• Profile logout login

#bing#gtconsumerist

Gawker

Share Cancel
   
Upload an image | Add an image URL
×

logging in
  • FAQ. Include # before tag:
  • #tips,
  • #stalker,
  • #opencaption,
  • #internalmemos,
  • etc.

New York, 12:12 PM
Wed Dec 2
52 posts in the last 24 hours

Team

Tip Your Editors:

Tipline: 646-214-8138

Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder |

West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield |

Contributing Editors:

Valleywag:
Ryan Tate |

Media:
Hamilton Nolan |

Politics:
Alex Pareene |

Investigations:
John Cook |

Entertainment:
Brian Moylan |

Nights:
Adrian Chen |
Azaria Jagger |
Ravi Somaiya |

Weekends:
Foster Kamer |

Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley |

SUBSCRIBE TO Gawker RSS

New: Breaking news and daily top stories via email
4260 Subscribers
Gawker
  • Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.
    Dsmvwl  Admin  Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×
    Image of debatem1 debatem1
    11/25/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    Stupid question: Murdoch is railing against the search engines because he thinks they're stealing from him. Ok, so, that explains why he'd delist from Google- but not why he'd list on Bing. What gives?
     Reply
    GlasgowRose promoted this comment Nick Denton approved this comment debatem1 was starred debatem1 was unstarred
    Image of GlasgowRose GlasgowRose
    11/25/09

    @debatem1: Murdoch still wants buzz & word of mouth -- and other media brands reporting on WSJ's scoops -- but wants to keep Google in its place. Bing gives him leverage to wrest a better Google deal...
     Reply
    GlasgowRose was starred GlasgowRose was unstarred
    Image of Alaska Miller Alaska Miller
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    It's like telling a city bus to stop only at Burger King instead of McDonald's and expecting everyone to pay extra for free ice cream.
     Reply
    Alaska Miller was starred Alaska Miller was unstarred
    Image of Mike_Hartley Mike_Hartley
    11/24/09

    In reply to The Coming Search Engine Media Wars
    'Wait a minute, the sites aren't making enough money off of online ads, but google is getting rich off of... online ads?'

    This is a good point. I've wondered about this myself. CPMs are generally too low online, unless you are as good as Gawker Media and a few others or you are as big as Google, to support paid content creation. But it also ties in with this:

    'You still have to figure out some sort of successful advertising model to complete the picture.'

    Which will be higher CPMs for ads behind paywalls because someone has paid to see them (and the content). Which means a successful advertising model. I think it will work. I think people like ads, good ones at least, and no matter how results driven Google's adword system is, the response rate is almost as if people click on them by accident. Doesn't that make them bad ads not good ads? I liked this point:

    'IOW: If you punch "Coldwell Banker" into Google, the first thing on the screen is a paid ad and some people will click on it, rather than the first legitimate result that would take you to the same place.'

    And because lots of people will still quote and link to a story in the WSJ, it doesn't need Google.
     Reply
    Aatom promoted this comment Mike_Hartley was starred Mike_Hartley was unstarred
    Image of Monty Monty
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    What is more interesting than search engines paying for content is that this could ultimately save the news media business. Ignoring the concern to Joe Searchy and having to pick a search engine based on the results being listed for their favorite news, this could potentially allow newspapers to gain income and pay their journalists again. Certainly, there is a potential dark cloud with this concept, but there is a bright and shiny one as well The news media could survive based on search engines having to pay for access to content solving their diminishing revenue stream. Hard to say whether this is a short term or long term solution to that issue, but it certainly has potential and I look forward to seeing how this turns out.
     Reply
    Monty was starred Monty was unstarred
    Image of Gabriel Snyder Gabriel Snyder
    11/24/09

    @Monty: Paying journalists is a good thing and new revenue streams are vital for news organizations to pay for their current overhead. But the problem with the rosy scenario of search engines funding journalism is that the people who go to search engines looking for news are the ones who care the least about news brands. They're more likely to click on rocketnews.com or whatever it is as they are the WSJ.com. Which is exactly what infuriates newspaper owners like Murdoch. The folks who have favorite news sources are the ones who will go straight to those favorite news sources in the first place.
     Reply
    Gabriel Snyder was starred Gabriel Snyder was unstarred
    Image of Magister Magister
    11/24/09

    @Monty: In this video of Calacanis' original suggestion (or at least the first place, I heard it), he spends a lot of the time proposing sort of a bidding war to get content from the largest media companies, but its success would hinge a great deal on Microsoft's willingness to use exclusivity as a selling point.

