nice post. it would indeed be an interesting development, if content owners can take some of the power away from almighty google.

“If other media companies joined Murdoch Google could actually find itself in a very difficult position, where Bing had content that Google didn’t. If you knew that Wall Street Journal and, say, New York TImes content was only in Bing search results, mainstream search users would suddenly have a big reason to go to Bing.”

Please see my comment regarding the first article about Murdoch ousting Google… give some love to a comment hours ago

Jason’s right – he should be running one of these big search engines. This is a pretty brilliant idea and MS or Yahoo could certainly afford it to do something like that.

I don’t see them killing Google on this because how many Google searches are news related? I could see a number going to bing if this goes through, but all in all, a little competition never hurt anyone…

If Google and Bing can pay Twitter to index content (on time) created by others freely, why cant they pay WSJ and other media companies that pay for the content to be created? Murdoch, might have just saved online media companies by giving them a business model.

I really dont think any other media owners or corps would make such a mistake by de-indexing from google. Google makes people recognise companies with their search engine and I dont see any one loosing revenue in terms of ads and popularity.

Social media and bookmarking sites where users share, save, and link to content found on sites such as the Wall Street Journal and New York TImes would still be indexed by Google.

I think it’s a ridiculous idea. Search engines, any search engine, should be a gateway to any website. How the website deals with it’s search visitors is up to them. Once you start on this path, where does it end? Will it stop with media companies or will bloggers want in on it too? If Murdoch wants out of Google, fine. Are they the only source of news? God no, anyone could get any story anywhere else. The big reason why people would want to go to a newspaper is for opinion articles and why go there for restaurant reviews when we have Yelp, Urbanspoon and others? Book reviews? I’ve got Amazon. This is a desperate attempt for newspapers to make a stand and it’s more stupid than desperate. Embrace the internet, don’t hide from it.

Unfortunately for most of us, there is a dramatic shift away from everything being free and I think Murdoch and gang are going to lead the charge. While people continue to claim that this can not happen due to so many sources available, I do believe that institutions like Murdoch are tough to reckon with. If old media unites around this idea, it can pose a real threat to how new media functions and operates.

The only way this works is if the traditional media companies create content that people want, and that isn’t created elsewhere (and indexed by Google). This is part of their hesitation – there are a LOT of new models, and a lot of great, out of work journalists. The NYT – and even WSJ – aren’t what they used to be. THIS is what will stop Murdoch, not anything else.

Is it just me, or does dividing up the internet sound like a horrible idea. As a consumer, I hate monopolies, and exclusivity on the web.

However, I also understand the nature of business and this will undoubtably happen in some shape or form in the future.

Jason is right. This idea is a bit unsettling too.

oops! Didn’t watch the video before commenting… my bad.

Michael – If Microsoft offered you a bunch of cash would you give exclusive rights for Techcrunch to Bing?

this could propel bing to be a powerhouse for news and have bragging rights.

Or Google could just choose to no longer pay attention to any site’s robots.txt and index everything anyways.

I hate to sound like one of those “information must be free!” zealots, but I don’t see how you are going to block someone or something (aside from putting up a paywall) from getting at content. Even if you put blocks in place, it’s still an uphill battle if the person wants the information enough.

It would indeed be a masterful stroke, if there was any chance of it happening. Microsoft and Yahoo aren’t stupid. Setting a “pay to index” precedent would change the search engine business in a way that could only harm then in the long term.

I’d also question how valuable it to search companies to have newspaper content indexed (outside of current events). When was the last time a NYT article popped up in your search results?

not when one has a monopoly

the “walled internet garden” didn’t work when AOL and CompuServe tried it… why would it work now?

Looking at generation Y and beyond I believe they simply won’t read the news if they have to pay for it… end of story.

He’s a clever f***er that Calacanis!

It’s a good idea – it’s conceivable the major publishers could band together with bing and outflank google, the issue will be the sheer marketing costs necessary to get the word out that google no longer has access to this content and to get users to change their behavior.

If you knew now that if you searched in Google news for something you wouldn’t get results from the WSJ/London Times etc – would you migrate to bing for the same search? doubtful.

bing would need to pony up a large amount of cash to poach away a sufficient number of publishers to pull this off.

In the short term google is going to spank News Corp over indexing their content and then spank them again when it comes to renegotiating the MySpace deal

This sounds absolutely terrible for consumers. How in the world are we supposed to know which search engine to search for which content? Awful.

I’d need a an app to go search all search engine results…all just to end up back in the same place – yuck.

As a user, I could care less about whether Bing had an exclusive with the WSJ. I think the drop off in traffic would hurt WSJ far more than Google. As a user, I would just click on another newspaper article from Google.

It wouldn’t work. 3rd party sites would proxy the content into google’s index and Murdoch would have a hell of a time stomping on all of them.

Good post lending balance to Schoenfeld’s myopia. Murdoch’s idea was given legs when twitter got paid by bing and thence google to access their feeds.

It’s an interesting idea, but the prediction that google would loose double digit search share if a few big media companies decide to opt out is a pretty ridiculous. People would just go to the actual news site if they want to search and continue using google for everything else.

Funny though, this assumes that most of the links in which people find this content is from search engines and not from various other sources like blogs or direct traffic, which are arguably more current with the times th real home run.

Google can then give it’s content better rankings in it’s search engine, as well as integrate it one way or the other in to Android, Chrome, Google News, etc, and all of a sudden a picture emerges of where this might go…

If you think that Google’s acquisitions of YouTube, Blogger (when it was the dominant blog publishing platform), interest in acquiring Twitter, etc, etc, was just for the hell of it, I would have to respectfully disagree… :)

These guys want to control the information age in whatever shape or form it takes, and since news is the ‘holy grail’ of information in part because of it’s never ending nature, Murdoch and co., can unsuspectingly give Google a huge favor and commit a suicide in the process…

My 2 cents anyway.

The original post brings up the point of Murdoch using Bing against Google. The youtube video was posted 4 days ago, so there is no reason to “give some love to a comment hours ago”.

I agree with you. Moreover, according to another TC article linked above, Google brings only about 25% of traffic to WSJ site. Supposing that 1) this traffic is not so much monetizable comparing to their regular visitors, and 2) their online ads revenue is only a fraction of printed ads revenue, Murdoch will actually not lose so much as some people would want to believe.

Then, there is this fact that Google pays Twitter to index them. Some people are terrified by the idea that search engine ought to pay to the source they index, but I think they indeed could.

Yet again old media looks for someway to hamstring the internet. Its openness and journalistic meritocracy pose a threat beyond the media realm. I am not sure that Murdoch fully realizes what a monster Google has become. They have their hand in seemingly everything and generally do an excellent job. This to me is just one more nail in the coffin of old top down, controlled media and good riddance.
Paul
http://healthjournalclub.blogspot.com/

I can’t wait to pirate news!

check sidewiki comment on this post
https://www.google.com/sidewiki/clientui?hl=en&url=http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/13/murdoch-google-bing-mexicanstandoff/

I have also been a spectator in the whole Murdoch thing, but following the story quite closely.

I really hadnt thought about it the way you have put it forward Michael. I totally agree that if he is to deindex all his sites from Google, why not offer the content to a rival at a price.

Not only is he then protecting his content, but at the same time, he could be earning millions per year to give Bing (or even Google) the rights to index the content.

Fantastic idea, and one i think News Corp should certainly be looking into.

Nice post Arrington, keep it up :-)

But Murdoch intent is not to stomp websites for linking to them, that’s not the idea. In my opinion, what he want is that the very big players like Google will pay them for indexing their content.

Two ways.
1) Sue Google if they don’t honor robots.txt. A company like Google may need to cough up billions if they trespass, uninvited.
2) Any website can employ some programs to watch for heavy requests from a single or group of IP addresses per second, minute, hour, and thus block traffic from that IP.]]>
124.182.162.72
2009-11-15 04:46:29
2009-11-15 12:46:29

If you think Murdoch and Microsoft already have too much influence, well, get ready for more.

What? Google brings 25% of the WSJ readers, do you think most of them would care less if the News would come from WSJ or another decent source?

Just because YOU NEED WSJ doesn’t mean 99% of the others do. And those that need WSJ go directly on it anyways, not through Google.

People with special habits always make the mistake of thinking they’re like the average Joe = where the numbers are.

Take it one step further.

Make all the Facebook content exclusive to Bing.

Since Facebook is an MS partner.

But the exclusivity happened recently when Microsoft and then Google bought indexing rights for the whole Twitter stream.

Is there any law that would prohibit anyone from indexing a web site? Most websites are public and free to access, so what would restrict a search engine from accessing it?

I know you can use the robot.txt files to not be indexed…but isn’t that more of a courtesy than a legal requirement?

It’s not in Microsoft, Yahoo, or Googles long term interest to strike a deal like this because it is a slippery slope. Sure, there might be short term benefits for Bing, etc., but they’d be ultimately moving the power into the hands of content providers, which would be a boneheaded move strategically.

You can crap in one hand and have media outlets de-index from Google in the other hand. Let’s see which gets filled first.

With your last sentence, you just admitted that Murdoch doesn’t necessarily need Google.

Clayton seriously? How many Google searches are news related? How about 124 million search queries a month? Plus the 1.22 million queries for local news, 2.74 million for daily news, the 52 million queries for news(paper)(s)? And start to count the millions and millions of search queries for specific stations, newspapers, news sources, etc, such as ABC news, NBC news, CNN news, Channel 8/6 News…

Imagine you controlled TIME magazine; 37.2 million queries a month for “Times”, not counting queries for “The Times”, “Time Magazine”, “Times Magazine” (yeah misspellings count too!), etc, and you made this move and switched to Bing only… you’re transferring all that traffic from Google to Bing!

Not only would you take a huge chunk of Google’s revenue over time, but you increase consumer trust on a different brand (Bing in this case).

If I can’t get to Techcrunch, and all the other news sources that come before it in ranking for “tech news” (Engadget, Slashdot, CNet, Wired…), through Google’s search, BUT I can from Bing’s, trust me I would have no choice but to use Microsoft’s search. And honestly who wants to use multiple search engines? I will use the search engine that helps me connect with the content I want, and if that’s not Google so be it…

I see this is a bad thing for search providers since it might cost them a chunk of their revenue, BUT a great thing for publishers because they can now get a piece of the pie, AND a great thing for consumers since news sources will have a more compelling reason to output MORE great content to get MORE of the pie. The more with Google algorthms and an AdSense-like market place.

link?

Many of these content providers are businesses with staff, salaries, operations. Google doesn’t have a problem making money off them, why don’t they get something in return besides “traffic” from search engines and related ad sales. Obviously traffic from search engines and ad sales couldn’t save many of these traditional media companies, so maybe a more reciprocol relationship with content indexers will help.

define “a bunch of cash.”

search engines paying for content wtf is that?! what happened to “information must be free”? don’t let that ancient cunt Murdoch win! he can take his content and go, hopefully no one will follow.

Too many sources for news; it’s a commodity.

Terrible for consumers. This is not how the free market is supposed to work. This is not open competition based on merit. It’s using money to secure more future money.

If I own a search engine I come out immediately and announce that we will never pay to index.

This is what I was thinking too.. would it be illegal for google to index Newscorp’s public websites if murdoch didn’t want them to? Or could they just go ahead and do it anyways?

I hope that they would just index them anyways. I would hate to have to search on Bing, Google, Yahoo to find all the information on a topic if they all had different exclusivity deals.

Awesome post Michael !! Keep up the good work

Would the GOOG millionaire employees have to give back all their fancy sport cars too? If Murdoch is serious there will be some paper millionaires jumping ship to AAPL for their next free ride.

Great point. robots.txt is a courtesy, not a law. This would just discourage search engines from honoring it.

Michael, asking you about a totally unrelated thing – Why is there a small smiley at the very bottom of the each page on TechCrunch ?

I’m going to need a search engine to tell me which search engine to use to find the content that I want. Can’t wait.

heh? Site can always block an IP

+1

I’m surprised no one has yet mentioned the fundamental basis on which Google took over search. Authenticity. Page Rank eliminated the commercial basis on which most search engines ranked websites. People realized they were being scammed by this ‘searchola!’ Google’s searches were based on the valid popularity and semantic authenticity of the results. Of course, this started the wars with SEO, but Google has stayed steps ahead with constant vigilance. Murdoch is thinking with a Web .02 mentality. Wow, I think I just invented a term for this bs. WEB .02.
Haha!

Isn’t there a key issue being overlooked? I thought that there was already established law concerning the copyright legality of creating indexes of website content. After all, Google crawls a large chunk of the entire web including these news sites. What will stop Google from indexing this material whether these sites want it or not? Or do some of the sites such as WSJ permit Google special indexing access that bypasses subscriber logins (which of course could easily be rescinded by WSJ)? If so, that should be reported as an essential part of the story.

How? “Time” or “time magzine” are not news-related queries, they are searches for the URL of time magazine, which is a generic search query.

The thing here is that news sites cannot create artificial scarcity of information to profit from, because information on the internet is overabudant.

Also remember that people switched to google primarily because of the quality of results, not merely the size and completeness of its index.

Exactly! These comments about it being a brilliant move are as ridiculous as Calcanis’ comments and self adulation. News Corp and other sites don’t have control over who indexes them. They can ask Google not to index, which Google has been honoring so far, however, there’s no reason why it would continue to do so when it effects their bottom line. Your self proclaimed brilliance is based on a shaky assumption.

I think you might be overestimating the importance of New York Times & Wall Street Journal to a “mainstream” audience. But it would be fun to watch Microsoft throw more money down the toilet.

maybe so, but who cares…

1) There is no legal way to offer something to the public, but sue a member of the public for accessing it.
2) Think about how many IPs Google owns or could own.

