Murdoch upset with Facebook again

The billionaire publisher is once more annoyed at Facebook for making money promoting newspapers' content.
So unsurprisingly he demands even more money.

https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/22/rupert-murdoch-facebook-should-pay-news-publishers

“If Facebook wants to recognize ‘trusted’ publishers then it should pay those publishers a carriage fee similar to the model adopted by cable companies,” 

It's not traditional media anymore

I've been struggling with the term "Traditional Media" recently.

I'm not sure why... maybe it doesn't sound right, perhaps the term just doesn't cut it in a fragmented communications world or possibly I've lost a lot of my nostalgic view of newspapers, radio and even television.

Some traditions are great and are quite rightly upheld. Traditions not only show us where we came from, but also serve as a reference point to remind us what was good at a given point in time. 

But now we live in a new world.  An always-connected one where media is streamed, stored, consumed on demand and mashed together across multiple channels and devices.  The consumer of media is now in control and there's really no going back. My 4 year old daughter thinks it 'silly' that the TV doesn't show all the programs YouTube does (perhaps only because I've not bought an Apple TV box yet) and she laughed when I tried to explain that we once only had a TV with 4 buttons for our television... and one of those was for the power supply.

But we now live with those old paradigms, albeit updated for a 21st Century life. YouTube still has 'channels' and streamed digital radio is still referred to as 'stations'. 

So maybe we should change to term from 'traditional media' to something more fitting for a hangover from a bygone age? Perhaps we need a new way of referring to the old ways of media consumption?

Perhaps we should now call them 'legacy' media instead?

Should newspapers be allowed to sell links?

The recent degrading of Interflora's website has caused quite a stir in the UK SEO industry. Not just because the flower delivery service has been given a Page Rank reduction by Google, but because this has exposed the company's practice of buying links from newspaper sites.

Personally I'm less than surprised that this reduction has happened (but perhaps a little shocked at the extent to which the newspaper sites have been downgraded by the might of the World's most powerful search engine). However, newspaper websites has been selling links for years. The practice is fairly widespread in my experience and even in the last year or so I've had pitches from high profile news sites that have highlighted the number of links they offer as part of 'a package'. This is hardly a new revelation and some time in coming.

But lets put reality to one side for a moment and forget that search engines will penalise sites for selling links... And ask the question of whether specific sites such as newspapers should be able to sell hyperlinks from their sites to those that want them.

On the one hand there's the huge elephant in the room that a lot of newspaper owners feel and actually say that the online world (including Google) has taken away a significant chunk of their income. They are right... Free news sites, content aggregators, the poor return from display advertising and a bunch of other factors have all eaten into many major newspapers' revenue. Selling links from their sites gives at least some way of making up for this loss.

On the other hand, I really don't know how you would distinguish a newspaper site these days from a lot on other online news sources and even a lot of blogs. The lines are now so blurred, with nothing to chose between them... Making the definition of what actually is an online newspaper almost impossible. Whatever choice you make it this area would be wrong for someone.

And to those who might say "you would need a printed publication to qualify for immunity", I would remind them that there are a number of newspapers that have ditched their print version and now exist solely online.

In short, there is no way I know to discern those who should and shouldn't be able to sell their links. And if nobody else can either, then we are probably just better off letting Google do it.

Could a new media outcry hurt the News Of The World?

Unless you’ve been living under a stone the last few day, or only read the front pages of certain News International newspapers, then you will no doubt know that there’s been a complete outcry at the activities of the sleazy UK Sunday newspaper the News Of The World. The moral outrage has taken place between people in true ‘word of mouth’ (e.g. over the breakfast table) style as well as in the traditional media (TV, Radio and non-New International papers).

However, new media has definitely played its part in communicating just how horrified normal people are at the underhand activities of a weekend tabloid (that seems to have more snooping resources than Mossad or MI6).
Today a sustained online campaign brought Twitter to life in a way I haven’t seen since the Royal Wedding back in April . However this action didn’t target the newspaper itself (for it seems to be in some turmoil as a consequence of an outwardly-facing PR melt-down and an internal & parliamentary witch-hunt for the head of the ex-editor and now Chief Exec of News International, Rebekah Brooks ), no this Twitter campaign went for the life-blood of the newspaper… it advertising revenue, by asking the brands that advertise in the paper to reconsider their budgets in the wake of the recent scandal.

