tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7312183777522008540.post1295243823556196953..comments2023-11-02T05:46:17.571-07:00Comments on QuantumDice: Time for news to play offense: how David can attack Goliath (and win)Howardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08379598516764590842noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7312183777522008540.post-88853481030956760752009-07-17T09:55:57.521-07:002009-07-17T09:55:57.521-07:00This sounds intriguing. I look at the problem in a...This sounds intriguing. I look at the problem in another way - link below. You might think I'm out of my mind. If so, please help me see why.<br><br>http://interimtom.blogspot.com/2009/07/fuck-piper.htmlTom Matrullohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11460789537848811061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7312183777522008540.post-75063343394149340822009-07-17T12:14:33.953-07:002009-07-17T12:14:33.953-07:00I never read a newspaper; only started reading the...I never read a newspaper; only started reading the news when it came online for free. If they put it behind a paid wall; I'm going to split the cost 1,000,000 ways & coordinate a cut & paste of every issue every day in a shared, internal Google doc; and newspaper profits be damned.Pablohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06036111700385433618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7312183777522008540.post-5587740890230915922009-07-17T14:39:50.349-07:002009-07-17T14:39:50.349-07:00"If we could find a way to get just 10 percen..."If we could find a way to get just 10 percent of that – $1.5 billion – pumped into American newsrooms, the impact would be direct, immediate and dramatic. The layoffs could stop, and owners would have breathing room to address strategic questions instead of constantly bailing water to keep the boats afloat. Newsrooms could start hiring the kind of people they need to create the journalism of the future."<br><br>Except you need that breathing room to address strategic questions so that you can in fact get that 10 percent. You also need those people you already laid off in addition to those kind of people needed to create the journalism of the future.<br><br>In short, newspapers are screwed. They squandered their resources when the had them ("the internet is a fad") but now that it has become frightening clear that the world has changed in spite of them, there's not a whole lot left in the way of resources for most newspapers (and newspaper companies) to fight this fight.<br><br>Unless...<br><br>Unless newspapers (or newspaper companies) take the stance that this is in fact a life or death struggle and fought not for some level of mediocracy and "goodenoughism" but to either come out on top... or die.<br><br>So on that line, what if Gary Pruitt stood up and said, "In 5 years MNI will either be on top of it's game, on top of the markets, stronger than it ever was historically... or completely out of business!" And then threw down the gauntlet. Under his inspired guidance his papers would hire back the legions they laid off, and then hire even more only with the web savvy that MNI still lacks.<br><br>Money would be lost up front, of course, but over the long term?<br><br>You know, a lot of people have said that newspapers can't compete with Google in technology. Why not? Heck, it took 6 people with a Knight Foundation grant to build Everyblock. Is MNI incapable of hiring 6 more smart and dedicated people? Even Craigslist still employs under 30 people. How many are at Publish2 or Daylife? Hire them too.<br><br>Or is it too late?-30-http://www.blogger.com/profile/06077091185218143621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7312183777522008540.post-20712533186632550082009-07-17T17:25:32.924-07:002009-07-17T17:25:32.924-07:00>that $15 billion isn't theoreticalHoward, ...>that $15 billion isn't theoretical<br><br>Howard, can you sketch out why you think that's the right ballpark? Google owns 81 percent of search activity (according to marketshare.hitslink.com) and just reported quarterly revenue of $4 billion. That suggests all revenue from search is less than $20 billion per year (probably well below, because Yahoo, Microsoft and AOL aren't as good as Google at turning clicks into dollars).<br><br>Do you really think 75 percent of all searches are for news? And do you have any data to back that up?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7312183777522008540.post-75099386633839867962009-07-17T19:09:37.543-07:002009-07-17T19:09:37.543-07:00Anon 525: Google revenue was $22 billion in 2008 a...Anon 525: Google revenue was $22 billion in 2008 and is expected to be bigger in 2009. 99& of Google revenue is search advertising. It's harder to peg Yahoo or AOL and, even more, MSN since search is mixed into a more varied revenue streams there, but the total of the GYMA I mentioned is surely closer to $40 billion than $20 billion.