertise, which at some points leads to a huge flock of chickens that come home to roost in a land with no food to feed them.

Companies that subsidize free products in market segments that they don't care about (such as IBM giving away GNU/Linux because they don't have an OS of their own to sell) wind up creating a culture of "free" around their own offerings which in the long term hurts them very badly. Fortunately for IBM, they are practically a monopolist in the mainframe arena which has buoyed them through the last year with near record growth in mainframe systems as companies try harder and harder to save costs in a time when revenues continue to shrink.

A couple of years ago I wrote an article about how Free Open Source Software is not sustainable economically, and the attempt to push FOSS deeper into the market simply devalues the entire market until there is nothing of value left. While it saddens me to see that my predictions are becoming true (the newspaper industry is simply the canary in this much bigger mine), I do hope that people can start to appreciate the reality of the situation and really apply some critical thought about whether or not that low initial cost for FOSS is really worth it in the long run.

Is Open Source Economically Sustainable?
http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/paytonbyrd/is-open-source-economically-sustainable-20521

[plbyrd]

<a href='http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/paytonbyrd/is-open-source-economically-sustainable-20521'>Is Open Source Economically Sustainable</a>

[Penguinisto]

Yay - an "analysis" of Open Source from a .NET developer. Gee... no bias there, eh chief?

PS: Your argument fails on the assumptions that programming and economics are somehow always zero-sum games, and you completely ignore the successes of others (IBM, RedHat, Novell, etc).

You may want to stick with writing tips for Visual Studio users, and leave the big subjects for those who may know a bit better about 'em... :/

[Inconnux]

I have had direct experience with professional "journalists" and I can say that without a doubt that they are vultures who print lies to sell their papers... I would rather have an amateur 'joe plumber' write than someone pushing their agenda in the disguise of news. I am so very happy with google...

[redcone]

Google it is not destroying value it is reallocating it. It adds value for the consumer while making it harder for the print industry to sell tripe masquerading as journalism---your article is a perfect example of that. There can be no doubt though that Google, provides its users greater access to a global trove up to the minute news and information that far exceeds what was even imaginable just a decade ago. The problem for the print industry is that I can access that news via a thousand different sources worldwide and for every old media source that fails, there will be a new media source to replace it. There is still a huge market for news and information---but the way it is gathered, stored, searched, and distributed has changed forever. We are just waiting for the dinosaurs to pass away.

[jackdaniels08]

Google has created and boosted a lot more value for many more companies more than anything else and allowed areas where value was previously non exsistent to become in many cases substantially existent. Please refer to The Long Tail by Chris Anderson. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Tail
Let's look at the big picture. As far as information and content are concerned, as much as possible information and content past, present, and future needs to be accessibly free to as many eyeballs as possible and this is the great equalizer, and a business strategy must be formed around this. This is the new paradigm that the majority prefers. This is reality. This is the future.