It’s turned into the silly season here in future-of-journalism land, what with the AP’s muddled new campaign to try to stop websites from linking to its content and the latest wave of cockamamie plans to save newspapers by (take your pick) putting them on the government dole, seizing some of Google’s profits to pay their bills, or organizing a sort of journalistic OPEC to begin jacking up the price of news online.
There are a few important facts that always seem to get lost in the broadsides that present these save-our-papers plans. One of these regards Google, which is widely seen among old-school journalists as the evil force that ate the newspaper industry’s profits by stealing its headlines without paying for them. The truth is that any newspaper website — indeed, any website at all — can stop Google from linking to it by adding a simple line of code to their “robots.txt” file that tells the Googlebot to go away. If you don’t understand what that means, it doesn’t matter; all you need to know is that participation in Google is voluntary.
Participation is also pretty much universal, because of the benefits. When users are seeking what you have, it’s good to be found. Newspaper sites, like most sites, don’t generally go the “robots.txt” exclusion route because they want Google to send people their way. But no one, Google or otherwise, is forcing any news organization to allow Google to link in.
The Google traffic is generally welcomed because it’s usually newcomers — site visitors who aren’t already part of the regular audience but who might become regulars if they like what they see. Over at the Wall Street Journal — the one major newspaper that has built a significant business out of charging for its articles — this influx of Google-directed eyeballs is apparently so valuable that the newspaper will actually slice a hole in its pay wall for Google-referred visitors to walk right in.
None of these realities seems to weigh in the scales for the new wave of “stop giving away the news” visionaries. Today’s entrant, newspaper consultant John Morton, writing in the American Journalism Review, is no different from his predecessors. Morton wants to see all American newspaper websites decide to shut their gates to non-paying visitors on July 4. Just organize this cartel and watch the profits return.
In reality, such a move would be suicidal: it would decimate these sites’ traffic while only marginally increasing their revenue. It would also hasten the evolutionary development of alternative, Web-only news organizations and business models that will be entirely disconnected from the old world of paper.
What all such plans fail to understand is that no website can succeed unless it is participating in the core activities of the Web — linking and sharing. These activities are not diverting bells and whistles; they are the heart of the medium. When you cut yourself off from the rest of the Web you’re not just giving up some minor side-benefit; you’re abandoning the fundamental distribution model of the medium — like publishing a newspaper but leaving it on the truck.
This is dead-end thinking. If you don’t believe that, ask the Wall Street Journal’s editors why they let you in for free when you click on a Google link.
Post Revisions:
- April 9, 2009 @ 17:26:28 [Current Revision] by Scott Rosenberg
- April 9, 2009 @ 14:34:36 by Scott Rosenberg
This is spot on and I think its over-riding message is that they want their cake and to eat it too. Like music, like movies or like any other obsolete working model, adapt or perish is really your only choice. I think what business forgets in todays climate is that you may have dictated to the consumer how, when, where and what, in the recent past and even had us believe our consumer power was diminished, but that couldnt be further from the truth, Now, and if you F around and try not to serve us your public, you wil be brought low no matter how big you are.
I think business in America needs to re-examine the phrase ‘The customer is right’
What’s amazing about this is the access we have to what once would have been a backroom meeting in the middle of a farm somewhere.
This was supposed to be some conspiratorial last gasp of “good ole days” reminiscing that went horribly public. Of course nothing good came out of this meeting of the minds. These people drove the newspaper industry off the cliff. Granted, it was heading there for a while – but these people pulled the final Thelma & Louise. Were we expecting innovation?
This reminds me of the republican brain trust getting together to think up a new identity. Of course it will work. Bring the same people with the same sacred cows into a meeting and have a giant “i love you, you love me” fest and watch the innovation and new ideas happen!
IF printed newspapers were honest with their advertisers (for the past 50+years), Then they would have told those advertisers that buying newspaper advertising really doesn’t work.
But advertisers started finding that out about 10+ years ago, when they started using web adverts. Once businesses were truly able to track ad views and utilization. Those numbers on heavy traffic websites are weak, and advertisers rightly guessed that they are worse for printed newspapers.
TV will be the next media giant to collapse from sad ad revenues.
But if print media is to survive, it must find a different economic model. It’s historic model only worked when advertising effectiveness wasn’t transparent.
Late coming to this discussion, but I must strongly disagree with ‘Jim’ who says in a blanket statement, “Then they would have told those advertisers that buying newspaper advertising really doesn’t work.”
That may be the most absurd statement ever made. Not only absurd, but completely ignorant. Has web traffic taken away from the effectiveness? Yes. But to say that even as far back as 50 years ago newspaper advertising does work is just not true. 50 years ago…even 15 years ago…newspaper advertising was THE advertising avenue for most businesses, especially local ones. And businesses used it because…hey!…it worked!
Oh…and by the way, it still does!
But to make a blanket statement like that was not only foolish, it was also grossly irresponsible.