Only time will tell if this action has any effect

The Times Online annouces its paywall

News International, owner of the The Times and Sunday Times newspapers has announced that its paywall in June, only a few months away.

Following a relaunch of both online properties in May and a period of free usage to registered customers (presumably to build up the potential user base) users will then pay £1 for a single day and £2 for weekly site access . However no further details of other site subscriptions have been main available as-yet (e.g. Quarterly or Yearly).

Further questions are obviously going to be answered as this date draws nearer, such as will the sites continue to support advertising alongside articles or do so in such an overt manner?

The fact remains that there are a number of other alternatives all watching to see: if Mr Murdoch's plan will work, if the same monetisation scheme is applied to other NewsCorp properties and if their own site traffic rises as a consequence.

Here's a link to the article on The Times Online, although please note that from June it will cost you a £1/$2/€1.5 to read it!
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article7076987.ece

iPad, the false saviour of the publishing world

"Apple's iPad is the second coming", "iPad is the saviour of publishing", "it will change our lives like the printing press"

Its a frigging big iPhone without a camera and the phone bit.... 'tis all

But in the weeks since Apple announced its iPad computer tablet thingy, the news industry, its viewers and (in particular) the Apple fan boys have been falling over themselves to talk about the fantastic potential of a square computer reader device that will restore journalism and in particularly the fortunes of newspapers and magazines.

This is perhaps summed-up best by this article from the New York Times on the week of the iPad's launch: With Apple Tablet, Print Media Hope for a Payday. This piece stated:

Apple may be giving the media industry a kind of time machine — a chance to undo mistakes of the past.

Oh dear... its all going to end in tears. Big droplets of salty false expectations that a device will save the publishing world from faltering advertising revenues by giving users a device where they will pay money to read content. (Need I remind you that salty water and computer equipment don't mix?)

Now, I'm sure I'm not the first to point this out, but won't the iPad come with either a WiFi or 3G data capability and a browser? So why will iPad users then decide to pay for a newspaper via the Apple store when they can browse the Internet for free and read the article there?

Social Media and the News

Last month Peter Horrocks the new head of BBC Global News told his new journalists to to use social media as a primary source of information.

"This isn't just a kind of fad from someone who's an enthusiast of technology. I'm afraid you're not doing your job if you can't do those things. It's not discretionary"

In instructing his researchers to use Twitter and RSS readers as essential tools for gathering news, the BBC is accepting that technology is changing the way journalism works and Aunty is obviously keen to keep pace with developments. To ignore social media is to ignore some great online resources.

Its therefore only a further mind-step away to consider what the next phase of social media and news is and one such step would be the Social Media Newsroom. By this, I don't mean the same dozen hacks all sat around re-inventing stories and perspectives (or a Pulitzer for the best Tweet), I mean a constant quorum of independent writers, freelancers and bloggers who are loosely attached to a central hub that curates content and provides greater impact than the individuals alone. This content is then pushed out via the same channels it is collected by, but with: views, additional information, further context, insight and other integrated data (e.g. linked government statistics, etc.). This is then all published to a central source (e.g. the newspaper's website) where it is further enhanced by comments, updates and feedback.

The Internet is now the only real distribution channel for a lot of newspapers who can no longer afford to publish their paper-based version. Peter Horrocks is correct to adopt this approach for his journalists now. Those that don't follow the best practices of social media may see their brands further marginalized online.

Could Foursquare be the next news application?

Those of you who follow me on Twitter will know I'm a user of www.foursquare.com
. For the uninitiated this is a location-based game / service where you can 'check-in' at a physical location to:

• tell your fellow friends in the game where you are (e.g. "I'm in my local pub")
• read and write tips to help fellow users (e.g. "The best beer here is xxxxxx")
• become the major of the locations (a reward for frequenting each place the most)
• unlock 'badges' that show progress and status

However, It struck me today that what would be an incredibly useful addition to Foursquare is the addition of local news articles.

The only problem with this idea is.... someone has had it already! .

Last month Canada's free daily paper The Metro News teamed up with Foursquare to deliver specific local content to users.

