Newspapers Face the Prisoner's Dilemma With Google 290
Hugh Pickens writes "Nicholas Carr has an interesting analysis of Rupert Murdoch's threat to de-list News Corp's stories from Google and Microsoft's eager offer to make Bing Murdoch's exclusive search engine for its content. Carr writes that newspapers are caught in a classic Prisoner's Dilemma with Google because Google's search engine 'prevents them from making decent money online — by massively fragmenting traffic, by undermining brand power, and by turning news stories into fungible commodities.' If any single newspaper opts out of Google, their competitors will pick up the traffic they lose. There is only one way that newspapers can break out of the prison — if a critical mass of newspapers opt out of Google's search engine simultaneously, they would suddenly gain substantial market power. Murdoch may have been signaling to other newspapers that 'we'll opt out if you'll opt out,' positioning himself as the would-be ringleader of a massive jailbreak, without actually risking a jailbreak himself. There are signs that Murdoch's signal is working, with reports that the publishers of the Denver Post and the Dallas Morning News are now also considering blocking Google. In the meantime, Steve Ballmer is more than happy to play along with Murdoch because although a deal with News Corps would reduce the basic profitability of Microsoft's search business, it would inflict far more damage on Google than on Microsoft."
What? (Score:4, Insightful)
I Don't See the Comparison, More Like MLB Strike (Score:5, Insightful)
When it comes to Google and other aggregators, newspapers face a sort of prisoners' dilemma. If one of them escapes, their competitors will pick up the traffic they lose. But if all of them stay, none of them will ever get enough traffic to make sufficient money. So they all stay in the prison, occasionally yelling insults at their jailer through the bars on the door.
So ... the original prisoner's dilemma [wikipedia.org] (if I recally my AI coursework) was basically comes down to two or more prisoner's arrested as suspects in a crime. They are immediately separated into different interrogation rooms. The police officers use every trick they can to get any of the prisoners to lay claim to committing the crime and receive a plea bargain if they testify against the other suspects. If no one caves, then everyone walks. Now, the important thing to note here is that if one suspect caves and the other n-1 suspects don't, then that suspect receives a sub-optimal reward of a lighter sentence while those that did not own up to the crime receive very harsh penalties. And so you have a dilemma ... did one of your crew rat you out already? Should you take the guaranteed three months in prison versus a potential ten years?
... but the most important problem is that no one knows if the current situation is a suboptimal goal or optimal goal. And no one's going to find out until they leave Google. If a single newspaper leaves Google, they ruin it for themselves (unlike the prisoner's dilemma) and no one else. In fact, the others might even benefit from that.
The important thing is that one rogue actor could ruin it for everyone.
So the analogy seems to imply that newspapers have taken a suboptimal goal (being in jail)
What this is a closer analogy to is the MLB strike you may (or may not care about) remember. Basically the baseball players didn't think they were making enough bank so they went on strike. If anyone of them said, "Screw it, I'm leaving the league, I'm going to literally take my bat and ball and go elsewhere," then they would have been broke. But the whole league went on strike, they could have formed a new league, they could have went to a different league, they could have entered talks with the European league to open leagues in the US, etc.
The newspapers should continue to court Microsoft and play the two search leaders off against each other. Also, I'm no robots.txt expert but I think there is a disallow from certain domains syntax they can use to block Google, Microsoft or white list one of the two. Another strategy might be to go on strike and have all newspapers request to be removed from Google for one week. Let the system break down and then enter negotiations with the giant.
One thing is pretty clear, they must unionize/unify and act as a single entity in either leaving or negotiating. And I don't really see that happening. They might be able to negotiate between Microsoft and Google on a case by case basis but Google is still too much larger than Bing to do that.
No Dilemma (Score:5, Insightful)
NPR, BBC anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe, just maybe, consumers who value actual news over sensationalized claptrap are finding that the opinion pieces and "human interest" stories which dominate Murdoch's offerings are fungible commodities.
Good bye Wall Street Journal. You were a reputable publication at one time.
The Newspapers Have it All Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
When the newspaper corporations continue to spout how the visitors brought in by the search engines are worthless because those people are drive-by visitors, I have to wonder about their content. If someone is brought in by a search engine they should be considered an opportunity. If you are not taking the time to ensure your design and content are meant to draw those opportunities into a goal, well, I think you're looking at this from the wrong way.
This is yet another reason why the newspaper industry just doesn't get it. Google gets it and so do the consumers. Microsoft doesn't get anything more than the bone they are being thrown.
I wish people would stop reporting on this story as, honestly, it's just a lame attempt at getting attention.
never happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Will the BBC join? No! So international news is hopeless. Do people care about local news?
