Atlantic Business Channel

« Treasury Goes To The Market To Sell Bank Warrants | Main | Parsing The Senate Debate On Health Care »

Nov 23 2009, 11:50 am by Derek Thompson

Is Murdoch's Bid to Join Bing and Ditch Google Doomed?

Bless you, Rupert Murdoch, you really do keep things interesting. The News Corp media maven is threatening to take all of his newspapers' content off Google and give Microsoft Bing exclusive rights to index his news. This is the second Big Murdoch Threat recently, the first being his brazen announcement to put all of his news behind a pay wall. What is Murdoch thinking? I think I know.

The central struggle of monetizing online news is that ad rates for web pages are significantly worse than the print ad rates that once buttressed newspapers. So for a newspaper publisher like Murdoch, big online traffic helps, but it doesn't pay for a sprawling roster of reporters and editors. Somebody's gotta break the tyranny of revenue-light banner ads, eventually. You can go the Daily Beast model and try to infuse online ads with a dash of glamour to drive up premiums and juice click-through rates. You can go the Financial Times/WSJ model of combining limited free content with paid registration for full access. Or you can think outside the box, turn off Google and get another search engine to pay you for exclusive rights to your content.

Would Murdoch lose traffic with this gambit? Oh you bet. By "turning off" Google, WSJ could, by one estimate, lose 25% of its page views -- although that number doesn't take into account any increase in traffic from the Bing deal. But remember, big traffic numbers are a fig leaf. Ryan Chittum of the Columbia Journalism Review found that this 25% Google crowd accounted for less than $12m a year in advertising. If Murdoch can get a better deal with Bing -- at a time when Bing might be desperate to increase its news integrity -- then we should take this threat seriously.

As a coda, Jeff Jarvis thinks this idea is suicide, and I think Jeff Jarvis is wrong. His critique of Google-blocking is all about traffic, and that's crazy, because nobody in his right mind thinks that online traffic is going to save the New York Times, or the Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal. Just ask them! (The NYT is actually making more money from readers than advertisers now even though their online traffic is killer.) Jarvis doesn't mention ads or ad rates in this article, and he uses the word revenue once in reference to About.com. He's not engaging with the central problem, which is that today's online ad rates can't save journalism. So why blame Murdoch for looking for something that can?

:: Comments (42) :: Share This

Comments (42)

justiceserved

Murdoch's political bent and buffoonery supercede any rationalization. I hope he does leave Google as it will be the beginning of the end for News Corp. as it's radical rightwing agenda will not penetrate the less educated masses they have cultivated to fill their coffers. With political lightweights such as Beck & Hannity (both college dropouts) that spew contempt & vile for common sense and the average man I hope this also spells the beginning of the end for McCarthy style cable. Bye bye Rupe!!!

otrcht888 (Replying to: justiceserved)

Murdoch is an idiot and his "news" is pure GARBAGE. Microsoft would be smart to laugh him out of the office. There should be no room anywhere for a scumbag like him... I say good riddance.... it's time he was driven out of business....

mixelplix (Replying to: otrcht888)

Spoken like a true hate monger.

mixelplix (Replying to: justiceserved)

Hmmm, Google is one of the most liberal/progressive sites there are so I do not see how this would be the "beginning of the end for News Corp".

Everyone knows that foxnews is www.foxnews.com. It is easy to find and therefore fox would not be losing anything by not being on google.

Go Rupert Go.

Xamuel (Replying to: mixelplix)

I pulled up google news, and there are just as many right wing news stories from fox, washington post, wall street journal etc as there are any other kind of news. Are you sure your going to the right google?

Zeety (Replying to: mixelplix)

Typical ill-informed comment from a Faux News groupie. This story is about Google's News Indexing service, which is driven by automated web crawlers or "spiders". There is no group of liberal editors deciding which stories are displayed or not, or according to any ideaology or any other criteria but most recently posted or updated. Faux News' business strategy is to fool a certain gullible segment of the populace in to believing every other news outlet on the planet is hopelessly liberal and biased. You took the bait, hook, line and sinker my friend.

Randisright (Replying to: justiceserved)

When will you folks realize that Murdoch's political "view" is a business strategy and not a political strategy? If fox thought they could be more profitable taking the left side, they would have. But the left had already been taken by the traditional media companies. Murdoch/Fox, wisely understood that half of the country was not being spoken for in the media and filled a need. His/their personal political views are meaningless as evidenced by Gary Ginsberg, a long time, high level Democrat who worked with Murdoch for 15 yrs. taking the side of the right is just good business. Nothing personal. :)

Zeety (Replying to: Randisright)

I read this after posting my reply to mixelplix immediately above. I had to laugh when I read your analysis. Right on!

ridenslide65 (Replying to: justiceserved)

Hey there bud. Beck is pulling HUGE numbers for FNC as well as Hannity. My guess is that YOU are just a bitter drop-out yourself.

