Murdoch: News Corp to Hide Paid Content from Google
Rupert Murdoch says in this video he would make News Corp's paid content invisible from Google:
How? News Corp could add a couple of code snippets ('') to the Robot.text file to go dark to Google and other search engines. But if you do, Google warned in July:
Today, more than 25,000 news organizations across the globe make their content available in Google News and other Web search engines. They do so because they want their work to be found and read -- Google delivers more than a billion consumer visits to newspaper Web sites each month. These visits offer the publishers a business opportunity, the chance to hook a reader with compelling content, to make money with advertisements or to offer online subscriptions. If at any point a Web publisher feels as though we're not delivering value to them and wants us to stop indexing their content, they're able to do so quickly and effectively. I added the bold for emphasis. What we have here is a bonafide Catch-22. Go Google, and get read. Shun Google, and go invisible online. Good luck with going dark on Google, Rupert. Let me know how that works out. He clearly forgot the 11th commandment: Thou shalt not hide from the Googlebot:
While I guess that's Rupert's point -- and he no doubt has a lead-and-others-will-follow hope-- it's also like trying to hide from the alien ships in "War of the Worlds." |
Comments (6)
"Shun Google, and go invisible online."
Not necessarily. I scan/read the New York Times and Washington Post every day. Google has nothing to do with it.
Posted by JohnJ | November 9, 2009 1:50 PM
John:
I suspect you're in the minority. Many people see what's in Google News and/or check their Google Reader content.
Posted by Clint Boulton
| November 9, 2009 2:10 PM
I know if it weren't for links obtained via Google and various aggregators, I would NEVER end up at places like The New York Post or The Washington Times. I haven't got time for their silliness. I need to know there's a good reason to go before I bother. And if Mr. Murdoch thinks I or anyone I know would be willing to pay to read his publications, he's mistaken. It's barely attractive at free with some automation filtering 98% of it out.
Posted by KGWagner | November 9, 2009 8:44 PM
I agree. Moreover HitWise has new data points:
• On a weekly basis Google and Google news are the top traffic providers for WSJ.com account for over 25% of WSJ.com's traffic.
• According to Experian Hitwise data, over 44% of WSJ.com visitors coming from Google are "new" users who haven't visited the domain in the last 30 days.
• Twitter and Facebook sent 4% of US visits to News and Media sites in October 2009. (via @Hitwise_US)
• The percentage of upstream traffic from Facebook and Twitter to News and Media sites is up 490% year-over-year.
I'll be writing about this tomorrow...
Posted by Clint Boulton
| November 9, 2009 8:51 PM
It'll be interesting to watch, and sorta funny in a sad way to see Murdock and those of a like mind edit their robot.txt file and ban the spiders, then add insult to injury by putting up paywalls. Their traffic will drop through the floor and they won't be able to sell pornography ads, let alone anything lucrative from the traditional marketers. The only place anyone will hear about The New York Times will be history books.
Posted by KGWagner | November 9, 2009 10:06 PM
Good. Let him block his propaganda garbage from Google. Who cares about Murd(er)och. He's just another greedy money monster.
As the old saying goes, a fool and his money soon part.
Posted by lofa | November 10, 2009 3:57 AM