There is no practical way to block a dedicated agent from indexing publicly available information. It would become an expensive technology war and Google would have the upper hand with both better tech experts and a bigger capital reserve.

[...] Murdoch wants to remove all of News corp’s content from Google index ‘within months’. Rupert [...]

Michael, just tell us for how much would you sell yourself to Bing. ;-)

SO.. if Murdoch does de-index google in favor for another engine, and other media outlets start doing the same what would we have?

Probably what we have with radio and tv. Different stations to view the news/content that fits a persons taste, or lack of.

Soon you might see – engine A carries content from media source A, and engine b carries content for media source b, and so on and so on.

So is Murdoch’s ploy really a gambit to get everyone riled up while ‘networks’ are recreated on the web and then be able to specifically target marketing dollars based on viewer demographics?
Somehow wrangling a large portion of the web into a more mainstream media model?

hmm, I wonder. But I digress as a previous poster stated “i’m an idiot” maybe so, just my thoughts.

In the short-term, I suspect this would be a huge opportunity for a meta-search engine to just merge the results of bing and google, and we’d all act like nothing has changed.

However, with products like http://beta.thoora.com getting really good at aggregating and managing news, I think the long term for news search may be limited.

yeh – agree with you on this.. this is the4.165
2009-11-16 20:36:51
2009-11-17 04:36:51

That’s the issue. Murdoch would have to charge Bing enough to offset the resultant loss in ad revenue from googles traffic.

And Bing doesn’t necessarily want to be the one to set such a dangerous precedent of paying for exclusive content; and starting a war that has a zero sum gain for the search providers.

If Murdoch wants to hurt Google he should just buy Yahoo!

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/13/news-corp-google-media-industry-demise/#comment-3095451

First Twitter licenses content to search engines..

Second, WSJ and NYtimes

Soon Bloggerati ll want $$ too

Then all Ma-pa shop websites ll charge to index..

And Google/Search Engines ll come up with “ContentSense” program to allow everyone on the Web get paid to provide content.

Back to SQUARE ONE. Zero Sum game

Jason’s idea is really smart Michael. With big enough content coalitions, the barganing power would shift to the content owners.

But one company has already played this card to its advantage. Twitter. Pay me, and I’ll let you index my content in a timely way. They got payouts from both Google and Bing.

With Newscorp type of sites, the value proposition would be different. Pay me and I’ll give you exclusivity to my brand. From a purely information content perspective, this would not hurt Google. People could possibly find 98% of the same info contained in Newscorp sites (like breaking news) on other sites indexed by Google. But from a branding perspective, Bing could put the logos of the Newscorp brands on their main page and tell users that if you like these sites, this is the only search engine where you can find their stuff. Bing is already image intensive on its main search page.

The percentage of people who would recognize at least one Newscorp brand is almost 100%. And a significant amount of them would take that as a reason to switch.

We already know that Google doesn’t fare much better than the other search engines in blind tests. So it’s mostly a brand thing. The company is in the top 10 in the Interbrand list. The equation becomes what is stronger? Google? Or Bing + WSJ + Fox +New York Post + any other content site in the Bing coalition.

I like this strategy a lot.

Awesome post. I personally might not care about Wall Street Journal content but what if Wikipedia did the same? I can’t image a search without Wikipedia results and would probably switch.

What sites contain must-have content for you?

Ugh… if the ability to block a search engine is proven legal, content providers will finally have the golden goose they’ve been looking for, and the Internet will never be the same.

It seems inevitable this will be a Supreme Court decision one day.

You are right. The same information lives in a lot of places. But people pay 2 dollars for a bottle of water that they can get for free from the tap. Information, just like water, tastes better with the right logo ;)

Super, a tiered internet that everyone can be a part of, if they can afford it!

@denniscrow,

The problem with Page Rank and Search is, people must Search in order to receive the most relevant page or query results.

There are signs that people are searching less, opting into life-streams, brand-streams and whatever other relevant information has been passed on or recommended to them. Information is delivered, you remember, like television delivered information in a passive way.
People have fallen in love with not having to search or ask questions.
The general public doesn’t know or care about many things that happen online. They have their favorite sites bookmarked or a comparable app on their desktop or iPhone.

As a knowledge repository, the content of the web is useless once information is not being indexed or put behind paywalls. In effect, we’re simply repeating the cycle that many thought/think the open web ( and open source ) have tried overcome.

This wall creates scarcity, which creates demand, which creates value, which creates paywalls. Information will cost you, if you can afford to log into the web and search for information about your respective query. ie., medical, research, etc. News (or information)–technically, is not a commodity if everyone is contributing to it and then allowing everyone equal access to it.

There is nothing smart or ingenious about Murdoch beating the big bad Google or siding with Bing in an attempt to leverage a *business.
The implications here, should be considered far greater than a school yard fight.

You think google as “an IP”?

@Cody Issacson

But do we ever want the Supreme Court dictating the rules of the web in this country or anywhere?

They may try, but the beast is to wild for one government to control. It would be a sad day if the media conglomerates and governments controlled the entire shooting match. This is all we have left.

Wasn’t this clearly the next logical step? Bing should have done Twitter, facebook, digg, etc way before now as they had the leverage in place: http://www.localsalefinder.co.uk/2009/11/10/exclusive-indexing-deals-on-the-horizon/

content providers may have to lock their sites behind a login. and the search indexer of choice will have to act as a proxy for a logged-in user and display the content in some kind of viewer or frame.

for most content providers, closed website is death to the website popularity. WSJ is making this work, though.

Good point! I wonder how that would work for Google from a legal perspective.

ronald — 10:47 AM on November 26, 2008:

“To fight Google one has to know what information is and how humans process it, and understand how Google’s work relates to that. Meaning how does Google use links, map reduce and big table in relation to what they call Information. The easiest way to break that model is to eliminate/reduce links.”

http://gigaom.com/2008/11/26/why-microsoft-fails-to-win-online/

This article is just about news, but one can actually push it father along and take away product search, or most of it. By integrating a typical search flow into what the search engine returns at which point in time of decision making. Some of it is already in Bing.
Yes I talked about this to Steve B., what seems now a long time ago.

Beyond that, one could integrate Facebook data into search queries to provide better context and therefor better results for search and display ads.

“Stupidscript, personalized search is making a huge difference in search results, I’ve been finding. Logged in, I can see pages that were buried back in the 4th page of search results leapfrogging to page 1.”
Danny Sullivan: http://searchengineland.com/the-myth-of-great-search-engine-results-28445

Hurting Google’s business is actually not that hard, onet_author_url>http://www.scoopernews.com/bing-tries-to-buy-the-news/
70.32.68.29
2009-11-22 21:41:38
2009-11-23 05:41:38

+2

These days everything and everyone important has a website, people who want their news from a specific source go directly to that url, the rest of the news is replicated several times (even the headlines), and on current events blogs and twitter beat those traditionals hands-down, examples? Iran elections, Hudson plane landing, Micheal Jackson’s death.