<br><br>I believe the percentage of news searches (broadly defined) is more than 25% but of course we can't know for sure, since that's proprietary info at those companies.<br><br>But I am drawing a broad picture here: maybe I am too generous. Suppose it's only $10 billion, or $7.5. But I also believe a well-payed news aggregation by journalists could capture way more than the 10 percent I cited in the post.<br><br>The point remains: there is a lot of money floating around that news companies get NONE of. Journalist judgment can beat algorithms if we give them a solid platform from which to fight.Howardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08379598516764590842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7312183777522008540.post-62496128917579504182009-07-17T19:45:13.510-07:002009-07-17T19:45:13.510-07:00The news searches don't bring in the dough, Ho...The news searches don't bring in the dough, Howard. Google serves up a lot of news search results but those pages aren't where it makes the money. If anything they are loss leaders for Google; its users want news, so Google gives it to them. But search advertising is lucrative because search engines can sell narrow searches in certain product areas as leads to companies that are willing to pay a lot. News content, sadly, doesn't lend itself well to such advertising. That's not where the big margins are. That's why the news providers have zero leverage with Google.<br><br>There's no pot of gold here for news providers, I'm sorry to tell you, and the $15 billion figure is astronomically off.Scott Rosenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06689922988213237654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7312183777522008540.post-35759726683156480802009-07-18T09:08:45.666-07:002009-07-18T09:08:45.666-07:00Scott -- Thanks for taking time to look at this, a...Scott -- Thanks for taking time to look at this, and for your comment.<br><br>I can't imagine how you'd know which search categories Google makes what kind of money from. Yahoo doesn't know that. Microsoft doesn't.<br><br>For starters, you suggest there's "one kind" of advertising that matters. That's wrong. I don't pretend to know precise inside numbers, but I doubt that you do either. I am not, however, uninformed or unconnected. This isn't a WAG on my part.<br><br>Your focus on precise analysis seems like a classic case of missing the forest by looking at trees. It doesn't matter what the precise numbers are. I'm confident that it's billions and it's money that news orgs aren't getting. You don't need a formal study to see the market opportunity - that's just another excuse to hide from the challenge. How can news orgs afford not to compete for every penny? Never before have they conceded a huge bucket of money to competitors. <br><br>Salon has been in the game a long time, and I'm sure you know a lot about this landscape. I think it's a mistake to extrapolate that experience so categorically here. <br><br>What's your suggestion for news? <br><br>\-\/\/Howardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08379598516764590842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7312183777522008540.post-7026538070996615502009-07-18T09:24:44.324-07:002009-07-18T09:24:44.324-07:00The competitive opportunity today isn't relati...The competitive opportunity today isn't relative to Google. That battle is decided, and even Microsoft, a huge rich company deeply rooted in competing in tech, can't make a dent.<br><br>However, the field is fairly open in TwitterLand, and the news people are pretty far along in understanding and loving that medium. That's where I'd launch the campaign Howard, create a Twitter that's perfect for news and you'll really have something. The Twitter guys don't understand news. By definition, news people do. You do, that's for sure.Dave Winerhttp://scripting.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7312183777522008540.post-37175003555550928992009-07-18T09:42:03.127-07:002009-07-18T09:42:03.127-07:00We actually have a lot of data on where Google mak...We actually have a lot of data on where Google makes its money, without being insiders. Just look at where the ads are. Google News is a tiny part of Google's traffic, and it has no ads, so Google loses money on it, if anything. With Google search, just poke around on most news topics --try today's stories "Walter Cronkite" or "health care reform" -- and you'll see few or no ads on those pages. Or ask any news publisher who has experimented with putting google's text ads on their news pages. It's not a good fit. The revenue has consistently been disappointing. Even if publishers cut a better deal with Google and got 100 percent of the revenue it would be disappointing. It won't support a newsroom.