"Foursquare players who follow Metro and check-in near where they pick up Metro will unlock a special Metro Foursquare badge and be automatically entered to win. The contest is being promoted through in-paper ads across all 7 editions of Metro"

And a couple of weeks ago, The new York Times partnered with Foursquare in a winter Olympics tie-up that provides local recommendations on: restaurants, attractions, shopping and nightlife in the resorts of Vancouver, Whistler, and Squamish (where?). You can even check in to two recommended venues and unlock a special Olympics badge.

So.... is this the future of hyperlocal news? Has a game provided the right delivery mechanism for targeted and relevant content?

Journalists use of Social Media

If you have read Malcolm Gladwell's book The Tipping Point, you know that there is a point at which a rolling snowball of an idea becomes an avalanche of thought and majority in its target user-base. And now, if a recent study is to be believed then the use of social media for news gathering has reached tipping point in journalism.
http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/537316.php

The report from a survey of 371 journalists and editors in the USA states that for their research:

• 55% use micro blogging sites (e.g. Twitter)
• 65% use social networks
• 89% use blogs

However one of the report's authors is keen to make the points that using these sources does not replace a journalist or an editor's function. 49% of respondents also cite social media's "Lack of fact-checking, verification or reporting standards" as the primary reason to question the reliability of news from these site.

Perhaps someone should point out to them the growing story from yesterday's Irish Mail on Sunday newspaper, which apparently took selected quotes from Air Traffic Controller Melanie Dawn's blog to sensationalise a story about sexism in her work place.

This was all done without her consent, which is why Melanie is apparently now seeking legal advice (and probably why the story cannot be found anywhere on the Mail's site.... funny that!

Perhaps before declaring the lack of standards of social media, journalist should look at little closer to home first?

Thanks to the following for the photo:
http://twitter.com/jangles/status/8190153290

The iSlate and newspaper distribution

Allan Biggar in his blog posting over the weekend says that the new Apple iSlate is set to be a gamechanger for newspapers and publishers.

Yes, Apple’s proposed introduction of the iSlate (or whatever they call it) is hoped to do for newspapers and magazines what the iPhone did for pocket applications… it gives them a new platform for distribution. However, that may end up being the only similarity between them.

You see the iPhone allowed bedroom developers and small digital agencies to easily innovate. They quickly built new things they thought people might want, need and buy, as well as allowing them to utilise the ‘Freemium’ business model (download and use the basic functionality for free, then pay a small price for an upgraded or full-featured version id you want).

I wonder (and seriously doubt) if the traditional publishers are approaching the iSlate with the same innovation that the iPhone application developers have done or are just thinking they can replicate their existing print offering on a digital device. iPhone applications are not exact replicas of large websites (in fact many don’t even have links to websites at all), they are something that suits the pocket device’s format and portability... they are popular because they are different, not because they are the same as what has gone before. That is part of their appeal and one reason why so many have been downloaded.

I also wonder if mainstream media will have the same approach to revenue generation and consider things such as a ‘Freemium’ version of their product with the option of charging for all of it.

Newspapers are biting the Google hand that feeds them

Newspapers continue to blame Google for stealing their business, despite the fact that it is driving visitors to their sites.

John A. Byrne, the ex-editor-in-chief of BusinessWeek.com has now gone on record as stating that:

Search--largely Google--now accounts for some 45% of the traffic at BW.com, up from less than 20% in 2006. That simple little box is driving vast amounts of advertising inventory (and therefore revenue) to the site and it's no coincidence. In common with every other media brand, we did lots of things to make our site search friendly. We rewrote headlines, simplified URLs, hired an on-staff SEO expert to lead seminars in search optimization. In other words, we courted Google and the search traffic we achieved. It's a similar story everywhere else.

He claims that publishers, in now blaming Google are biting the very hand that feeds them. The fact that these newspaper sites cannot monetise these visitors is not Google's fault, its the responsibility of the publishers to create a place where visitors will want to stay and return to(perhaps by fostering communities and creating a dialogue, rather than just putting words on a page?).

Newspapers, an epic fail

At the beginning of 2009 I mentioned an animation called EPIC, that put forward a view of the future in 2015 where Google and the New York Times went head-to-head in an (errrr... Epic) battle.
Note: I actually found out subsequently via Wikipedia that the movie was made by the Museum of Media History and was originally produced in 2004 and subsequently updated in 2005.