    IOW: The content companies would get a revenue stream, but as I hear him, Bing would be the primary beneficiary in the short run.
     Reply
    Edited by Magister at 11/24/09 6:15 PM Magister was starred Magister was unstarred
    Image of Gabriel Snyder Gabriel Snyder
    11/24/09

    @Magister: Agreed. "Bing: The Only Place to Find the Wall Street Journal" would make a catchy tag line. And Microsoft probably like to lure in some other big-name brands. But I can't see them extending the same offer to smaller, lesser-known news orgs. McClatchy anyone?
     Reply
    Gabriel Snyder was starred Gabriel Snyder was unstarred
    Image of Monty Monty
    11/24/09

    @Gabriel Snyder: I think we are all in agreement. It is hard to know whether this agreement will ultimately be a winner for the news media or not. Will it even work for News Corp, let alone for small newspapers around the country? Why would Bing pay for content from the Eugene, Oregon Register Guard? Hard to imagine. That said, it is interesting to see this unfold - and I admit that I doubt either the rosy outlook nor the doom and gloom one will come to be. Usually truth falls somewhere in the middle, which in this case means it will not matter much.
     Reply
    Monty was starred Monty was unstarred
    Image of Magister Magister
    11/24/09

    @Gabriel Snyder: I don't know how far down Microsoft would like to go, but McClatchy owns a lot of big local papers. For instance in North Carolina, they own the two largest in the state, so maybe they could do some print trading and a couple of television ads saying something like "Bing: The exclusive index for the Charlotte Observer".

    Murdoch might be the one to pioneer this and he might get some quick income, but if Microsoft is willing to pay and if they're willing to negotiate something with the other players, Google could easily lose market share over the long run.
     Reply
    Magister was starred Magister was unstarred
    Image of Magister Magister
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    What happens when you look for a foreign or local story? I assume the Fox O&Os will be part of the equation, as will their Australian and UK papers.

    Though the biggest difference for the average American Google user will probably be the inability to read WSJ stories without paying a subscription.
     Reply
    Edited by Magister at 11/24/09 5:45 PM Magister was starred Magister was unstarred
    Image of sweetpickles sweetpickles
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    Yes. You'll find the same news at other sites by searching through Google. This isn't only about Murdoch walling off his sites, though. This is about Microsoft and News Corp. making a move to bring the internet closer to the cable television model. Search is going to become less about algorhythms and more about marketing dollars. Bing could become a curated search destination, built on the brands of established media companies. You might one day pay for a Bing app. to bring you its content resources. I don't think it's far fetched. The phone company and cable have been doing the same thing for decades: Providing a premium utility. You remember the White Pages, right?
     Reply
    sweetpickles was starred sweetpickles was unstarred
    Image of Hello Mister Walrus Hello Mister Walrus
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    I think this is really audience-specific. I work for a bank, so if I had to choose between Google + no WSJ and some other search engine that is 97% as good as Google + WSJ, I would have to choose the latter. I imagine that old people, conservatives, and many other smaller groups of people might feel the same way. Add all these pieces up, and it could sum to a non-negligible percentage of market share.
     Reply
    Hello Mister Walrus was starred Hello Mister Walrus was unstarred
    Image of NorwoodIsMyHero NorwoodIsMyHero
    11/24/09

    @Hello Mister Walrus: I work at a private bank and I completely agree. The problem is you and I and the old fogeys don't really represent a vast majority of Google's search audience.
     Reply
    Hello Mister Walrus promoted this comment Gabriel Snyder approved this comment NorwoodIsMyHero was starred NorwoodIsMyHero was unstarred
    Image of OCEntertainment OCEntertainment
    11/24/09

    @Hello Mister Walrus: I would be very interested in having a conversation with the (according to the stereotypes) conservative fans of Fox News who are ok with one company strong-arming them into using their product through backroom deals, rather than by improving the quality of their products. Free market!

