Slashdot Mirror
Why Bite the Google Hand That Feeds You?
Techdirt pointed out that not long ago, John Byrne, ex-editor-in-chief of BusinessWeek.com and now CEO of newly founded C-Change Media, decided to tackle the problem of why publications seem to be so vehemently opposed to Google being a part of their business process. While there aren't any earth-shattering revelations, it is a great, succinct description of the problem. "I received several solid answers from followers of this blog, including Frymaster who immediately took sides in the ongoing war between Traditional Media and Google. Wrote Frymaster: 'I reject out-of-hand the assertion that Google is profiting from others' content. Rather, I say that Google profits from connecting users to content. It is a service that most web publishers appreciate greatly. Google, unlike any other search engine ever, goes to great pains to deliver the least-skewed results possible. Google is constantly on the hunt for people who game their system. That's why they succeed. There is a direct connection between Google's user-centric, community-oriented approach and their financial success.'"
If you make a product people like and don't piss off people while making them want to use something else... they'll use your product?
STOP THE PRESSES!
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Nobody likes middlemen, especially middlemen who cut into their bottom line.
There, corrected that for ya.
Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
Google is like a market maker. Some people despise market makers, but they are ignorant of how trade works. Does the market maker profit from the trades of others? Yes, but without him there would be much less trade, and everyone would be worse off.
They send you traffic, for free, and set up advertising to make you money.
Papermongers hate google, because no one wants their wares anymore, much as I'm sure horse breeders hated Henry Ford.
Google does not deliver the package of ads with gratuitous attractive content supplied by traditional media. While this has as much to do with online delivery as google, google has first go at ads, in the search results, which tends to decouple any matching that may be done on the article level.
In effect, google completely breaks the traditional mass advertising model. Traditional media realizes this, which is why they are rebelling. The problem is that some traditional media thinks it can replace the ad model with a fully paid subscriber model. I don't think it can. There has to be a way for traditional media to co-exist with search engines,and this is the challenge. The companies that can innovate the ad model will be the companies that get out in tact. The others that just complain about all the money that is being stolen by google will likely be on those lame shows where losers complain about the government taking their jobs,and how socialism is ruining the country.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Google is utterly evil as far as I am concerned. Why? Because they are in league with the worst people in existence: advertisers. Advertisers have ruined just about every great thing I have ever liked.
Remember when magazines had more content than ads? No longer. In fact, they purposefully don't put page numbers on the ad pages so you are forced to page through them to try to find the fucking articles.
Remember when TV shows only had 2 minutes of commercials? Now they have almost 10 minutes or so, and that doesn't include the logos and ticker/pop-up advertisements during the shows themselves...
Remember when cable had no commercials at all?
Remember when radio stations regularly had half hour to hour long blocks of uninterrupted music?
Remember when the internet wasn't a bunch of fucking pop-ups, banners, and flash crap? In fact, remember when the net was more like a library than a TV?
I even remember a time when my e-mail was just that and not a bunch of spam. Besides, my dick is rock hard and I don't want a Rolex so STFU already.
Even Google itself has been getting steadily worse as well over the years with searches returning less and less pertinent results.
I swear, the day a Minority Report type ad assaults me at the mall, I'm going to go postal. I can only take so much before I have to start making ear necklaces out of these bastards.
In every case the product has gotten worse, not better due to advertising influence. You would think with all that income it would be otherwise, but not so.
I've finally blocked google and all their accomplices from my home network to the degree that I am able and I don't care in the slightest if certain sites fail due to lack of advertising income. The internet is like an information based RAID array. Another site will just take their place and fill the void until it too fails and the cycle repeats.
"Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves. " ---Henry David Thoreau
The problem is this:
1. Print advertising makes ten times as much per buyer than online advertising.
2. No-one much is buying print advertising any more.
The papers are no good at selling print ads any more, so they blame the supplier of online ads. i.e., anyone other than themselves.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
"The proverb warns that you should never bite the hand that feeds you, but maybe you should if it prevents you from feeding yourself."
You're asking people to accept that they exist at the whim of some other business and through rules that they can't influence or control. Would you put your own business at that level of dependence? Why should a publisher?
Google may be superficially good for a publisher today, but the reality is that they lose influence and control over their own product. They become commodity suppliers to Google, and that's no good to them. It may or may not be good for you-the-consumer, but that's not the viewpoint being argued.
Cheers,
Ian
Or if they do have a news site that they like, they subscribe to its headlines via RSS and only actually visit it to read articles which seem worthwhile.
The only problem with this is when the newspapers compare it with their old business model, where everyone had to buy a whole newspaper in order to be able to skim it for the interesting stuff.
A bit similar to "the album is dead" phenomenon which has hit the music industry.
The idea of the market is that you should set the price at which the seller maximises their benefit. In the short term, high prices from Google should encourage competition to try and lower prices and perhaps capture some of those excess profits. If Google prices low enough to not entice competition, then in the long term, we could have a worse outcome overall, because there is no profit incentive for someone to come up with a new innovation. In the short term, high prices seem to not benefit consumers, but in the long term, they should, because they could bring competition.