CONTENT WAR Is Google truly stealing revenue?

My take on the search engine vs. publisher debate.

Admittedly as a marketer my job would be significantly harder should I not have access to the plethora of free news content I now enjoy. This said, I firmly believe neither I, nor anyone else, has a fundamental right to consume for free what others have paid to create.

Let's compare the attempts at 'free' bike share programs around the world to 'free' news share on the internet.

First, because a large influential institution has enlisted the participation of multiple entities to provide 'free' access to bicycles does that mean that everyone's bicycles are up for grabs? Even if we lock ours up, does any passerby with an interest have the right take our bike out for a spin? No. We paid for our bike and may have even taken reasonable precautions for its security. Someone just helping themselves to our bike is not OK.

Second, the bike share programs have significant positive attributes for all concerned. Lowered emissions and congestion with improved user health and regional awareness to name a few. The same benefits could be spun as an argument for free digital access to news. The reality? The ideal in its free form is not sustainable. From Amsterdam in The Netherlands, through LaRouche in Paris, and Portland, USA these free bicycle programs have gone the way of the Dodo bird. Why? 1"An inability to compensate for the cost of theft and vandalism."

...or is the real threat exposure?

I am by no means a fan of most news publishers. In my humble opinion their financial woes have nothing to do with Google, Yahoo, Bing or any other search engine. Their decreasing revenues are in most part the result of poor product development. A fact that search engines highlight. With the aid of search engines we can quickly filter for quality content. If a publisher chooses to pump out unstimulated content or thin rehashes of the same stories they have spun for the last week, they will feel the effect visa vi fewer consumers. Online or offline, fewer consumers means fewer advertisers and lower premiums. After all, publishers sell promo space in both mediums. The same thin content pain goes for magazines and journals as well. Just as I'll get up and leave a conference room if the content of a presentation is laden with marketing fluff [and I'm a marketer] I'll take my valuable readership else where when articles are peppered with brand mentions and product plugs.

What is obvious in the search engine vs publishers debate is that they can generate far greater revenue as partners than they can individually. For both parties, the bulk of their revenue model rests on their ability to deliver an audience. I suspect recent plays in the media by Rupert Murdoch and some other newspaper owners are more red herrings than accurate predictions of a future without 'ready access to information'. Indeed the days of making off with locked bicycles may soon be gone. But just as bike share programs are evolving into sustainable models, so too shall search engines and publishers figure out a mutually beneficial model.

Google's floated answer to the problem today was the catalyst for my writing this post. Here's my quick assessment of their solution.

As I understand it, a single visitor will be able to access a maximum of five articles per publication after which the reader will be required to sign in. I can't imagine that publishers will sign on for this. For one I'd be interested in knowing how many visitors to any given site read more than five articles per viewing. Sadly, as mentioned above, the majority simply don't produce that much new and interesting content. Also the ability to track a session is traditionally the result of cookies; something a visitor can easily delete in order to extend their access. Granted Google is one heck of an intellectual power house [the driving reason why I think they're amazing] so the tracking tool[s] they use to monitor a session may very well not be cookies.

Final thoughts...

I'd wager many of us categorize Google as Robin Hood in this scenario. Taking from the rich to give to the poor. They reinvest a respectable percentage of the wealth in building powerful tools that they make available to each and every one of us - free of charge. Right, wrong, or indifferent, it certainly makes it hard to not love them.

Citation:
1Wikipedia article re bike sharing initiatives: http://bit.ly/WP-bikeshare_TL-post11

Post Image:
Freely sourced from: http://bit.ly/JFenzel-image_TL-post11
[note: original image source unknown]

Citation:
Google's floated solution. American Free Press [AFP]: http://bit.ly/Google_PR_TL-post11