facebook rss twitter

Search engines to pay for content?

by Scott Bicheno on 23 November 2009, 10:35

Tags: Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT), News Corp (NASDAQ:NWS)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qauzp

Add to My Vault: x

Money for huffing

Rupert Murdoch appears to be putting his - or more precisely, Microsoft's - money where his mouth is, according to a report in the FT.

It claims that Microsoft and Murdoch's media conglomerate News Corp have been in talks concerning Microsoft paying News Corp for the exclusive right to list its content on the Bing search engine. In other words, to delist the content from Google.

As far as precedent setting goes, this one could be a biggie. If search engines start paying media for the privilege of listing their stories then it will generate a completely new revenue stream for the media at a time when many are struggling to get by on a primarily ad-funded model.

The FT stresses that talks are at an early stage and was unable to get official confirmation from either company, but it also suggests that Microsoft has been talking to other major publishers.

Of course, this is a direct broadside at Google, which is far more dependent on search-related revenues than Microsoft. While Google has, in the past, downplayed the importance of news (as opposed to e-commerce or blogs or whatever) as a revenue driver, it's not hard to imagine some users defecting to Bing if that's the only place they can read sites like wsj.com.

Wsj.com is supposed to be subscription-only, with only the first paragraph or two of a story viewable by non-subscribers. But the thing that must be winding Murdoch up big-time is that if you find a wsj.com story on Google, when you click through you get to see the whole thing. Try it yourself with its story on this topic: Microsoft, News Corp. In Early Talks On Web Deal.

So will this be the start of a bidding war between two very deep-pocketed technology giants? The media industry will certainly be hoping so.

 



HEXUS Forums :: 6 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
If only they'd tell him to get lost, and make him accept that making people pay for news is not going to be sustainable…

On a side note, if he de-lists from Google, I'd say he's making a pretty big mistake - a large proportion of the world use google as their sole portal to the web, and will just stop visiting any sites he removes from its listings, or at the very least use if far less often.
Bing and murdock together. Good - I can avoid all the rubbish just by sticking to google!
cheesemp
Bing and murdock together. Good - I can avoid all the rubbish just by sticking to google!

My sentiments exactly
snootyjim
If only they'd tell him to get lost, and make him accept that making people pay for news is not going to be sustainable…
….
It is sustainable though …. if you have high enough quality of unique content. News isn't just reporting of raw facts, but about access and to some extent, analysis.

There are those that have made access to content a sustainable financial model. But the key is that the content needs to be both unique and worth having, and by “worth” I mean worth what you pay for it. Whether that applies to Murdoch content or not is a whle different point, but the principle of paying for access works.

And even in more general areas, I wouldn't be too sure that just because a lot of content always has been “free” (usually in that it's ad-supported) that t will continue to be so. The internet is, after all, still pretty young and the commercial aspects of it, and how it fits into the traditional media world. For instance, it may be that if you provide an information service people want, the basics may be free and ad-supported, but the detail and analysis could be subscription-based. or paid for with a micro-payment system.

We're used to free content, but don't be so sure that it'll stay that way. It may, but it may not. Early days yet.
Saracen
It is sustainable though …. if you have high enough quality of unique content. News isn't just reporting of raw facts, but about access and to some extent, analysis.

I realise that it technically is, I just don't think that it's something that could ever work in practice.

The BBC will always provide free news, unless Murdoch manages to destroy it (and I imagine there would be massive fallout from any attempt like that), which will always remain a thorn in their side. Supposing Sky News and The Sun went subscription only, I really doubt that many people would be grabbing their credit cards to retain access to them, and readership would plummet.

Obviously they'll always have their core audience, but I'll still read the odd story on The Sun's website if I see a link on a forum somewhere - there's no way I'd do that if I had to pay. Then there's their phalanx of readers in terms of the physical paper, but would they pay for two forms of effectively the same stories? I doubt it somehow. People would just migrate to other online services, which would then benefit from the increased traffic and probably succeed as a result. The only loser would be the firm that decided to go subscription-only first.

I accept that if they all moved that model simultaneously then it might be a possibility, but as things stand I think the early adopter is always going to be the loser, because someone will always be looking to pick up those who were left behind and offer them a new home for free. People aren't used to paying for things on the internet (short of *ahem* “certain” websites), and I don't think that Murdoch, with all the will in the world, can change that at the moment.