If you want to make a point, Try using facts. Oh yeah, you left-wing liberal whack jobs just make up the facts as you need them (See Pelosi, Reid and Obamanation)

sfrose

The best solution would be for Murdoch to remove his content from every medium on Earth. Anything offered by an unethical manipulator of information is not worth considering-- it's all fruit of his poisonous tree. Who needs him?

usermonster

I don't trust pundits who can't spell "lose."

Anyway, it's true. It's a mistake to look for simply for traffic gains, as most sites do. It's all about quality visits, not random clickthroughs. You can monetize the former.

Michael

"Would Murdoch loose traffic with this gambit? "

I sure hope you meant 'lose', not 'lOOse'.

Derek Thompson (Replying to: Michael)

Thank you! (Ahem, maybe this is why online news is hard to monetize.)

usermonster (Replying to: Derek Thompson)

It's those damn short online deadlines. You see this typo a lot, as well as stuff like 54$. That last one drives me nuts.

Zeety (Replying to: usermonster)

Agreed, but that is the advantage a large "news" organization like Murdoch's should have over competition: plenty of help to proof read so that stupid blunders don't make it into print.

There are typos, and then there are "typos". It's no coincidence that Murdoch's appeal is to a demographic that is neither concerned with nor cares for the attention to detail and precision which ought to be brought to any of the complex issues it involves itself in.

pearmtn

Justiceserved has spoken for me and I'm certain, thousands of people fed up and disgusted by Rupert Murdoch and the News Corporation. I for one would retaliate against Microsoft by ditching my PC and buying a Mac, and I'm not kidding!!!

usermonster (Replying to: pearmtn)

Yeah, that's going to work.

khdetw (Replying to: pearmtn)

Keep your PC and run Linux.

Chuck_MenoFalls (Replying to: pearmtn)

Style over substance, eh? How leftist of you...

cgallaway

Hey, it's just the market correcting itself, Rupert! Isn't that what his news outlets spew when people complain about making less now than what they did 10 yrs ago? Or when they are making the same rate, but have less purchasing power? Or when Murdoch wants to buy another property and he offers less than it was worth a few years ago?

It was only a matter of time before the pain of the common workers caused by the aristocracy was realized that it could also inflict pain on the aristocracy....this time, we have technology to thank for speeding that process up.

mixelplix (Replying to: cgallaway)

Are you sure your name isn't Karl Marx

Xamuel (Replying to: mixelplix)

Oh Mix'ed up lol, you elitists keep forgetting that 70% of us are common working class folk. Thats not a Karl Marx thing, thats a "born in the USA" thing.

Zeety (Replying to: mixelplix)

Are you sure your name isn't Pee Wee Herman?

Xamuel

Actually the issue is moot. Nowadays, with all the links from one story to another, from every blog, forum and general website, it will always be possible to read any news story from any search engine. Look at the television and movie industry with their failed struggle to control where their product goes on the internet. Once its out on the web, its out on the web.

kpeaslee

I agree with all the comments about Murdoch being from hell. But the revenue generation plight is dragging down all newspapers, and it must be solved somehow if we're going to have quality news at all--propagandized or objective, progressive or Foxed.

So hate to say it, but if Murdoch can figure out a way for newspapers to earn enough to continue to employ quality journalists, more power to him.

Zeety (Replying to: kpeaslee)

What a lot of people don't get is that newspapers don't just hire and print the missives of these so-called quality journalists. If it were so simple they'd all be rolling in the dough with personal blogs. Much more goes into the business than just penning a story or two each day. Google has figured out a means of automating at least part of that task by indexing news posts the same way all other entries are indexed on the web. Microsoft never cared about this until it realized how much money Google was making off it, and suddenly there is Bing! Murdoch is just another cockroach.

bgreen2224

Google should show Murdick the door and shun his psuedo-news organization. They continue to erode journalism's already dubious standards in their no holds barred race to the gutter's bottom. Go with God, but go!

orca5050

This isn't about Murdoch, its about finding a viable business model to pay companies to spend money on actual professional reporters and writers to create content. Web ads just don't do it from google referrals. It's not just Murdoch who has this problem, it's everyone who actually pays people to write things. And don't tell me about
HuffPo, it's no substitute for the WSJ or NYT. I am happy to have legions of unpaid bloggers spilling opinions and recirculating rumors for those who prefer that format, but a way must be found to pay for actual writers. I'm pulling for News Corp and so is everyone in publishing. It's the people who think that "free" is always the right price who don't get it.

Robert (Replying to: orca5050)

Good luck...

Anal_yst (Replying to: orca5050)

I don't disagree with you per se, but I think there's a serious supply/demand imbalance in the journalism world, i.e. far more journalists (or "journalists") than their is money to pay them what they expect to be paid.