<br><br>The real money in search comes from directed product searches, searches in areas where people are making choices among vendors, and so on. See any major study of Google, from john Battelle's on. <br><br>I don't consider this "precise analysis" but rather common sense based on my own experience as an online publisher and a longtime user of Google. <br><br>If you want news orgs to "compete for every penny," that's great. But I don't see how looking enviously at Google's profits and thinking that one's own business deserves a share of them is "competing." If news organizations really had leverage with Google -- if they really could hurt Google's bottom line by seceding from it -- that would have happened long ago. They don't. Google provides them with a service (traffic) pretty much gratis. <br><br>I understand that you're proposing a more sophisticated response -- not "hey Google, share the wealth!" but "How can we grab a slice of that pie away from Google?" A successful venture like you're proposing -- a conglomerate of news providers that does a good job sorting out trustworthy information, etc. -- would be a fine thing. But I don't see how it wins a slice of Google's pie when, as I think any simple analysis will show, that pie isn't news-based to begin with.<br><br>My suggestion for news is for individual journalists to get creative on a small scale. As many of us are doing. We're going to have to rebuild this industry from the ground up. We've begun. I don't see a good business future for large news organizations right now. They've made too many mistakes for too many years, long before the Web. My newspaper was scratching its head trying to figure out why it was losing young readers in the 1980s when I started there. Did they spend much of their parent corporation's vast profits over the next two decades figuring out the future? No. They were happy monopolists and they blew it.<br><br>Google's hegemony will pass, too. New forms of information delivery are beginning to form around Twitter and that's only going to grow. The biggest advances in tech and media happen when you leapfrog an industry leader. No one is going to beat Google at search. But search isn't everything. <br><br>That's why, to me, it seems self-defeating to focus our energy on Google's profits. News orgs missed that boat. People who care about the future of news should be looking, and experimenting, beyond that.Scott Rosenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06689922988213237654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7312183777522008540.post-55177836147624273322009-07-18T15:42:08.321-07:002009-07-18T15:42:08.321-07:00Here you go Alan. Marissa Meyer said Google make $...Here you go Alan. Marissa Meyer said Google make $100m from news in 2008: http://cli.gs/8s7e9j<br><br>Found with a search for "google news" + revenue.<br><br>* sighDaniel Mcskellyhttp://www.mcskelly.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7312183777522008540.post-9845420974608699182009-07-18T17:28:53.118-07:002009-07-18T17:28:53.118-07:00Daniel: I answer you on this in Twitter; I'll ...Daniel: I answer you on this in Twitter; I'll do it again here.<br><br>Google News, the branded page, is a tiny piece of this. Pretty much everybody knows the page isn't very valuable. "News search" on the other hand, includes every time somebody searches for a news item in Google's general search (almost nobody goes to Google News before searching generally), and every time the answer Google returns comes from a news organization.<br><br>Yeah, go ahead and search "google news" + revenue. Your wildly inappropriate conclusion demonstrates my point about undifferentiated results from searches.<br><br>I'd recommend you look to Scott Rosenberg (above) or others like him for an example of a nuanced, sophisticated (and thus useful) critique.<br><br>You gave me a "tsk" the first time and now a "sigh." Can't tell, but I don't feel like you're hearing me (or want to).<br><br>Short version: citing Google News means nothing (or only $100 mm, close enough).Howardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08379598516764590842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7312183777522008540.post-73437950327496165202009-07-18T17:47:37.457-07:002009-07-18T17:47:37.457-07:00The idea that newspapers could avoid extinction by...The idea that newspapers could avoid extinction by shaking down Google et. al. is at best naive. This is a course that leads to the enrichment of lawyers, nothing else.<br><br>Newspapers probably won't survive. But if they do it will be because they are *not* run by morons trying to maintaain the status quo while pointing their fingers at Google. Google is an act of God; you might as well blame tornadoes for killing newspapers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7312183777522008540.post-22702297961392680452009-07-18T18:21:41.965-07:002009-07-18T18:21:41.965-07:00Items from News presented in google general (or &q...Items from News presented in google general (or "blended") search link directly to third party news properties...how does that earn google revenue? How would it even get close to closing the gigantic gap between the figure you used and Google's statment?