Even the recent scamville debacle, while techcrunch was uncovering the rip-offs the NYTimes were busy pilling praise on Zynga.

I for one, the only reason I’d go to NYT’s website or any other of the type is confirmation from an ‘authoritative source’ NOT to discover news, anybody who does that is about 2 – 3 days behind!

Can’t Google just spider the sites anyway? If they don’t require a login, Google can just ignore the robots.txt no follow and spider it anyway. They could even change their boy name so Newscorp can’t block it. It would be a game of cat-n-mouse.

Oh no — that’s what I meant. I can’t imagine 9 academics telling us what can be stuffed into “the tubes” and what can’t be.

If they did, search would go overseas and maybe underground like BitTorrent. Everyone would lose.

The Web has been evil to old school media, as more and more people stop buying newspapers and magazines and turn to Google News instead, which has become the No 1 Editor for Online Media News.

So its no wonder why Rupert Murdoch wants to take this power away from Google and pursue various ideas as to how he can create added value to all of his Online Media Brands, which Google News was using for free.

Along with the possible Media News Content Deals with Bing, Rupert Murdoch may look at ways in developing exclusive pay monthy News Corps Apps that could be developed for the iPhone Apps Store. ( Android Apps Store as well?)

Apart from only receiving future Online News Corp Articles as a Pay Per View Business Model, News Corp may also be in discussion with Apple to provide an Exclusive News Corp Media App that could be one of the killer apps for Apple’s future iPlate.

This exclusive News Corp App could work along the same lines as a Harry Potter interactive newspaper, bringing in Live Web Content from all sides of the News Corp Media Empire, including Fox News, Sky News, Sky Sports, Wall Street Journal, The Times, The Sun, 20th Century Fox and so on.

As a Pay Monthly Subscription News Corp Media App, Rupert Murdoch could generate huge revenues across the right online platforms, including the iphone.
But to truly make his online Media Content exclusive, he will opt out of Google News.

Rupert Murdoch is a smart fox that hates anyone getting a free lunch at his expense.

Like andy writes, this shows the economies which won’t make an exclusive pay-for-content deal work. Bing can’t rationally pay the amount needed to compensate for Google traffic on the top 10 news sites.

[...] Mike Arrington at TechCrunch thinks newspapers could really hurt Google if they go with Microsoft and have to agree. Here are a few key snippets – If other media companies joined Murdoch Google could actually find itself in a very difficult position, where Bing had content that Google didn’t. [...]

I agree. Although I might prefer to get some news from the WSJ perspective, I have little problem getting it from elsewhere. The Twitter agreement might have set an important precedent but there will always be a provider with an ad r News. Post-ul lui Marc Cuban prezintă două posibile scenarii în urma acestei acțiuni. Nici TechCrunch nu stă pe margine. [...]

Hello meta search app!

search for specific wsj content common sense users use the wsj homepage search bar.

search for specific nyt content common sense users use the nyt homepage search bar.

inbound search traffic from google is probably from scrappy surfers that dont have a unique
bond with either site.

Russian? You definitely sound like one.

This would bankrupt Bing. Not to go into all kinds of complicated mathematics here, but if Bing pays News Co., say, $300 million a year for the exclusive right to index it, it won’t make much money on traffic going to News Co., if any. The logic will be that OTHER searches of people who will transfer to Bing will pay for that deal. And that’s a HUGE RISKY BET.

People turn to Google to find all bunch of crap. Affiliate networks that sell shit to idiots are thriving on Google, and these are not the people who read the WSJ, yet represent big % of Google’s revenues. Also, when you search for news your likelihood of clicking on an ad is by orders of magnitude less than searching for a product or service – and Bing could never win a bidding war with hundreds of thousands of hungry merchants who are just dying to sell the next teeth whitening ointment that will give u anything but white teeth.

If you ask me, the way to kill Google is to tax affiliate networks and affiliate marketers and level the playing field. That will do much more harm to Google than any deal News Corp can sign with Bing. The problem is that tax is relevant for U.S. companies only, so you’ll see Canada becoming the homeland for affiliates.

COP – You make a good point. Content providers need search and search needs content.

If something like this happens I am writing my own firefox news aggregation add-on. I don’t want to go to Bing to search in the WSJ and Google to search in the LATimes.

True

honestly, it is a comment that most people will realize when preparing an article. Also, I don’t know every body reading every comments in TechCrunch article.

You’ve never read WSJ, right? :)

Half the web contracted to google and the other half to bing?

THIS IS GOING TO BE JUST LIKE POKEMON RED & BLUE ALL OVER AGAIN.

Fucking Rapidash sucked dick anyway. It was all about Arcanine.

I saw Jason’s suggestion earlier this week. Didn’t think much of it then, still don’t think much of it now.

The long is here:
http://searchengineland.com/why-an-exclusive-wall-street-journal-deal-wouldnt-help-bing-29458

The short is that the best content Murdoch has is the WSJ — and the money he might think it’s worth to Google to have it isn’t the money it really is worth to them.

Remember, Google thrived perfectly fine in the years before the WSJ opened itself up. Yeah, Bing will have a nice selling point for some people if they can tout you can go over there, search and read the WSJ for free. That’ll give them a few more people. That’ll give Murdoch exactly what he says he has no with Google, an audience that either doesn’t convert or that he doesn’t know how to convert.

Different story if Murdoch manages to get a number of news organizations to all pull out of Google and only be in Bing. Then again, those news organizations will discover they’ll need to start using the robots noindex tag to ensure that Google doesn’t do “link only” listings of their content.

Google doesn’t actually need to crawl you to list you. It can do that based off links it just sees to you. Hey, that’s not hard, but it sure will be odd to see these papers do anti-Google SEO.

Anyway, if he manages to get a large number of news sites to block Google entirely, well, Google News becomes less useful. Though Google News isn’t a leading property for them, anyway. Google in general might see a relevancy drop — but more likely, blogs that summarize news from various sources well get the traffic.

Then Murdoch will go after those blogs. Duck, Mike — I think he lumps us in among them.

If you had to look for the content you wanted on 4-5 search engines it would end up frustrating you and harming consumers as a whole. Also, if Murdoch wanted to charge Google for indexing his content, he would have to charge everyone else as well.

Otherwise, he could have a legal battle on his hands that isn’t worth the cost.

If you are going to give something away for free then give it away. Don’t charge specific people/ companies because they are rich.

It will take more than robots.txt to de-index the content from Google. PageRank will still find all the anchortext pointing to News Corp’s sites from off-domain. To completely de-index from Google, News Corp would have to change all of their existing URLs. Doing this would ruin their PageRank, since all off-domain links to News Corp would be instantly broken. These broken links would eventually be removed by webmasters across the web, which means Rupert’s silly gambit might not be reversible.

Agreed. I think this is the way to go; everyone benefits: the content providers who are currently bleeding cash, the consumers (since they’ll be able to read material produced by quality journalists), and the fact that Google will no longer be the monopoly that it currently is should push them to be more innovative, as Ask.com, Yahoo.com and Bing.com have been.

+3

I can’t remember the last time I searched for something and found what I wanted at NYT or WSJ. So Bing having exclusive rights would have no impact on my search engine of choice.

The bottom line is, what’s the end-user’s behavior?

I was once told that in this world, your typical target customer is Homer Simpson – you have to always account for the lowest common denominator in your business and marketing.

Homer isn’t going to care what search engine has indexed what content. If he can type a search in Google as he always has, and Google continues to give him the answer he wants, it’ll make no different to him if Bing has a similar answer from the WSJ.

Some people may care, but Homer (representing the majority of people online) couldn’t care less.

As a few people have already mentioned, those is NEED WSJ content (or any other exclusive content that Google doesn’t index) will likely have the site bookmarked and visit it regularly anyway.

I don’t see this as that great of an idea.

$10 million a year

I think the big question any company has to ask itself when making such decisions is; Is market share/profit more important then the service/product from a customers view? The described deal between Bing and Murdoch would clearly send out the message that Murdoch and MS care more about profit/market even if it hurts their service/product/customer along the way; It’s not in the customers interest to think what search engine should be used to get good news results. It would be annoying to the customer and hurt MS and Murdoch in the long term.

It’s exactly those decisions why a lot of people like Google over MS. Example;
Google doesn’t care that you read your GMail with a Non-Google Mail client; it just supports open protocols like IMAP.
MS choose to protect their market share by only allowing MS Mail Clients to access Hotmail by a proprietary protocol. They only allowed POP3 since this year. (POP3 doesn’t support all the nice features IMAP supports)

another example;
The development of IE is from a technology perspective slow. All other browsers are walking circles around IE in terms of performance and W3C standards. Why? Since it’s not in MS interest to see developers move from a .Net/Silverlight development environment to a web based environment. They are even scared that JavaScript will hurt their .Net platform; see http://tinyurl.com/y9288jt and http://tinyurl.com/5r8662

In my opinion Google is referring tho those kind of decisions that it will do no evil.

$10 million a year good enough?

Murdoch only gets one chance to do this right.

If this strategy proves to be anything but success, it further solidifies the role of Google in every organizations planning and budgeting.

I think it’s too sticky of a subject for MSFT to get involved. they can’t afford to lose any more ground to Google..

for $250-500,000 a year–in advance–Mike would do an exclusive with Bing I think.

This is not about Bing or Google or the shift in power. This is significantly bigger. If News Corp goes through with the de-indexing and then goes and sells the rights, there will finally be a business modek for both small and large content producing entities.

All websites will start participating and content will once again cost the public money. Following that the major search engines become subscription style services with niche search engines being a big new industry and the whole landscape turns into cable television through your computer.

but would the meta-search app have to pay Bing and Google for access? :)

you see where this slippery slope is going?

[...] “How Murdoch Can Really Hurt Google And Shift The Balance Of Power In Search? I’ve mostly been a spectator in this whole Rupert Murdoch de-indexing his news sites from Google circus. First because I didn’t really believe he even knew what he was talking about (or how much traffic he’d lose), and more recently because Erick Schonfeld took the story here at TechCrunch.” Micahel Arrington November 14th, 2009 [...]

+1

The legal battle would be interesting, but Google could end up losing in the end due to the criteria for Fair Use which considers the effect on potential market value. There is obviously market value since Bing would be paying for the right to index and Google ignoring the robots file would not be considered Fair Use since it erodes this value. Some interesting links for further reading:

http://w2.eff.org/IP/blake_v_google/google_nevada_order.pdf
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/01/6063.ars

Most of those top 10 newspaper co’s referenced by Jason already have an agreement with Yahoo! that would prevent them from doing an exclusive deal with Bing.

[...] agrees with Cory’s (and Jason Calacanis’) predictions from last week: Murdoch is about to sign an exclusivity deal with an also-ran search engine. (There was more at the Graun.) Mike Arrington, however, suggests this will succeed in hurting [...]

Newscorps haven’t really realized the truth yet, has they ?
The bitter truth is that news emerge faster on the Internet (just check how fast Wikipedia is updated with recent news) than they do in normal media. The fact is that Google dosen’t need Murdoch… but Murdoch needs Google.

[...] then I’m not a media mogul like Mark). But Mike Arrington at TechCrunch does the best job of laying out what might be at the core of Rupert’s strategy (assuming he isn’t just [...]

Did you seriously just say that Yahoo, Ask and Bing innovate more than Google?! Google is one of the few companies that could be considered a monopoly that continues to innovate. I think the monopoly that we should looking to topple is News Corp not Google.

News Corp won’t be able to put a dent in Google’s search traffic. Google is a much bigger and better company. Sure there are a lot of news related search queries, and many of them might be related to news corp content, but that is not what matters. As news corp has said already, valuable customers go directly to their site anyway. We are overestimating the average internet user. The kind of people who type news related queries into Google are going to be none the wiser about the missing news articles. If you really want to keep up with specific news sites, you use an RSS reader and that won’t change.

And no, News Corp is not going to ask Bing to pay for content exclusively. Its plan is to make it’s websites entirely based on payed subscription. Bing would have to pay way more than they could make off of people’s searches to cover the costs of subscription. No search engine would pay to index any sites, it would be the death of them.

And for those of you think that Google and Bing pay to index Twitter, they don’t, they index twitter for FREE just as they always have. They pay for access to a real time stream, which is much more valuable and is something that they can’t do with spiders.

You guys have it backwards. Opinion is cheap, news is pricey. Very pricey.

Accurate, timely, fact-checked reporting – and the accountability that goes along with it – is very expensive. Sending a guy out to Kabul or Tikrit to get the straight dope from the field is expensive. A real news room filled with professionals who run around town to get the story, and separate fact from fiction, is expensive.

The collective hive mind of the blogosphere has created a flowing gusher of opinion that antiquates the old punditry-for-hire concept. Yes, there’s still high-profile gasbag personalities like Rush, Keith and Glen – but the rest of us fill in the cracks everyday wherever an “Add Comment” button is to be found.

HuffingtonPost doesn’t have a news room, they don’t have fact-checkers, they don’t have investigative journalism. What they have are links to other content that other people paid real money to create and – opinion. Dirt cheap opinion.

When the “old media” finally suffocates, who exactly is going to foot the bill for the real reporting that we’ve come to regard as a commodity? HuffPost? TruthDig?

I guess we’ll just lean on the BBC to do the heavy lifting.

[...] How Murdoch Can Really Hurt Google And Shift The Balance Of Power In Search [...]

For some perspective on size, $300 million represents only 1% of News Corps 2009 Revenue.

For the media companies to start playing this indexing, deindexing game would be problematic. Instead of the move resuscitating the old media empires, it might be a huge bonanza to the blogosphere.

Oh well, google will have less crap to expose to the public.

[...] How Murdoch Can Really Hurt Google And Shift The Balance Of Power In Search – 13.11.2009 "Mahalo CEO Jason Calacanis, who used to work for Murdoch’s Digital Chief Jonathan Miller when the two were at AOL, posted a video last week (embedded below) with a simple suggestion: Not only should Murdoch de-index from Google, but he should get Bing to pay him for the exclusive right to index it. TechCrunch Europe’s Mike Butcher has been sniffing down a similar trail." [...]

Google built their monopoly simply by having a better search engine. People could easily find information through it and went there instead of using the portals that dominated the late 90′s. How did Microsoft build their monopoly? I believe they went with the “embrace, extend, extinguish” policy. Not exactly something you write on a Hallmark card.

As for the newspapers, they have fought the internet for a long time and still refuse to fully take advantage of it. Even if Microsoft pays the newspapers, how long will that last them, a year, two? This seems more of a last ditch effort to make money rather than a long term strategy.

This post is built on a lot of wrong assumptions. By the way, Wsj.com has the same traffic size and pageviews as techcrunch. Can techcruch go against Google? http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wsj.com

As has already been pointed out…this all hinges on anybody caring about Murdoch’s content to begin with, and that real live bloggers aren’t going to do the heavy work of posting the content and links within seconds.
Which they are.

This is very much a Steal Underpants == Make Million$ business model.

New Buggywhip Startup Founded — News at 11….

[...] for news might bring money back into the journalism field. But today, I heard a third opinion from Michael Arrington at Tech Crunch (via Boing Boing) – Murdoch might be the first entity to actually hurt [...]

[...] Realised that he’s been so busy during the week that he hadn’t weighed in on Erick’s [...]

[...] on Google. It’s a risky strategy but will it work? TechCrunch has a good read about how Murdoch can really hurt Google but not everyone shares the site’s opinion with some saying it will add to the doom of [...]

Google has been selling paid ads against the content in search results, then passing the traffic on to the publishers (who have no real way to monetize them). Google says, “hey, we send you traffic!” but traffic you can’t monetize is actually a cost. Regardless of whether a publisher deindexes, users will have to exchange some kind of value – call it “conditioned access.” offering users many ways to pay (like, oh, i don’t know… PayCheckr.com???) would ease the transition.

In the short term, this might look like a brilliant move for Newscorp & co., but in the long term and if they actually do it, this actually might be a blessing in disguise for Google, because Google will very fast realize that instead of paying news sites for the right to index them, they can actually get in to the content creation business themselves, and go for the17

It seems like much ado about nothing. Anybody who wants to read The New York Times or The Washington Post or any other major newpaper can get a free account and read the entire online archive. They’re getting eyeballs for the ads. In the grand scheme of things, I doubt whether Google gives a crap about whether Murdoch blocks it from indexing WSJ.

Not really. A monopoly company can be innovative. The fact that it is innovative does not cover another fact that it is a monopoly.

Look at how content providers are losing money at the same time how much money Google is making, it is not hard to see that Google is becoming a monopoly power and such trend will hurt productivity eventually.

Oh, it is you. Do not confuse the behavior of an individual with the behavior of a huge market which has many different segments.

Google is not about content, it’s about searching content, which means it’s about the Google search algorithm(s).

If Murdoch hides behind Bing, then Google simply points to Bing every time someone searches for Murdoch. What’s that, one extra click?

The only thing that can threaten Google is a superior search algorithm and/or denying Google the context in which a superior search algorithm (whether its theirs or some others’) can demonstrate its superiority. That context is the web in its entirety, and Murdoch is such a small and redundant portion of the web that he simply doesn’t matter.

Murdoch’s strategy — and your advice of staging a bidding war for content — can only work where there is some sort of monopoly of that content and, importantly, some value (positive or negative) attached to the restriction of that content made possible through its monopolization.

Murdoch must think he monopolizes something. What?

“If Murdoch hides behind Bing, then Google simply points to Bing every time someone searches for Murdoch.”

Hahah, yea Google will just looove being forced to point to their competitor’s search engine in their SERPS.

But a blog could link to articles of major newspapers and have little excerpts/summaries as well.

And Google could simply index those blogs.

[...] Follow this link: How Murdoch Can Really Hurt Google And Shift The Balance Of Power … [...]

no body use bing, it’s crap

I am continuously surprised at how more and more accurate and insightful this video was/is:

Way ahead of its time!

[...] Arrington then joined in the fantasy saying that News Corp. could change the balance by shifting to Bing, but ends his post [...]

There’s always BBC world news.

DEAD WRONG!! It’s not Murdock versus Google, it would be more like Murdoch dumps access (i.e. links) to 73% of the search market. Sure go ahead and de-index from Google. What will happen will the world stop spinning? No! Other content providers will fill the void left by the de-indexed media websites and attract more advertising based on their growing visits from Google. This discussion show a fundamental misunderstanding of the power of the Internet and the “linked based economy versus the old media content economy”. It’s not about Google it’s about the consumer’s ability to choose to among a very expanding universe of linked-content.

An Example of NY Times Power over Search Choice

I often read columns by David Brooks and several other columnists from the New York Times. I am in the habit of searching “David Brooks” on google as a means of getting to his section of the NY Times site. If google no longer indexed NY Times articles, I would go through Bing rather than type in the URL for NYTimes/Davidbrooksetc . This could get me more familair with Bing and much more likely to switch for other searches.

What a load of BS. As if anyone actually uses google links to go to news.com.au. I sometimes visit Murduk’s crappy news site just to see what he’s not reporting, only to get fed up with all the stoopid ads and popups which I then make sure to block in my hosts file. Murdoch should start charging for subscriptions ‘cos then the traffic he’d get could be serviced by a single low-end server and a dial up connection which would be paid for by the half-dozen subscribers he’d get. Man, just think how much money he’d save, and we all know a penny saved is a penny earned, hey Rupes?

Google might want to stop accepting money from LYING advertisers. You know, the White Teeth “secret”, the flat belly “secret” and the rest of the LIES that take up precious screen real-estate.

Murdoch is a very clever businessman and will get Google to pay for the content (as they should) – no need to go to Bing. All original content owners should do same. Aggregators should share advertising revenues with the people they steal content from.

This works exactly for how long it takes for Google to de-list all NewsCorp. properties from not only its search indexes, but YouTube.

Love it or hate it, YouTube is the online video king, and NewsCorp, Microsoft, Yahoo, et al. have nothing to compare to it.

Besides which, nobody knows what the hell Bing is. The know Google. Bing is a 3rd-string search engine. No brand awareness at all, coupled with irrelevant and ad-ridden results.

Doesn’t anyone remember what happened the last time a content owner asked Google to de-list their content? Google complied and the content owners were bashing down the doors less than a week later begging to be re-indexed.

[...] würde? Das könnte Google in Bedrängnis bringen – und zum Umdenken zwingen, schreibt US-Blogger Michael Arrington, der eine These des Chefs der Suchmaschie Mahalo, Jason Calacanis, aufg… (Jeff Jarvis ist da anderer Meinung). Möglicherweise hat es schon ein Treffen großer Verlage mit [...]

[...] reklama kuba przed chwilą w tych dywagacjach zapomina się, że bądź co bądź funkcjonujemy na wolnym rynku. jak wsj nie będzie w google to będzie coś innego na ten sam temat. świat się nie zawali. news corp jest duże ale nie brakuje ludzi, którzy chętnie zagospodarują całą przestrzeń, która zostanie po news corp (w google). techcrunch.com/…er&utm_medium=feed&utm_ca… [...]

[...] den slags kan jeg godt lide) om som en logisk følge af tilbagetrækningen fra Google i stedet at tilbyde indekseringen af alt News Corp indhold til Bing – for en pris naturligvis. Dermed skulle brugere, der gerne ville finde indhold fra f.eks. NY Times tvinges til at bruge Bing [...]

1. Google, at best, is an accidental monopoly… It is, because we who have made it so. Unlike, in case of an OS, where it is so much more difficult to make a shift, in the case of a search engine it is just a mouse click away. So discontented fellas can move any other search engine.
2. Search is not just about indexing content. It is about understanding search queries and giving out the most relevant results. Which is what Google is very good at.
3. Search engine’s are just a gateway. Ironically, when businesses are paying Google to lead traffic to their sites through targeted advertising, some wan’t to be paid for leading such traffic for free! The disaffected media companies can charge the customers for viewing their page instead. Or even better get them to view an ad before reading the content.
3. Because of the Fair use clause, a search engine cannot be stopped from indexing any publicly avagood content you publish, the more traffic you get. The more traffic you get, there’re more reasons for someone to want to be the sole indexer of your content. And pay the premium for the benefit.

[...] How Murdoch Can Really Hurt Google And Shift The Balance Of Power In Search (tags: google newspapers journalism media murdoch rupert.murdoch newscorp) [...]

I’m not here to defend Google or Microsoft .But comparing both companies , Google ‘s attitudes worths more to the internet and its users . Because most part of its projects are open-source or free .

How much money is Google making from news searches?

Team Google work in fractions and algorithms: soon they will come up with a powerful ‘counter-strategy’ that will bring Murdoch down!

[...] Google soll dabei wohl ausgeschlossen werden. Und Microsoft soll für dieses Recht bezahlen. Nicht Wenige sind der Meinung, dass das durchaus sinnvoll sein könnte. Immerhin würden die Verlage sich [...]

How is giving money away greedy? Your assertion was petitio principii to begin with, but the general incongruity suggests benightedness.

As for your broader assertions, I don’t have the time, patience or the hope that you will comprehend to expend time debating them.

Actually, both of these Twitter deals were specifically *non-exclusive.* Any other search engine or web property can purchase the same rights as Microsoft and Google.

[...] More Information [...]

[...] a Murdoch en el valiente que va abriendo puertas que otros medios se limitan a contemplar. News Corp. puede bloquear a Google y dejar al buscador fuera de sus muros. Pero ¿y si ofrece a Bing acceso exclusivo? ¿Y si Bing pagara por indexar todas las publicaciones [...]

[...] a Murdoch en el valiente que va abriendo puertas que otros medios se limitan a contemplar. News Corp. puede bloquear a Google y dejar al buscador fuera de sus muros. Pero ¿y si ofrece a Bing acceso exclusivo? ¿Y si Bing pagara por indexar todas las publicaciones [...]

Guess who’s not going to benefit from this? Got a mirror? Capitalism raises it’s ugly head.

[...] Arrington in TechCrunch looks at “How Murdoch Can Really Hurt Google and Shift the Balance of Power in Search,” saying that “he might as well do it the right way and drive the fear of God into [...]

[...] you’re not tired of the vilification of Google my media moguls – (1) TechCrunch – How Murdoch Can Really Hurt Google and Shift the Balance of Power In Search (2) Inconsistent policy at WSJ does not “make sense” (3) My piece from last week: [...]

Interesting grudge match. By placing their bets with Bing, Fox might get a little cash (probably not significant to a company that size) but lose 80% of their news search engine traffic.

I for one have been pining away for the means to eliminate Murdoch publications from my Google News widget. It can’t be configured that way, unfortunately, so I welcome Murdoch’s move. Hope he does it for real, allowing me great peace in browsing my iGoogle homepage.

As for the move spelling some kind of disaster for Google, I sincerely doubt that, nor will an alternate business model arise. Even today’s subscription-only content providers (eg. Science, Nature) allow direct access to (and Google search of) parts of articles in order to drive potential business to their sites. Search results constitute an excellent form of advertising. If a few like Murdoch, even hundreds, were to restrict searches to particular engines, the net effect would be next to nil. There is too much good, accessible stuff out there for it to make a difference, and too few news providers can allow the drop in visits such segmentation would create.

However, let me cheer Murdoch’s withdrawal to the dark closet where his “information” should, I agree, properly remain.

[...] few hours after my conference call, I came across an intriguing article in TechCrunch: How Murdoch Can Really Hurt Google And Shift The Balance Of Power In Search. In it, the writer discusses an idea proposed by Mahalo CEO Jason Calacanis. Not only should [...]

[...] future partner Yahoo. Bing has yet to put a ding in Google’s share.  Perhaps it needs to do something radical, like cut deals with major news and media sites for exclusive rights to index their content.  [...]

+1 It’s up to the consumer and the competition to strong arm a company. That’s how the free market works.

This is just a way for publishers to claw back some of their livelihood from the search engines. No need for search engines to become subscription based as they would still be ad supported and bring in plenty of cash. They just would have to give up some of their profits, and it’s about time.

This is the search engines getting squeezed in what I would think of as the ‘traffic stack’. Publishers have been getting squeezed for years, but now the balance of power is shifting toward publishers.

Yep, the Economist is always one of my top picks for air travel.

[...] future partner Yahoo. Bing has yet to put a ding in Google’s share.  Perhaps it needs to do something radical, like cut deals with major news and media sites for exclusive rights to index their content.  [...]

It’s because Techcrunch runs on WordPress.com and they put that smiley there.

[...] introducir un comando ‘disallow’ en el fichero robots.txt de sus sitios web. Por otro, firma un acuerdo de distribución de contenido exclusivo con “el otro” buscador, Bing: un acuerdo parecido a lo que Murdoch lleva toda la vida haciendo en los medios convencionales. El [...]

[...] So, there’s Michael Arrington’s turn to try revert the situation from search to content. Some say that this is going to be an open opportunity for [...]

[...] Murdoch also has no interest in simply playing Bing off of Google and making the search engines pay for the right to index his news either. Asked whether he was “moving towards an exclusive deal” with the “aggregators and the [...]

[...] Spekulationerne er rejst efter i denne video på YouTube med Jason Calacanis, som jeg har set via en anden artikel på TechCrunch. [...]