We have witnessed a crumbling newspaper business model, once based upon near-monopolistic retail and classified adverts. And those 'golden days' just aren't likely to make a comeback (ever). Well in 2009 this animation took another step towards becoming realised.

Advertising revenues along with readership numbers have dropped further and so have the profits & staff of those papers along with them. The only difference worth pointing out is that the battle this year wasn't taken up by the New York Times - as suggested in EPIC, but by News Corp (owners of the Wall Street Journal).

And now even some of those papers that state their readership is rising aren't selling more newspapers. Apparently since April 1 2009 there have been new auditing rules in the USA that have made it easier for newspapers to count a reader as a paying customer... by counting both their print and digital subscriptions to the same person as two readers! (The Huffington Post explains further here)

But the decentralising of information from newspapers and their mainstream media owners, to millions of the general populace with the ability to publish for free, is just the tip of the iceberg.

What were are really hinting at here is the decentralising of power... and for some that is an opportunity (those prepared to understand and embrace digital democratisation) whilst to others it is a threat (old media owners and those who used the media to control and restrict thought & opinion).

US Publishers still blaming Google

Google-bashing seems to be a popular pastime these days, with the newspapers and publishers taking turns to demand their share of someone else's business model now that their own is failing.

However this article from Frederic Filoux attempts to counter some of the Anti-google feeling amongst newspapers publishers.
http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/impressions/2009/12/07/anti-google-backlash?page=full

Its a fairly heavy-hitting article that explains how newspapers at first rushed to embrace Google but now want their share of the search engine when their own business models failed;

What I don’t like is the duplicity shown by legions of publishers: pouring huge sums into SEO/SEM to develop questionable audiences on the one hand, while at the same time whining about copyright violation and fair use abuses simply because this Styrofoam audience is not monetized enough.

There's a Paparazzi for that!

UK newspaper The Sun has a toungue-in-cheek poke at the iPhone adverts:

Google changes First Click Free rules

Readers of paid content on websites have known for ages that they can get around the paywall security of newspapers by visiting these sites via Google News.
The 'First Click Free' functionality in Google allowed visitors access to view the first page of premium content on such sites, but subsequent pages were blocked. This blockage could be overcome by constantly going back into Google News and clicking on the next premium story, meaning that all premium content could be read for free. But this has now been changed.

Now Google has announced that it is allowing publisher to change this rule, meaning that after viewing 5 pages of a paid content site per day, Google will stop its First Click Free rule being used. This means that visitors on the 6th click will be faced with the newspapers site's registration/payment screen.
More information from Josh Cohen at Google is available here.

So... is this a knee jerk to the recently-announced News Corp / Microsoft discussions? Is it a way to placate Rupert Murdoch following his relentless insulting of Google?

Errr... no! Apparently Google has been planning this change for some time, although it has also been more-than aware of the battle that's been coming for some time as well!

Is delisting from Google a financial model?

I've recently mentioned the Forrester report that states that 80% of Internet users would not bother to pay for newspaper content online. Yet the belief at News Corp is that there is still a model to be had from sticking up a pay wall and hiding your content from Google (and charging Microsoft for the privilege of displaying your content).

Perhaps this is the "rewriting the economics of newspaper" that James Harding, Editor of The Times talked about last week? Here he talked about charging a fee for a 24 hour view of the newspaper online (figures of around £1 have been mentioned, but obviously an annual subscription would be less than this).

But is there a possible financial model to had from de-listing from Google? Well... Bill Tancer at Hitwise has done this work, albeit taking just one News Corp newspaper as an example... The Wall Street Journal.

His findings are that although WSJ.com gets over 15% of its traffic from normal search (which quite possibly isn't that valuable to Mr Murdoch, as this is predominately brand searches, not searches for content), it gets 11% of its traffic from Google News. Now that must surely contribute to 11% of all landing page advertising inventory and any successive page that the visitor then moves onto?

So.... unless Bing can provide this sort of replacement revenue to News Corp.... how are they hoping to make more money (not less) from de-listing from Google and going to a Bing-only search engine model?

Obviously the answer is they are hoping to make further money from their paywall subscriptions. Although the WSJ may need to seriously consider whether its readers will be happy about paying for their paper and well as having to deal with intrusive/distracting in-page advertising.