    Wait, scratch that. What am I talking about? I do not want to have to wade through that conversation.
     Reply
    OCEntertainment was starred OCEntertainment was unstarred
    Image of Nick Nick
    11/24/09

    @OCEntertainment: i also work at a bank. i use Google Finance for a lot and hate the Fox Business site. if i need something Fox News related (which i do like) i go straight to them. i also use Bloomberg. i am just typing my opinion because i like the sight of my own words.
     Reply
    Nick was starred Nick was unstarred
    Image of OCEntertainment OCEntertainment
    11/24/09

    @Nick: I'm pretty sure you could include that last sentence with any comment posted in any comment thread on the internet and still be properly poking fun at the commenter/article you're responding to (as well as yourself).

    Thanks for the perspective. I'm logging off early tonight.
     Reply
    OCEntertainment was starred OCEntertainment was unstarred
    Image of Hello Mister Walrus Hello Mister Walrus
    11/24/09

    @NorwoodIsMyHero: But what % are these people (bankers, business people and old fogeys)? 10%? More? To a casual Google user, that's not much. To Google, that's 10% of their business.
     Reply
    Hello Mister Walrus was starred Hello Mister Walrus was unstarred
    Image of Hello Mister Walrus Hello Mister Walrus
    11/24/09

    @Nick: I don't care about Fox News, and I suspect that many people don't really, other than for the entertainment value. I care about the WSJ only, out of News Corp's publications. Unfortunately, the WSJ is a very important publication in finance. Since not missing finance news is part of my livelihood, I might be forced to use Bing if News Corp drops Google.

    I disapprove of these business practices that artificially entice people to use specific search engines. However, this does not make me immune to the effects.
     Reply
    Edited by Hello Mister Walrus at 11/24/09 5:55 PM Hello Mister Walrus was starred Hello Mister Walrus was unstarred
    Image of NorwoodIsMyHero NorwoodIsMyHero
    11/25/09

    @Hello Mister Walrus: I don't think we'd completely stop using Google though. At work and in news searches, I certainly would be using Bing, but at home I'd probably still use Google by default, and only if I specifically was looking for news would I switch, which when I'm home is basically never as I get plenty of it throughout the workday.
     Reply
    NorwoodIsMyHero was starred NorwoodIsMyHero was unstarred
    Image of Gabriel Snyder Gabriel Snyder
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    And notice in that first search that while News Corp. is saying it can live without Google, it's also buying up ad keywords like "lieberman public option" to send people to WSJ.com.
     Reply
    Gabriel Snyder was starred Gabriel Snyder was unstarred
    Image of Magister Magister
    11/24/09

    @Gabriel Snyder: I haven't read the WSJ's affiliate agreement and am too lazy to look for it now, but does it preclude people from buying keywords and coding them with their number?
     Reply
    Edited by Magister at 11/24/09 5:54 PM Magister was starred Magister was unstarred
    Image of Gabriel Snyder Gabriel Snyder
    11/24/09

    @Magister: Good point. The ad isn't being served to me any more, so I can't see what the affiliate code was.
     Reply
    Gabriel Snyder was starred Gabriel Snyder was unstarred
    Image of Magister Magister
    11/24/09

    @Gabriel Snyder: The same, here. I went to look before making the suggestion, but the ads were gone (maybe they're on restricted hours) and Hamilton's post had made it onto the front page.
     Reply
    Magister was starred Magister was unstarred
    Image of manchops manchops
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    but have you tried googling:
    "Andrea Peyser + sex goddess?"

    I mean, hello?
     Reply
    manchops was starred manchops was unstarred
    Image of If_I_Had_a_Poodle If_I_Had_a_Poodle
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    Perfect.