[...] its future partner Yahoo. Bing has yet to put a ding in Google’s share. Perhaps it needs to do something radical, like cut deals with major news and media sites for exclusive rights to index their content. [...]

[...] their Google traffic in exchange for exclusive rights to index content in Bing. Michael Arrington followed up with a slightly more tempered opinion than JCal’s. And then Jeff Jarvis chimed in with his [...]

[...] The Business Insider, TechCrunch, The Age, Brisbane Times Bing, Google, Microsoft, Murdoch Leave a comment [...]

[...] everyone’s had an opinion, so I’ll refrain. (though I’ll share the interesting Bing Theory) The other part of his announcement, where he wants to be paid for content, will obviously depend [...]

some interesting ideas. I wonder what is going to happen with all of this.

It could really shake up what SE people are using. It’s happened it the past.

Murdoch is a damn fool if he thinks removing New Corp’s media from Google searches will harm Google significantly. All it takes is for third party redirection sites to step in. And besides, the folks at Google are so innovative they could be starting their own online news sources any second now… Innovation is the key to surviving into the future not antagonism.

[...] Murdoch is pointing a gun to Google’s head, and Microsoft is helping him pull back the trigger. For the past few weeks, Murdoch and his [...]

[...] TechCrunch gives a little bit of insight into how this might play out in the long run and who is ultimately behind the coup that seems to be developing right before our very eyes. The interesting thing I find about all of this is this: If Microsoft did strike a deal with News Corp – and with the top 5 other media publishers as Jason Calacanis suggests – then that would definitely take a bite size chunk out of Google’s search share. No doubt about it. But it would have to happen on a larger scale than what Rupert Murdoch is suggesting. He doing it alone would not work. He would have to get the other media companies to go in with him at the same time. [...]

[...] Murdoch is pointing a gun to Google’s head, and Microsoft is helping him pull back the trigger. For the past few weeks, Murdoch and his [...]

[...] Murdoch is pointing a gun to Google’s head, and Microsoft is helping him pull back the trigger. For the past few weeks, Murdoch and his [...]

[...] Murdoch is pointing a gun to Google’s head, and Microsoft is helping him pull back the trigger. For the past few weeks, Murdoch and his [...]

[...] Murdoch is pointing a gun to Google’s head, and Microsoft is helping him pull back the trigger. For the past few weeks, Murdoch and his [...]

[...] vs Google By johnniecastillo1953 Rupert Murdoch is pointing a gun to Google’s head, and Microsoft is helping him pull back the trigger. For the past few weeks, Murdoch and his [...]

[...] Murdoch is pointing a gun to Google’s head, and Microsoft is helping him pull back the trigger. For the past few weeks, Murdoch and his [...]

[...] Rupert Murdoch anunță că site-urile NewsCorp nu vor mai fi indexate în Google, într-un interviu acordat Sky can even make money in the process. It requires just some scale to be effective.

[...] Murdoch is pointing a gun to Google’s head, and Microsoft is helping him pull back the trigger. For the past few weeks, Murdoch and his [...]

[...] none of us has figured out yet. That is a very likely possibility, it was addressed last week in a post by Michel Arrington from Techcrunch with speculations about Microsoft’s involvement in the [...]

[...] database could turn out to be a brilliant signaling strategy, one that, as Mike Arrington has written, could ultimately alter the balance of power on the [...]

[...] news content on all of his web properties and de-index his websites from Google. TechCrunch offers a pretty good overview of the [...]

Well,i believe news shouldn’t be free… it cost a lot of money to set up media firms, buy rights and licenses and the sots of operation is huge. All this alternative news media that you are talikng about just live off the main media firms. Google needs to pay if it wants to display full news content from other sources sice it is making money off them. If it doesn’t want to then it should set up it’s own newspaper and media house with full compliments of staff, distribution network, etc

[...] on the slopes of active volcanoes. Always suckers for stories, we’d rather take sides in wars between competing volcanoes than build civilization on more flat and solid ground where there’s room enough for [...]

[...] time criticizing Google when there is a simple solution: post a robot.txt file that tells … How Murdoch Can Really Hurt Google And Shift The Balance Of Power In Search TechCrunch (blog) Doing the Math on News Corp.’s Threatened Google Block New York Times [...]

[...] Corp out of Google, instructing it to de-index its publications from the search engine and giving exclusive rights to Bing for a fee. This means that content publishers will be able to determevenue dependent business model that would quickly fill the WSJ vacuum.

[...] love it if all of their readers were rendered anonymous as soon as they clicked away.  This echoes Murdoch’s supposed interest in removing his content from Google’s search engine index. The value of “free” distribution is materially impacted when the distributor is able to [...]

[...] Corp out of Google, instructing it to de-index its publications from the search engine and giving exclusive rights to Bing for a fee. This means that content publishers will be able to determine where they make their content [...]

[...] Corp out of Google, instructing it to de-index its publications from the search engine and giving exclusive rights to Bing for a fee. This means that content publishers will be able to determine where they make their content [...]

[...] Corp out of Google, instructing it to de-index its publications from the search engine and givingexclusive rights to Bing for a fee. This means that content publishers will be able to determine where they make their content [...]

But just like TechCrunch, if a blog were to specialize in international news, then it too would beat the NYT “hands down”. The NYT (and others) biggest problem is that they don’t really specialize in anything. They are jack of all trades when it comes to news.

Think about it…when Iran kicked the journalist out of the country when the election violence was happening, we still were able to get news. We got it directly from the street. Of course, not all of it was credible, but we managed to sort through it. And that was all done pretty much on-the-fly. Imagine what could be done if we actually had the right technology and software.

It’s interesting how we talk about the importance of these big news organizations. They are not important. They are middle-men. The individual journalists are what is important. They are the ones that actually produce the content we’re looking for, not the WSJ, NYT, or any other organization.

All we need to do is provide journalist with the means of distribution. We’ll figure out how search for and find the credible information. Don’t let the WSJ or NYT trick you into believing that we need them.

[...] Corp out of Google, instructing it to de-index its publications from the search engine and giving exclusive rights to Bing for a fee. This means that content publishers will be able to determine where they make their content [...]

Anti-competitive behavior by Microsoft!

they are too strong http://lyricsoasis.com/joe-budden/

[...] Google to de-index his media conglomerate’s publications from the search engine and selling exclusive rights to News Corp. content to Microsoft’s Bing search engine. Like News Corp., other content [...]

[...] Corp out of Google, instructing it to de-index its publications from the search engine and giving exclusive rights to Bing for a fee. This means that content publishers will be able to determine where they make their content [...]

[...] a business news paper, take it online, index the hell out of it on google, threaten to pull out the index and make money. #ideabing Tags: internet, money, news, technology Share this [...]

[...] Corp out of Google, instructing it to de-index its publications from the search engine and giving exclusive rights to Bing for a fee. This means that content publishers will be able to determine where they make their content [...]