Filed under: News, Search, Web
Rupert Murdoch to remove News Corp sites from Google, institute paywall
The move already strikes some as a bad idea since it could essentially drive potential readers to get their news elsewhere. After all, on the web, information is always just a click away. But theoretically if News Corp can offer readers exclusive content that they won't find anywhere else, loyal readers might be willing to pay up.
OK, so that could work... but Murdoch's latest idea sounds like business suicide: He wants to remove News Corp content from Google's index. In an interview with Sky News Australia, Murdoch said that search engines are essentially stealing News Corp content without paying for it -- and that he plans to remove the corporation's web sites from Google's index.
While Murdoch claims that he doesn't see much value in searchers who often come to web sites without becoming repeat visitors, he's pretty much just plain wrong. Search engines pretty much make the web go round. If Google wasn't the dominant force in search, another company would probably rise to the challenge.
Back when there were only a few hundred web sites worth visiting, it might have been easy to find what you were looking for through old fashioned bookmarks and links. But today users rely heavily on search engines to find information, and web sites rely even more heavily on search engines for traffic and for revenue. Because who's more likely to clickon an ad? Someone who bookmarks your page and comes to it every day and has a pretty good sense of where the ads are on the page and how to ignore them, or someone who was searching for information about cheap automobiles and then came to your auto web site that also happens to have ads for good deals on new and used cars?
Still, Murdoch says he'd rather have fewer people visit his sites, but pay for it. It's possible that Murdoch is bluffing. If not, it should be very interesting to see what happens to News Corp's revenue when the paywall goes up and the sites are removed from Google. If the company winds up making more money than it does today, I'd offer to eat my own hat... you know, if I wore a hat.
You can check out the Sky News interview with Murdoch after the break.
[via The Inquisitr]
So, just how good at time waster games are you? Think you've got the stuff? Well, The World's Hardest Game 2.0 doesn't think you do.
Yes, amazingly, it's possible to have a sequel to a game called "The World's Hardest Game". It doesn't seem logically possible, since if the first one was actually the world's hardest, how could another one come along and share the moniker? It made me doubt the name in the first place. That is, until I tried the game.
The mechanics of the game are very simple. You are a small red square, ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
PK said 10:30AM on 11-09-2009
Great, now they cannot spread their fake news effectively anymore. I love companies that castrate themselves unknowingly.
Reply
Aaron said 11:23AM on 11-09-2009
Well said.
This proves that Murdock has no idea what the Internet is. There is no way he would come to the conclusion that people will actually PAY to visit his sites based on market study. This is blind greed, short and simple.
NotRocketboy said 12:20PM on 11-09-2009
Don't worry, there will be more than enough fake news to fill in the gap.
(Bush goes Golfing during the first part of his term? HEADLINE NEWS.
Obama goes Golfing more? Feh.)
(Republican Sex Scandal? HEADLINE NEWS.
Democrat Tax Fraud? Meh.)
Sacri said 3:45PM on 11-09-2009
Uh huh...
And Obama goes to see a play? HEADLINE NEWS!
With the Iraq war, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" by Bush... meh.
Bush spends more than a third of his presidency on vacation... meh.
NotRocketboy said 10:38AM on 11-10-2009
Yes, because it not only was a nuisance for everyone else who wanted to go see a play, but it was also 'promoted' by the White House.
But how can I talk with someone who doesn't understand that when a president is on 'vacation', they basically move the White House with them. It's a Working Vacation at best.
At least Obama was there to honor the fall of the Berlin Wall....
oh wait.
davidjbullock said 10:37AM on 11-09-2009
Hysterical :) They're taking their marbles and going home from the game nobody invited them to in the first place :)
Reply
Brian said 11:00AM on 11-09-2009
RIP News Corp 1979-2009
Reporting the news isn't about making the biggest profit.
Reply
Joe M said 11:01AM on 11-09-2009
Very smart guy.
Very much in touch with whats going on in the world.
May be the most greedy bastard I've ever seen.
Reply
David said 11:57AM on 11-09-2009
That's why, with his finger on the pulse, he bought MySpace.
Thunderbuck said 11:40PM on 11-09-2009
Not many people have made money by second-guessing Rupert Murdock, so it's entirely possible that he has something up his sleeve. Perhaps he's trying to get Fox News viewers off the Internet completely. We can only hope.
Otherwise, it's business suicide.
Matthew W. said 11:19AM on 11-09-2009
On the upside, maybe fewer people will continue to their news from Faux...er, I mean Fox.
Reply
D said 11:52AM on 11-09-2009
wow. a lot of hate for fox here.... yall have fun watching the Clinton News Network or the disaster that is msnbc...
Reply
David said 12:01PM on 11-09-2009
Enough hate for people to make a documentary about it.
http://www.outfoxed.org/
So, all the news in the world only gets reported by Fox, CNN or MSNBC?
Mysterius said 7:33AM on 11-10-2009
NPR
The Economist
The Christian Science Monitor
US News & World Report
BBC News
CBC News
Need I go on?
Or just use Google News and let the biases cancel each other out.
Flocoon said 11:58AM on 11-09-2009
"Quality of reporting". I must admit this guy's got some sense of humor !
I think he's got a point when he says that websites hardly make money nowadays but all the rest of the interview is just nonsense.
"Great, now they cannot spread their fake news effectively anymore. I love companies that castrate themselves unknowingly."
Well said +1 !
Reply
Brit said 12:54PM on 11-09-2009
> If the company winds up making more money than it does today, I'd offer to eat my own hat... you know, if I wore a hat.
That kind of depends on how much money he's making right now off of web-based news, doesn't it? My understanding is that news websites make next to nothing right now. So, there may be an element of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" going on.
Also, the measure of success is not "will NewsCorp make more money if they put content behind a paywall than they earn now?", rather, the question is "will NewsCorp make more money if they put content behind a paywall than if they don't put it behind a paywall?" The distinction is this: if, in five years, NewsCorp earns $50 million/year less than they do now, but they would've earned $100 million/year less than they do now by making all content freely available, then they're essentially mitigating their losses by going with a paywall. That would be a successful strategy given the alternative.
To a certain extent, I have to at least give him credit for bucking the trend of slow death that the herd of news organizations are going down. Though, I'm doubtful it will end up much better for him in the end.
Reply
Jared said 12:55PM on 11-09-2009
This just sounds like a case of the person in-charge being removed from the mainstream. I have no problem with companies making money off the fruits of their labor, but thinking this isn't simply just going to push potential newcomers away and somehow make money is close to ridiculous. I could see some people paying for Fox News, assuming it somehow has the channel in real time on their website along with the regular news -- they do have a massive and rather loyal fanbase.
Reply
r3loaded said 12:32PM on 11-09-2009
Give a man enough rope and he will hang himself.
Reply
siroiv said 1:07PM on 11-09-2009
With names like 20th Century Fox, of course he's unaware of the importance of the Internet.
Reply
Dave said 1:42PM on 11-09-2009
Cross your fingers...maybe this will actually happen!!
Reply