Bing Tries to Buy the News 14 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Rupert Murdoch is pointing a gun to Google’s head, and Microsoft (MSFT) is helping him pull back the trigger. For the past few weeks, Murdoch and his officers at News Corp. (NWS) have been very vocal about their distaste for Google (GOOG) and their desire to lead other media companies in a boycott of sorts.
Murdoch keeps threatening to stop letting Google index the WSJ.com and his other media sites, and wants other news sites to join him in this self-imposed silence. The folks at Microsoft’s Bing think this is a great idea. Not only that, but the FT reports that Microsoft is in fact in discussions with News Corp. and other publishers about the possibility of paying them to remove their sites from Google’s search index. This report comes on the heels of a meeting in Europe where Bing dangled the prospect of premium spots in search results to publishers and outright money for search R&D.
Microsoft is not afraid to buy search market share, which is what it’s doing with the Yahoo search deal and even its Cashback program. But with these latest talks, it is literally trying to buy the news, or at least exclusive access to the news.
Bing can’t buy all the news, it can only buy certain brands. If Bing can somehow become the only place you can find news results and working links to the Wall Street Journal and other top papers such as the New York Times (NYT), the Washington Post (WPO), and the LA Times, for instance, that would be a big reason to switch for a lot of folks. But it’s not clear how much Bing would have to pay the news companies of the world for them to give up all the traffic Google sends them in return for a fraction of that traffic and some cash.
Even Google couldn’t afford to strike such deals. Says Murdoch, of Google, “If they were to pay everybody for everything they took from every newspaper in the world, and every magazine, they wouldn’t have any profits left.”
In order to actually make a dent in Google’s market share, Bing would have to pay such exorbitant sums to so many different news companies that it would be difficult to recoup its investment. Bing certainly get some marketing buzz out of any such move, but that’s about it.
The big problem with a search engine trying to buy market share by buying parts of the news is that information spreads so quickly these days, exclusives last about 30 seconds. That information will end up on a site that is indexed by Google. Or the same news will be broken by someone else on the Web before the WSJ.com even gets to it.
Exclusive indexing goes against the Web’s inherent openness. Companies that try to curtail that openness don’t last long on the Web.
Image via PhotoXpress.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication in the last week
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Those with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last week
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,
as ranked by their peers-
1
User 353732
-
2
Moon Kil Woong
-
3
doubleguns
-
4
optionsgirl
-
5
Mayascribe
Top Commenters » -
1
-
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This folk believes the papers listed, besides the WSJ, are in pretty difficult financial stress and should have no value for Steve Ballmer (certainly not for Ruppert Murdoch). All these papers' circulation are way down Y/Y with the exception of the WSJ, which now has the nation's greatest circulation.
[Exclusive indexing goes against the Web’s inherent openness. Companies that try to curtail that openness don’t last long on the Web.]
Forgive me Eric, but I simply cannot agree with this premise. The IP of Murdoch will prevail.
If he was the head of any other business and was calling publicly for all of the heads to act in unison in order to charge people for what is now free, they would arrest him and charge him with anti-trust violations. But no one wants to take on someone who has 33% of all press in the USA.
However, observe that Google has chosen not to do anything at the moment. I interpret this as an indication that Google is not presently concerned by this issue. Either they think that Murdock will not follow through, or they think that the impact will be small (a third possibility is that they are concerned that blocking his sites will be bad PR for themselves).
I personally have blocked Google from my site for privacy reasons, but in this case I am on their side. Murdock is alleging that Google "steals" their content while I see Google as a service provider. If they are stealing content, the phone book must be stealing people.
This will only expose that Bing is an imposter and has to resort to gimmicks.
On Nov 23 10:15 AM spald_fr wrote:
> [If Bing can somehow become the only place you can find news results
> and working links to the Wall Street Journal and other top papers
> such as the New York Times (NYT), the Washington Post (WPO), and
> the LA Times, for instance, that would be a big reason to switch
> for a lot of folks]
>
> This folk believes the papers listed, besides the WSJ, are in pretty
> difficult financial stress and should have no value for Steve Ballmer
> (certainly not for Ruppert Murdoch). All these papers' circulation
> are way down Y/Y with the exception of the WSJ, which now has the
> nation's greatest circulation.
