Rupert Murdoch v Google

harry1970

harry1970

New member
Feb 17, 2008
264
5
0
Telstra BigPond News and Weather

Rupert must be a fucking idiot, he wants to stop google from indexing his news stories. oh, and it generates around 100,000 clicks per minute to his websites. Only a fucking moron couldn't monetize that many clicks.
 


The best part is James Murdoch has called Google communism in the past; neither of them realize that Google News is just the ultimate free market.

They're just calling it communism because they fail at monetizing it.
 
The newspaper industry as a whole is on the way out as we know it - it may survive but not in it's current form.

Beyond that I'm pretty sure Google's use falls under the "fair use" doctrine. They probably have the best possible source citations in the entire history of the world.
 
but 100k clicks a minute? at even 0.50 CPM that is millions per day.

Rupert's latest trick is to get user to pay for news online.

things that make you go hmmmm
 
Fox news' website has enough followers that they could have both a free section as well as a premium paid section for the hard core fans. I cant see enough people subscribing to electronic versions of the other papers though.

I'm not going to call this guy an idiot - because he's a billionaire and is prolly smarter than me - but pissing off Google, Yahoo and Bing is kind of dangerous. Google could drop all his listings for a month just to show their displeasure - shuttung off all of that traffic could screw up his advertising revenues big time, maybe push some of the daily news sites over the edge even.
 
100K clicks to Murdoch's properties isn't accurate. Google's quote from the article says "media outlet websites", so Washington Post, Dallas Morning News, The Sun and Telegraph in the U.K. etc, etc, etc. Basically every traditional newspaper site in the world. WSJ and other Murdoch properties get a good chunk of traffic from google but they sure as shit don't get 100K clicks a minute.
 
either way they need to learn to monetize or die.. this bad economy is going to generate a lot of innovators that are going to come out on top and the bail out/crybaby sue people crowd is gonna be left in the dust..

newspapers need to take a page from recent history via the music industry when napster and filesharing hit the mainstream...

somebody should email rupert a google cash kit to help him get started..
 
Fastb said:
Fox news' website has enough followers that they could have both a free section as well as a premium paid section for the hard core fans. I cant see enough people subscribing to electronic versions of the other papers though.

I'm not going to call this guy an idiot - because he's a billionaire and is prolly smarter than me - but pissing off Google, Yahoo and Bing is kind of dangerous. Google could drop all his listings for a month just to show their displeasure - shuttung off all of that traffic could screw up his advertising revenues big time, maybe push some of the daily news sites over the edge even.
Click to expand...

Google would never "shut off" any large company in spite. If the government got wind of that, the first thing they'd try to do is regulate google.
 
FlatLine said:
Google would never "shut off" any large company in spite. If the government got wind of that, the first thing they'd try to do is regulate google.
Click to expand...

Not only that but google is there to aggregate all of the worlds information, it's an egotistical conceit of theirs that they want to become some kind of Library of Alexandria. And it doesn't make business sense, you can't serve ads against SERP results that don't exist.

As far as Yahoo and Bing go, they don't have the leverage to deindex and assume anyone would give a shit. More likely, which has been written by others like Jason Calacanis is that Murdoch may try and play bing off against google, his content only gets served up by bing and he gets a better rev share, but it's a hell of a gambit. I'd like to see them try and pull it off.
 
Like the article said, he's either two steps ahead of everyone or he doesn't know wtf he's doing. I vote for the latter considering his overpriced purchase of MySpace. However, giving exclusive access to Bing says something. I think Bing will jump ahead of yahoo and be in line with google in 2-5 yrs. Regardless, he's shooting himself in the foot with this bullshit.
 
zena2 said:
Regardless, he's shooting himself in the foot with this bullshit.
Click to expand...

Why? If it turns out to be a failure (i.e. the loss of revenue generated from google is greater than the revenue generated by the paywall) then robots.txt comes down and poof, WSJ.com and all the other sites are back in the index. They're still authoritative as fuck so any time needed to climb back up the SERPs shold be short lived.

I would think SEO people would be rooting for Murdoch to pull the trigger on this experiment and then wildly succeed, because then all the other traditional media outlets will follow suit... and all of a sudden there is a good chunk of authoritative websites out of the SERPs and more room for everybody else.
 
Why? If it turns out to be a failure (i.e. the loss of revenue generated from google is greater than the revenue generated by the paywall) then robots.txt comes down and poof, WSJ.com and all the other sites are back in the index. They're still authoritative as fuck so any time needed to climb back up the SERPs shold be short lived.
Click to expand...
Unless google slaps his sites out of spite. Which would be funny.
 
Rupert is either very smart or really dumb with blocking the Google bot and partnering with MicroSoft. I think Rupert is going to profit a lot with the deal. The subscription model to access the content looks interesting !
 
Red_Virus said:
Rupert is either very smart or really dumb with blocking the Google bot and partnering with MicroSoft. I think Rupert is going to profit a lot with the deal. The subscription model to access the content looks interesting !
Click to expand...
Yeah but who is going to pay for News Corp of all content when pretty much EVERYTHING ELSE on the internet is still free?

Really, News Corp's content can barely be called journalism, regardless of your political views. Every major market he's in, the USA, the UK and England all have similar news sites that don't charge for content. Most Fox News readers aren't tea party Glenn Beck fantatics and would be perfectly happy to read CNN instead. The Sun readers can just move over to the Daily Mail, and Fairfax papers in Australia are similar to the News Corp ones.



Also justo_tx: one of your examples, The Sun in the UK, is owned by the Murdochs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom