All the Chairman’s Woes—News Corp shuns Google, demands loyal subscribers
This was a case in which two reporters risked everything to get to the bottom of something that seemed wrong—a small event in the grand scheme of things, but one that piqued their curiosity. They asked questions, dug into files and records that were tough to come by in those pre-internet days, made cold calls for facts and took risky midnight meetings in order to get at what they suspected was a bigger story. They persisted despite the skepticism of their superiors, the inevitable “no comments,” the dissembling from the Nixon White House, and the threats of bodily harm they received along the way.
I have to wonder. Would any of that still happen today?
It’s rare to see that level of reporting in the present time. In fact, there is a growing controversy over the state of journalism today, and many observers question whether or not it can survive the internet juggernaut.
Clearly there are issues with the business model for traditional print media as the audience moves online. But to me, the battleground seems oddly drawn.
By way of example, consider that News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch recently declared war on internet powerhouse Google, saying that his company may pull properties such as the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and FOX News from the Google engine. Doing so would mean that News Corp. content would not appear in Google search results.
The controversy erupted over Murdoch’s view that for Google to employ the “fair-use doctrine”—which allows limited use of copyrighted materials for purposes such as search results and documentary filmmaking—was inherently unfair. Murdoch suggested in a recent interview with David Speers of Sky News Australia that Google is making money at News Corp’s expense. The Chairman went on to say that he is only interested in loyal readers who are willing to pay, and that if someone comes to a News Corp property through search, he’d rather do without them.
Wow. As one of those occasional search customers, I have to say this doesn’t make me feel very welcome.
It also makes me think that the smart and powerful Mr. Murdoch may have deluded himself into thinking he can turn back the clock. This isn’t 1976, or even 1986. We no longer go to our front doorsteps in the morning to get our subscription newspapers, read them over breakfast, and then assume we’re current on the news until the evening broadcast. Those days are over.
It seems to me that consumers are already paying a price for free online content. We are blasted by ads that jump and flash and twirl; ads that take over the screen and are impossible to close. And one of the reasons we all went online in the first place wasn’t just the immediacy—though admittedly that was the big draw—but was also the constant rise in price of a daily newspaper that was already chock full of ads. Personally, I think consumers will respond to online media pay walls by saying enough is enough. If media companies can’t earn sufficient revenues from ad sales, then shame on them for letting advertisers pay too little to reach the online audience.
Coming back to the News Corp example, we should note that the Wall Street Journal already has a pay wall, which Murdoch described as “not right to the ceiling.” Users are presented with the headline and first paragraph of a story along with a paid subscription form. I have bumped into this wall quite often, and until recently didn’t understand why it seemed to appear and disappear like the Cheshire Cat.
Now I know that the pay wall comes up only after multiple searches, or with a click onto any WSJ article other than the first one found through a Google search. Mystery solved! If the first article is discovered through a Google search query, it is fully displayed. This is the rub for Murdoch, who in the Sky News interview accused Google of “stealing stories.”
But to my mind, both Google and the many ad-supported blogs and aggregator sites working any given industry provide an important service for researchers. I, for one, am willing to look at search ads and display ads in order to get to the information I need as long as they're not overly intrusive.
What I’m not willing to do is individually subscribe to 100 different publications in the hope that they’ll cover what I need at any given moment. Nor do I particularly want to stop my workflow to pay a fee each time I want to read something, although micropayments for online content do seem to be in the cards.
So here is my question: If print media companies really can’t make ends meet with online ad sales, why couldn’t they dump the ad model and come up with something as simple as my Netflix subscription? In other words, be willing to put their content onto one or more aggregator sites where consumers could pay a single subscription fee and have access to the work of however many publishers have joined?
Apparently, subscription solutions are in the works, but it remains to be seen whether they will be viable.
For the moment, I understand the frustration of the 20th Century media barons, but I think they’re being a touch unreasonable in picking a battle with Google—and by extension with consumers. Yes, Google is the giant that competitors are now gunning for. But at its heart are savvy entrepreneurs who figured out a way to make money by showing people how to find information. Wouldn’t any one of the traditional media providers have done exactly the same if they’d thought of it first? (And if they’d had the engineering savvy to develop all of those smart algorithms?)
If Murdoch’s threat comes to pass, News Corp will take its content out of Google’s search parameters. Will I subscribe to the WSJ or FOX News as a result? Not a chance. Search is my compass and will be until something better comes along. And it’s not as though consumers like me have no alternatives. The other day I smacked into the WSJ pay wall while on a job, searched Google again and found the article I was looking for on Reuters—with nearly identical wording straight from the PR company’s press release.
Please. If that’s premium reporting, I’d rather pay for the newswire subscription directly.
Still, I hope established media providers and the advertising community get it together soon, if for nothing else than to keep the spirit of investigative journalism alive. While I have faith in vast numbers of empowered citizen journalists and bloggers, it’s also comforting to know that trained reporters and experienced newspaper executives have your back in the case of a national scandal.
So thank you Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein, Ben Bradlee, and those who supported you. May your names be long remembered.
| Comments |
|