<br><br>Sure it makes their search engine more valuable, but not at the expense of the traditional news industry which only benefits from this exposure. <br><br>My Tsking and sighing isn't because I don't want to hear you - I would love to hear intelligent and well researched comment on this from traditional newsrooms and the people that make their livings from them. Unfortunatly there's precious little of that to be seen in this debate.Daniel Mcskellyhttp://www.mcskelly.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7312183777522008540.post-21869033739673073272009-07-18T19:25:24.030-07:002009-07-18T19:25:24.030-07:00The big search player is certainly Google, but the...The big search player is certainly Google, but the big news player is Yahoo.<br><br>I agree that online newspapers need to do things differently, but I would go way beyond what you're talking about Howard. I think the problems stem from the hubris of the editorial decisions made every day inside the walls of the newspapers.<br><br>I see you reply to comments, how often do you see that at a news website?<br><br>Why aren't the writers encouraged to build a following? How can their editor not make them snap a couple digital photos at the event they're covering? How about a Flip video camera? <br><br>How about rewarding the writers that get traffic and letting go of the ones that just phone it in?<br><br>It's a cultural change that must happen, and the current guys may not see it, but the kids in college right now will never work in a news organization as insulated as the very ones dying off right now.<br><br>I believe the key is to let them die. Their replacemnt will be a better, faster, smarter. more connected, more networked, more social, and hyper-local version - like the ones 200 years ago.1918http://www.blogger.com/profile/10473055794848766644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7312183777522008540.post-30599714926289567622009-07-18T20:22:23.184-07:002009-07-18T20:22:23.184-07:00Anon 547: Please show me any place in my post that...Anon 547: Please show me any place in my post that suggests "shaking down" Google. It's about providing a service they don't (curated news) to meet audience needs. <br><br>Google is an act of God? Are you sure you're not Jeff Jarvis?Howardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08379598516764590842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7312183777522008540.post-23609131102416200142009-07-18T20:33:48.266-07:002009-07-18T20:33:48.266-07:00Daniel: when a Google searcher makes a request tha...Daniel: when a Google searcher makes a request that turns up a result from a news organization, Google monetizes *that page* before sending the traffic along. If the news org was in partnership with the aggregator, a portion of the initial monetization could go to them; with Google it never will, as why should it?<br><br>What I am really proposing is to offer a service Google does not: curated news results. Maybe people want it, maybe not. I can't understand what you object to about that, or why you're so snotty about it.<br><br>Looking for "intelligent and well researched" material, are you? Maybe something like offering "Google News" + revenue and thinking that defines Google's income from news? Please.Howardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08379598516764590842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7312183777522008540.post-29708527318084571152009-07-19T07:46:22.861-07:002009-07-19T07:46:22.861-07:00I'm being snotty because the sense of entitlem...I'm being snotty because the sense of entitlement & grossly overinflated estimates of how much traditional news is worth to search engines are hugely counter productive. I care a great deal about the survival of traditional newsrooms, so it's frustrating to see traditional newspapermen failing to "get it" in such a jarring way.<br><br>As others have pointed out above, news related searches are a loss leader...Google could remove them from their results tomorrow and revenue would fall by a fraction of one percent. 1, 10, or even 100% of this revenue will not save the newspaper industry. Are you really still clinging to the notion that there's a $15 billion pot of news gold out there to be had? If so would you care to say how you arrived at this figure? Obviously I'm not alone in believing the worth of News to Google et al is significantly less than you believe.<br><br>As for curated news, I've got no objections and I'm happy to see any ideas that might help traditional journalism. However, you seem to be way off base on the revenue available from news online, not to mention how Google works (their algorithms might not be perfect but they are heavily focussed on recognizing factors like trust and authority), which gives me little hope for the project. I'm also not sure what would distinguish your curated news from existing offerings (be they from the mainstream press, sites like HuffPo or even the Diggs of this world), but that's another story.Daniel Mcskellyhttp://www.mcskelly.comnoreply@blogger.com