On the blogger thing, I think there's at least three types: aggregators, independent-analysis, and everything else. The first two add value, at least IMHO; I don't have time or the inclination to read the FT, WSJ, Bloomberg, Reuters, NYT (etc, etc) every day, so I rely on some time-tested aggregator-type sites to filter the worth-while material for me. At least in business/finance/economics, there's several independent analysis-type blogs/bloggers who've developed a following based-upon consistently-high-quality material, who more often than not produce better work than their professional journalist brethren.

I'm routinely amazed that there seems to be so much duplication/redundancy in MSM; many papers have reporters/editors for a lot of industries/fields that you'd think it'd be cheaper/more efficient to just syndicate AP/Reuters/DJ stories and focus on more profitable/niche reporting.

The other thing that seems pretty clear at this point is that News Papers need to accept the fact that they'll likely never be as profitable (if at all) as they once were. While its unfortunate, it seems a veritable certainty.

Zeety (Replying to: orca5050)

Web ads don't do it? So exactly how is it that Google's stock is worth a gazillion dollars while News Corp and Microsoft combined are worth like $1.27? Yes, I know I'm embellishing. But seriously, all Google does is sell web ads mostly. Someone is paying them.

nowadays

If I was google I would delete all the newscrap em, I mean newscorp content now. At least this would kill the value of the deal and all I would lose is content that's being taken anyway.

khdetw

I think it's great. I don't use Bing and I don't want my google news page polluted by Fox pseudo-news. I've been trying to find a way to filter Fox from my google news pages. This would solve the problem nicely.

Chuck_MenoFalls (Replying to: khdetw)

Hans C. Anderson would be so proud of you...

G McGinnis

I do hope he keeps that threat. In the last year I noticed more and more of the news content that comes up first on Google came from Fox and so in my mind Google's credibility as a source to get news was compromised. I will look forward to seeing news from legitimate news sources on Google so that I can trust what I am reading. I am only disappointed that Google did not refuse their content in the first place.

elp me

To access any ultra right content: Rush L, Sarah PAC, Savage and that one Joe the Plumber went with ? Pajama? You have to pay to view. As I'm not willing to pay - I can't check out what their doing and rely on editors that do and read what they find interesting - or Gobsmacking. I'd have thought that the fees would limit their audience - but they sure seem to be doing well without me. It seems to point to a dedicated following. I would say good riddance - but what are the broader implications?

captainkona

"Is Murdoch's Bid to Join Bing and Ditch Google Doomed?"

Obviously we don't know. But ol' Rupert isn't looking too well these days so I would say he might be doomed before too long.
Not a moment too soon I must say.

If I was Google I wouldn't let the filthy little piglet put his traitorous propaganda anywhere near my servers. That would stop his whiny little yap from running.

robin2

If there ever was a conspiracy in the restraint of trade this is it. There ought to be a federal injunction against these two monopolies, Microsoft and Newscorp, from getting together and stopping the critical flow of information that Google provides. It is truly disgusting that the American government would allow it. If nobody can act, we should petition congress to pass better laws. News and other information is too important to be in the hands of predatory capitalists like Murdoch and Microsoft. Google is supporting science, the arts, and all sorts of innovative activities. It has become a backbone of culture. It is providing what America really needs instead of the junk that flows from Fox.

To the captive sheep being herded by Microsoft, I suggest moving to Linux. It opens a world of creative software to the user and does much more.

Chuck_MenoFalls (Replying to: robin2)

So, Robin... Precisely what do you think the "MS" in MSNBC stands for?

As it relates to philanthropy, you should familiarize yourself with the works of the Gates Foundation.

Perhaps developing an independent thought, and stepping away from the soup kitchen of left-wing talking points would open your world - with or without the works of Mr Torvalds.

cbl99201

How about NO Murdoch content on the web at all? Wouldn't that be great?

Zeety

I have been using Google's News Indexing service for years. I have it set up to quickly scan for topics that interest me on a global, national or local level. Microsoft is constantly trying to get me to change my allegience, and a routine that works fine for me by screwing with everything whenever I use one of their products. For instance, when I type an incorrect web address into my IE8 browser it jumps to Bing even though Google is my default search engine. This rankles me. I'm not completely against Bing, if I found a good reason to change I would. But I guarantee that if Microsoft does an exclusive deal with Murdoch I would NEVER change.

Also, all of Murdoch's web sites suck in functionality. Occasionally I find some decent content on WSJ I find insightful, but mostly every story I see on a News Corp site is totally slanted, or propaganda in some way. News Corp is no more news than the National Enquirer.

I wouldn't care one iota if Murdoch blocks his content from Google. In fact, it would bring me peace of mind to know that his drivel is not so widely disseminated.

Zeety

They could call it MSmmkthnxbye.com