Rupert Murdoch is not a stupid chap, but I cannot understand how he can fail to see the absurdity of his latest remarks. His threat to block his online content from search engines is an indication he does not grasp the fact his content is almost entirely fungible in a world where the plentiful alternatives are simply a click away.
Rupert Murdoch says he will remove stories from Google’s search index as a way to encourage people to pay for content online.
Let me correct that…
Rupert Murdoch says he will remove stories from Google’s search index as a way to encourage people to find alternative content elsewhere online.
Not only will people not be motivated to pay Rupert Murdoch for content if they cannot find it via google, they will not even be aware of the content Murdoch is hiding from them. In short, Murdoch will become completely irreverent irrelevant on-line almost overnight and I am not sure why he thinks all too many people will care one way or the other. This is a bit like threatening someone that if they do not give him their money, Murdoch will cut his own throat. Er, sure Rupert, whatever. I suspect folks at the Guardian (who may not be my favourites ideologically but they certainly ‘get’ the internet better than most) and elsewhere can hardly believe their good luck.
Weird. Could it be that he is being, um, “misquoted”? Or am I attributing to conspiracy that which is due to stupidity?
Murdoch will become completely irreverent on-line almost overnight
Er, I think that should be irrelevant…
Yes, I think that should be “irrelevant.” Rupert Murdoch is already highly irreverent! Hah 🙂 AND, good observations, Perry.
Morlock or Murdock vs the E-loi ?
He has really got this wrong. The good news is that it simply strengthens the alternative media.
Murdoch is between a rock and a hard place. He’s only just realising that the ad model business cannot even pay for the infrastructure he wants to maintain, but he doesn’t want to give up his media stranglehold.
He’s realised that the BBC is his major threat, hence his rumblings about the unfair competition etc. that represents.
It’s no conspiracy, and Murdoch has talked about this before. What clouds the picture a little is that Google themselves are trying to push through a viable micropayment model, which could be the thing that saves News Corp et al. If Google are able to convince people that parting with a few pence here and there is just a natural part of browsing the web, there could be a future for Murdoch.
Sorry to repost, but just to add that Murdoch’s sites really suck at acquiring general search traffic anyway (bloggers are better as a rule) and the traffic they do acquire is often not that profitable, so Murdoch’s “threat” is not quite as serious as it may sound at first.
Note that being listed in stuff like Google News is by explicitly submitting articles – which Murdoch’s sites do. His posturing about Google “stealing” his content is really just that.
The BBC is his major threat?
Anyway, this only goes to show that being successful and rich is not necessarily a sign of overall intelligence. Some people are good at making shoes, some are good at making money, and even that doesn’t last forever.
>> The BBC is his major threat?
The BBC is highly visible and always free to a UK audience. Even if all the mainstream news sites go for a subscription or micropayment model, the BBC is still going to be a “credible” news source online that does not require any payment, or even have advertising.
In terms of the web, this is a crippling blow to Murdoch’s plans (and to many other news outlets who are being forced to reconsider their monetisation models). Even if it worked out as a model where one click paid for the article, it’s still one extra click; one that BBC won’t require. Their audience share would be likely to rise dramatically, as well as the number of links they get from other sites. News Corp could end up as a fringe news outlet, battling free sites with the same information.
Hence News Corp reps panicky attacks.
Thanks Blanket, that makes sense.
Mr M. does make money from the supposedly “dead” media.
People buy the Wall Street Journal (at a time when other newspapers are collapsing), people pay to watch Fox News (at a time when other television news services can not get people to watch them for free).
However, Rupert M. does not understand the internet – never has and never will.
That is not an insult – I do not understand it either.
The difference is that I listen to people like Perry (who know what they are talking about) whereas R.M. listens to people like his son James (who does not know what he is talking about).
Rupert Murdoch’s great love is newspapers, and he sees himself as a newspaper man. However, his profitable businesses are his television businesses, including his Hollywood studio (which, like all Hollywood studios, is as much a television business as a film business). His empire consists of television businesses that make money and subsidise print businesses that lose money (with a couple of exceptions like the Wall Street Journal). The business is a reflection of his personality and is held together by that personality.
When Murdoch dies or otherwise becomes unable to control his empire, it will fall to pieces. His children are a very unimpressive lot (and the markets certainly know this – they will *not* be allowed to run anything after he dies). The newspapers will either be closed or sold off at firesale prices and then die under new ownership.
Rupert Murdoch knows this. Unless he can find some new business model, his beloved businesses will die, regardless or not as to whether they are listed in Google.
The Wall Street Journal is the top selling newspaper in the United States and it makes money.
Actually it has room for expansion.
Most big American cities have no conservative newspaper – they have one or more leftist ones.
Keep the main national and international stories of the W.S.J. (but make them conservative – i.e. hire people in the news room who are more like the people on the editorial pages team), but also add in local stories for each market.
“It can not be done” – wrong, with the use of the internet it can.
A local version (or rather a localized version of the national WSJ) of the WSJ can hit the newstands of every major town and city in the United States each day. There is a market for paper and ink – but it has to have the right words on it (and that is where using modern technology to get local stories in each version, counts).
If Rupert M. is a true newspaper man this is what he will do – not concentrate on silly “war on Google” stuff.
This “I will block Google” idea is like saying “I will not allow USA Today, or any other newspaper I do not own, to list the times Fox shows are broadcast”.
It misunderstands what Google is – it is basically “here is ….. whatever you are looking for” it may be owned by Obama loving swine, but that is a different issue.