Slashdot Mirror
Wall Street Journal's Google Traffic Drops 44% After Pulling Out of First Click Free (bloomberg.com)
In February, the Wall Street Journal blocked Google users from reading free articles, resulting in a fourfold increase in the rate of visitors converting into paying customers. The tradeoff, as reported by Bloomberg, is a decrease in traffic from Google. Since the WSJ ended its support for Google's "first click free" policy, traffic from Google plummeted 44 percent. From the report: Google search results are based on an algorithm that scans the internet for free content. After the Journal's free articles went behind a paywall, Google's bot only saw the first few paragraphs and started ranking them lower, limiting the Journal's viewership. Executives at the Journal, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., argue that Google's policy is unfairly punishing them for trying to attract more digital subscribers. They want Google to treat their articles equally in search rankings, despite being behind a paywall. The Journal's experience could have implications across the news industry, where publishers are relying more on convincing readers to pay for their articles because tech giants like Google and Facebook are vacuuming up the lion's share of online advertising. Google says its "first click free" policy is good for both consumers and publishers. People want to get the news quickly and don't want to immediately encounter a paywall. Plus, if publishers let Google users sample articles for free, there's a better chance they'll end up subscribing, Google says. The tech giant likens its policy to stores allowing people to flip through newspapers and magazines before choosing which one to buy.
After what the WSJ did to Youtube (cost them 1 billion dollars) how the holy shit does WSJ still have anything to do with Google? Why didn't they delist them, ban them from adsense, and try to pretend they don't exist on the internet as payback for their bullshit?
I disagree.
Relevance is measured in eyeballs, not subscribers. Back in the days when I was riding the train into the city, you could tell the serious people from the unserious ones by what paper they were reading. With online, it's word of mouth, not the paper you see people with.
It's a long term death sentence to put up a paywall.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Relevance is measured in eyeballs, not subscribers. Back in the days when I was riding the train into the city, you could tell the serious people from the unserious ones by what paper they were reading. With online, it's word of mouth, not the paper you see people with.
It's a long term death sentence to put up a paywall.
This was the prevailing wisdom for much of the internet's rise, but I'm not sure it's as true anymore. Despite an avalanche of media outlets, there are not too many media generators (e.g., companies that gather news, that develop original programming, etc.). The rise of Netflix and its ilk is a testament to this. I'm not going to make a prediction on the future of media, but placing bets on free content solely funded by advertising is by no means a sure bet.
Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
Back in the last part of the last century, Google was displeased with sites that didn't display the same content to the user that they displayed to the spider. So, the spider should see the same paywall that the user sees, theoretically. If it doesn't, they would rank the site lower, or even ban it.
What is different, today?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
And that same newsroom was really unhappy with editorial decisions to soften the paper's coverage of Trump during the election. The newsroom may be reputable, but what ultimately makes it to the page wasn't. Those who didn't agree were told to go work for another paper. (http://www.businessinsider.com/wall-street-journal-editor-trump-coverage-fake-news-2017-2)