>
> [Exclusive indexing goes against the Web’s inherent openness. Companies
> that try to curtail that openness don’t last long on the Web.]<br/>
>
> Forgive me Eric, but I simply cannot agree with this premise. The
> IP of Murdoch will prevail.
That would be the worse thing goog could do, the best would be buy some ear plugs.
(long goog)
On Nov 23 12:51 PM holden wrote:
> Observe that Google has a very clear move to stop Murdock in his
> tracks. Cut him off immediately. Refuse to index his newspapers'
> sites. I think it is clear that if they do it now it will serve as
> an example to all others, therefore the rest may be more reluctant
> to join Murdock into demise.
>
> However, observe that Google has chosen not to do anything at the
> moment. I interpret this as an indication that Google is not presently
> concerned by this issue. Either they think that Murdock will not
> follow through, or they think that the impact will be small (a third
> possibility is that they are concerned that blocking his sites will
> be bad PR for themselves).
>
> I personally have blocked Google from my site for privacy reasons,
> but in this case I am on their side. Murdock is alleging that Google
> "steals" their content while I see Google as a service provider.
> If they are stealing content, the phone book must be stealing people.
do you really think its all about the WSJ, NewsCorp is huge they own many papers, tv stations, cable, production companies etc . They have a lot of IP, the WSJ is considered to be something RM purchased just to increase his standing and to show how powerful he is.
On Nov 23 01:56 PM Gary A wrote:
> That is ridiculous. Bing is a terrible search engine. If you want
> to go to WSJ or Marketwatch just save the URL or type it in. They
> already are saying that the traffic coming from Google isn't important.
>
>
> This will only expose that Bing is an imposter and has to resort
> to gimmicks.
Murdoch and Ballmer are pointing a gun at their own feet.
If they pull a transparent stunt like this, the DoJ will shut them down faster than you can spell A-N-T-I-T-R-U-S-T. We don't have a mama's-boy, like Bush, sitting in the White House now, like we did for the first MSFT DoJ trial.
Any company can get a legally binding contract the excludes competitors to the point they are driven out of business.
There thousands of deals that lock out others all the time. Exclusives are designed to exclude, and it is in no way against law for companies to collude in order to defeat a rival.
The danger is when a company uses its power to force other companies into deals etc.
Indexing is merely a distribution channel, these are commonly exclusive, think of cell phone carriers if that helps you, it is one style of many.
On Nov 23 02:46 PM Tom B wrote:
> "Rupert Murdoch is pointing a gun to Google’s head, and Microsoft
> (MSFT) is helping him pull back the trigger."
>
> Murdoch and Ballmer are pointing a gun at their own feet.
>
> If they pull a transparent stunt like this, the DoJ will shut them
> down faster than you can spell A-N-T-I-T-R-U-S-T. We don't have a
> mama's-boy, like Bush, sitting in the White House now, like we did
> for the first MSFT DoJ trial.
>> Rupert Murdoch is pointing a gun to Google’s head... <<
I wasn't aware that google is a tiny company dependent on Murdoch to survive.
>> If Bing can somehow become the only place you can find news results and working links to the Wall Street Journal and other top papers such as the New York Times the Washington Post, and the LA Times <<
That's a big "somehow". I liked how you explained how it could happen.
- F. Murray Rumpelstiltskin
On Nov 23 03:15 PM jack dee wrote:
> Tell us more Tom, it appears you are under the false impression that
> exclusive contracts are against the law?
> Any company can get a legally binding contract the excludes competitors
> to the point they are driven out of business.
>
> There thousands of deals that lock out others all the time. Exclusives
> are designed to exclude, and it is in no way against law for companies
> to collude in order to defeat a rival.
>
> The danger is when a company uses its power to force other companies
> into deals etc.
>
> Indexing is merely a distribution channel, these are commonly exclusive,
> think of cell phone carriers if that helps you, it is one style of
> many.
Since when did "openness" equate with "free"?
On Nov 23 02:46 PM Tom B wrote:
> "Rupert Murdoch is pointing a gun to Google’s head, and Microsoft
> (MSFT) is helping him pull back the trigger."
>
> Murdoch and Ballmer are pointing a gun at their own feet.
>
> If they pull a transparent stunt like this, the DoJ will shut them
> down faster than you can spell A-N-T-I-T-R-U-S-T. We don't have a
> mama's-boy, like Bush, sitting in the White House now, like we did
> for the first MSFT DoJ trial.