    And if they take even one step in the direction of "You can't quote our stories" they will drive themselves so far into irrelevancy ...
     Reply
    If_I_Had_a_Poodle was starred If_I_Had_a_Poodle was unstarred
    Image of Helio Helio
    11/24/09

    @If_I_Had_a_Poodle: Let's hope they take that bait.
     Reply
    Helio was starred Helio was unstarred
    Image of Heneage Heneage
    11/24/09

    In reply to A Glimpse of Google without News Corp.: No Big Loss
    Servicy.
     Reply
    Heneage was starred Heneage was unstarred
    Image of Aatom Aatom
    11/24/09

    In reply to The Coming Search Engine Media Wars
    "if people want to enjoy a fundamental baseline of serious news media in this country, they will have to pay for it, somehow."

    I agree with this, but feel like it misses a larger point. This isn't exactly the full picture of how it worked during the heyday of print journalism, is it? Subscriptions made up a small percentage of revenue, but the rest was comprised mainly of advertising and classifieds. There really is no successful subscription-only media model that has ever worked, as far as I know.

    You still have to figure out some sort of successful advertising model to complete the picture.
     Reply
    Aatom was starred Aatom was unstarred
    Image of timwindsor001 timwindsor001
    11/24/09

    In reply to The Coming Search Engine Media Wars
    Also it would be trivial (unless they were blocked) for a meta-search site to ping both Google and Bing for a search query.
     Reply
    Magister promoted this comment Kaila Hale-Stern approved this comment timwindsor001 was starred timwindsor001 was unstarred
    Image of Magister Magister
    11/24/09

    @timwindsor001: As I understand the proposal, Murdoch just wants to get paid and whether a meta search circumvents Microsoft's income, it'd have no bearing on NewsCorp's bottom line.
     Reply
    Edited by Magister at 11/24/09 1:54 PM Magister was starred Magister was unstarred
    Image of trlstanc trlstanc
    11/24/09

    In reply to The Coming Search Engine Media Wars
    Wait a minute, the sites aren't making enough money off of online ads, but google is getting rich off of... online ads?

    I think this just says that google is better about running ads then the media companies. Or that people would rather click an ad then click the link to your newspaper...
     Reply
    Magister promoted this comment trlstanc was starred trlstanc was unstarred
    Image of Magister Magister
    11/24/09

    @trlstanc: I'd venture that Google makes a lot, if not most of its money because people don't necessarily feel a compunction against clicking an ad in a search result because it costs them nothing.

    IOW: If you punch "Coldwell Banker" into Google, the first thing on the screen is a paid ad and some people will click on it, rather than the first legitimate result that would take you to the same place.

    Also, news content is a destination, while a search engine is like the road one takes to get there. When I'm driving from Point Reyes to Stinson Beach, I might swing into Bolinas to go to the market. but I'm less likely to go back after I'm there.
     Reply
    Magister was starred Magister was unstarred
    Image of drunkexpatwriter drunkexpatwriter
    11/24/09

    In reply to The Coming Search Engine Media Wars
    But.... unless I'm missing something, while the original links won't turn up on Google, any story of any real interest will be linked to by a host of of blogs and other sites and the stories will therefore end up on google anyway.

    It just means that if I'm searching for a Wall Street Journal story I'll just have to first click on some business blog that's linked to it.
     Reply
    drunkexpatwriter was starred drunkexpatwriter was unstarred
    Image of britneyspearstears britneyspearstears
    11/24/09

    @drunkexpatwriter: Of course, Google could always choose to ignore this: [online.wsj.com]
     Reply
    britneyspearstears was starred britneyspearstears was unstarred
    Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

Login

Enter your username and password.

Please enter a username.
Please enter your password.
logging in
Login via Facebook | Sign Up | Forgot Password?

Reset Password

Please enter your email address to have your password reset.

Please enter your email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
requesting password reset

Register

Registering will give you a user profile and the ability to add other users as friends. To become a commenter, however, you need to audition.

Want to know more? Consult the Comment FAQ and legal terms.

Please enter a username.
Please enter a password.
Please confirm your password.
Passwords are not identical.
Please enter a valid email address.
registration sent, waiting for reply

Submit Your Comment

You don't need to login to comment. Just enter your email address below.

See how your address will be displayed in the Comment FAQ.

Please enter a valid email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
logging in

Login with your Facebook or Gawker account.

Sign up here.



  • Archives
  • About
  • Advertising
  • Legal
  • Help
  • Report a Bug
  • FAQ
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.