And now proof of the UK paywall model for local content is about to be put to the test. Today, news has surfaced that local newspaper publisher Johnston Press will start an experiment to charge for access to its weekly websites from next week, although they have yet to announce they are de-listing their content from Google.

What would delisting news from Google mean?

With the battle between News Corp and Google (in reality the whole of the open web) now warming up, thanks to Murdoch and Microsoft getting cosy, it is perhaps prudent to take a look at exactly the impact that delisting news sites from Google would have.

This is exactly what a German investigation unearthed when looking at what the effect on Google.de would be if most of the country’s publishers delisted their content from it.
The results found:

five percent of the top 10 (Google search) results came from the news organisations - and this is with publishers co-operating with Google.

It is therefore likely that the effect on Google would be minimal and the content gap would simply be filled by other news sources. This would especially true if it was only News Corp content unavailable to the whole web and put it behind a paywall or available via Bing.com

News Corp and the battle to charge for content

Its been several months now since Rupert Murdoch told a press conference that he planned on charging for his papers by next June. However, he has recently informed those that will listen that this deadline may not be likely any more.

However, this battle to make content on newspaper sites such as The Times and The Sun chargeable, looks like its dragging in other media players....well, it has to, or else the existence of free news elsewhere will mean that most people simply won't visit news sites if it costs them.

First it was The Telegraph group that Murdoch indicated that he was in discussions with, when he told a Telegraph journalist (who surprisingly didn't report this slip) what he was up to.
Note: As Alan Greenslade points out, I'm sure its more than a little anti-competitive to have discussions with your opposition, as well as being somewhat foolhardy to admit to it for all regulatory bodies to hear.

Now it looks like Rupert is talking with Microsoft in the hope that Steve Bulmer will pay him money for his content if he removes it from Google listings.
Note:
As so many web commentators have pointed out... It is extremely easy to de-list all News Corp content from Google, by sticking a small file containing a single line of code on each website. But surprisingly, despite calling Google names (he's obviously run out of sticks & stones this year, perhaps after losing so much on MySpace)... this instant change hasn't been done. Perhaps News Corp, even temporarily needs Google!)

Yes, soon Bing could contain News Corp's lovely content. This could increase its share of the search engine market and now giving it potentially more tabloid news to display in local searches. I can't wait!

a billion dollars, one nickel at a time

Now we know newspapers are in trouble. Ad revenues are declining, readership is dwindling and they are gradually being left behind as a trust source of unbiased reporting (not to mention the debts they have from bad investment decisions made less than a decade back, when they didn't read the writing on their 'Facebook' walls*). So forget them making serious money quickly again, in fact... forget them making any serious money over a longer time period either!

* Yes, I know Facebook wasn't round a decade ago, but you understand what I mean!

And who do they blame for their troubles? Well.... Google of course (my particular favourite is Robert Thomson, editor of The Wall Street Journal, calling search sites such as Google “tapeworms.” - I jest-ye-not!).

Its all their fault for, errr.... ;

- allowing people to search openly across a number of sites & archives

- aggregating their headlines alongside other news sources

- making content more transparent (AKA removing the smoke & mirrors)

- providing links back to their sites

Yes, the site that takes tiny amounts of money from advertisers per use is the biggest threat to newspaper revenue and existence.

However, can the newspapers learn from Google? Can they actually create and maintain a local or hyper-local news search service that would rival and better the search giants?

Surely they have the content and could (or just perhaps could have once) allow people to search openly across a number of their own content, etc. and could also charge micro-payments for this. Or to quote author and blogger John Battelle, newspapers once had the chance to earn "a billion dollars, one nickel at a time".

£10,000 a year plus £155 per B2B user

That's the fee that the Newspaper Licensing Agency want to start charging NewsNow... (for now).
"I don't think it is being unduly greedy to suggest that some of this comes back to us on behalf of the organisations creating the content"

states Andrew Hughes NLA's Commercial Director (note the use of "unduly" there)

But what reciprocal value does the NLA place on the links to its member sites? If only this value could be quantified...

in reference to:

"NLA's commercial director"
- http://econsultancy.com/blog/4902-the-nla-explains-why-it-is-going-after-the-news-aggregators (view on Google Sidewiki)