What if google endowed a nonprofit news organization? Or just bought wikinews the rights to use AP feeds?
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
They are a commodity (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither one of these has anything to do with Google, however surviving Google (or it's replacement) requires doing one and or the other. The fact that Google is the delivery mechanism for much of their traffic is moot. Changing the delivery mechanism won't change the fundamentals behind the issue. What newspapers need to do is learn how to keep the traffic they get once visitors find their site.
It Still Won't Work (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a horse that won't run and the only reason why Murdoch is banging on about it is because News Corp is making some sizeable losses with no end in sight.
DUPE - but not Slashdot's (Score:5, Insightful)
Carr has railed about this problem before, and he's still just as wrong as he ever was.
Here's his analysis of Murdoch's first pronouncements [roughtype.com] on the topic back in April. And here's why he's just as wrong now [imagicity.com] as he was then.
(I later turned that post into a newspaper column [imagicity.com] in the country where I live. It's longer and slightly more polished, but more focused on our particular issues, which aren't necessarily germane to the larger debate.)
Re:NPR, BBC anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why the viewpoint in the summary is flawed. I do not believe for example that the BBC would be allowed to delist from Google due to laws governing it because it's publicly funded and can't show competition bias.
I doubt the BBC is unique in this situation either, and the reality is for every thousand companies that delist from Google and follow Murdoch, there'll still be a BBC picking up the search results.
Users wont stop using Google, they'll just pick whatever the first result is on a search whether that's Fox, or the BBC and again, there'll always be the BBCs of the world there.
Re:Relevancy (Score:3, Insightful)
I think I recall seeing something about that.
I don't know about most people, but I stopped reading the major newspapers (even online) late last year when they became nothing but AP parrots with weird spin jobs.
I mean, I know they were always AP parrots before, but it got *really* bad with the economy. The obsession with very specific stories is completely out of hand.
I'll stick with just the direct AP feeds, thank you.
Re:Inflict Damage? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the "inflict damage" comment meant if a MAJORITY of news sources pulled out of Google, not just News Corp.
I didn't wriite it, I'm just trying to interpret...
The point of the article is that unless virtually ALL of the news sources leave at once, the result will really just be that those who are left will profit by the others voluntarily removing themselves from the competition.
Personally I think it is a gutsy but stupid move...
No problemo (Score:3, Insightful)
Alright, so some American newspapers put up walled gardens. No problem, I'll just read the foreign press. BBC does a good job, and so do many others.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Google already licenses the AP feeds (Score:5, Insightful)
Google already licenses the AP feeds. Click any AP story and you go to the Google-hosted AP text.
This is why this scheme is NEVER going to work. Google already licenses AP, which creates 75% of the content in all these papers anyway. Also there are many major international players, like the NPR and BBC and CBC, that will never opt out of Google, as they are not-for-profits in the first place.
The end result is everyone will get their local news from NPR/CBC/BBC, and all these newspapers will just go under FASTER.
No one will pay for news online. Give it up.
Re:I Don't See the Comparison, More Like MLB Strik (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Its not really newspapers verus google at all (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft can do whatever deals they want with Murdoch and his friends, but the simple fact at the moment is that Bing is rather a poor example of a search engine, and people will vote with their mice.
Every so often I try using Bing (in an attempt to be fair), but the relevance of its results is at best equivalent in to what I remember as typical of AltaVista back in in 1997. That's just not good enough. If the guys at Microsoft want Bing to be a serious competitor to Google, they're going to have to try putting some serious work into their product.
Targeted news and branding their writers (Score:3, Insightful)
Biased, targetted news sells well. Those are the facts. Whether you prefer Fox News or Huffington Post, people enjoy going to a news source that tells people what they want to hear.
Newspapers need to find their niche in targetting local news. Here in Omaha, the big news is stories on the Nebraska Cornhuskers.
Furthermore, I know that I am fairly agnostic about generic news, but I do search out certain authors I enjoy reading. I just left a newspaper, but I often encouraged them to do more to brand their writers. Put more photos of writers in the paper. Push those huge bylines. If someone really likes reading Tom Shatel (local sports columnist for the paper I just left) then they will specifically look for his content.
Furthermore, Google has already said they want to pay newspapers for the content they produce. Our stories already go into an AP feed that others aggregate for free. When big stories happen (our mall shooting last year for instance) we had people all over the world recycling the World-Herald's story. Some linked back, and others didn't. When the BBC recycled the story, they didn't pay the World-Herald for it. However, Google is saying they do want to pay for content.
So how is Google this evil entity that newspapers must rail against? If they were smart, they'd sign up with Google to start selling their content today, and start collecting checks. Newspapers who want to survive in the new market must transition somewhat to a content producer rather than focusing solely on selling a printed product.
Re:What? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I Don't See the Comparison, More Like MLB Strik (Score:1, Insightful)
One thing is pretty clear, they must unionize/unify and act as a single entity in either leaving or negotiating. And I don't really see that happening. They might be able to negotiate between Microsoft and Google on a case by case basis but Google is still too much larger than Bing to do that.
When people unionize, it's protected by the law. When corporations unionize, it's called collusion, and is forbidden by law. When corporations compete, it's good for the consumer, and that's who the laws should be protecting.
It sounds to me not that the newspapers aren't playing a game of the prisoner's dilemma, they're playing a game of buggy-whip-making. If they don't re-invent themselves for the new marketplace, they will become a historical footnote.
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you missed the point. The parent was not arguing with the actual thesis that more people are getting their news online. The argument was that 10 years ago twenty-somethings still weren't reading newspapers, regardless of whether or not they had internet access. Speaking as someone who was twenty-something ten years ago or so, I tend to agree. I didn't read newspapers as a general rule, and even though I did have internet access, I didn't use it to get news either.
Answer: (Score:3, Insightful)
A monthly bill from the WSJ.
Re:Last gasp of the newspaper (Score:3, Insightful)
Compared to blogs and much of the citizen reporting that is found online newspapers are still very good at weeding out the rubbish. The problem is that a lot of people only want the read things that confirm their own preconceptions, and are not interested in learning anything that challenges them. On of the big problems with online news sources is that people can customize the new that they receive to the point that they are essentially in an echo chamber.
Re:But theres a problem with you solution (Score:3, Insightful)
>The problem for newspapers is that the number of thinking
>people is shrinking, while the number of those who now simply
>own a keyboard is increasing.
I disagree. I suspect that the number of thinking people is actually increasing. The problem is that the idiots have a much louder voice today than they have ever had before, thanks (as you say) to the keyboard. Before about fifteen years ago it was very hard for most whack-job ideas to get a large audience. Now, it is very easy, and the people who believe them can shout very loudly, which leads to the impression that they are far more numerous than they really are.
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Google already gives publishers a way out of caching pages. It's in their own best interests to take advantage of the capabilities the googlebot gives them.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
I read the New York times every day. I'm 28. I know I'm in the minority, but I get things from a paper I don't get from a website or an rss feed. It's portable, it's easier on the eyes, it's got a crossword puzzle in it I can do with a pen and all that tactile stuff, but also it's better for my brain - the 'net is good at giving me information I'm looking for, but it blows at giving me information I didn't know I needed until I read the headline. I learn more from 15 minutes reading the paper on my commute every morning than I would get from an hour in front of the computer. YMMV.
Re:Google already licenses the AP feeds (Score:3, Insightful)
Wire stories are the key to understanding what's going on:
The Internet, mostly, is allowing us to make more efficient versions of existing systems. In the past, you bought the Local Paper Gazette because that's what was available. The LPG bought wire stories to cover national and international news...and there was no other real way for you to get those stories. Newspapers wanted to feel like they were doing a service, so sometimes they'd adjust the wire stories a little with a few quotes from local politicians or from a local mother whose adult child was affected by the distant story.
Now, we have direct access to national and international stories from the journalists who write them. Local papers are an inefficient middle-man on those stories. Obviously, they need to cut back on the budget for re-writing wire stories because nobody cares enough to pay for it...I'm sure they're trying, but they waited until the situation was desperate to start making cuts, and now they can't make cuts fast enough. The solution for local papers is pretty straight-forward:
- cut all duplicate reporting. If someone else is covering something and you can't cover it more profitably, cut it immediately. If you have a desk in a distant city, cut it immediately.
- sell high-quality high-interest local stories to distant local papers...whether this means becoming part of a network or wire agency or what, turn your local coverage into a broader profit. If you don't cut it in the previous bullet, you need to sell it to someone else in addition to your own publishing
- keep your paper as large as possible -- slash your print ad profits until they are razor thin. Newspapers have value because they cover a broad array of topics. Dad reads this, mom reads this, bro reads this, and sis reads something different...once you start cutting the comics b/c there's no ad space, and the business reporting because it's all online, and sudoku because everyone has it on their phone, you erode the perceived value and subscriptions stop. On Sunday, you want ads from every story in a 100 mile radius. On Wednesday, you want ads from every grocery store store that has at least one store in your area.