Howard Stevens

How Google Gained Control over Content Distribution by Stealing Links

I agree that Google's devastating impact on the newspaper industry is a result of their ability to disintermediate the traditional news distribution channels. By doing so they have created a more efficient market, which in turn has enabled an abundance of supply to proliferate. They have commoditized news. (Ironically, the Associated Press is the biggest culprit of commoditizing news; but now that they no longer have the monopoly on distributing information globally, they’re crying foul rather than attempting to adapt.)

However, while I agree that Google values the links over the actual content, I do not understand your suggestion that media companies should compete with Google. Learning from Google's success? Absolutely. Competing with them? Probably not a good idea for a beleaguered industry.

Obviously, publishers can't expect to succeed by clinging to a business model based on limited distribution--those days are gone. But there are ways in which they can be successful. Context is the primary reason that Google's distribution (and ad program) is so successful. Publishers must also learn to leverage the opportunities that the digital economy has made possible--they need to sell context in addition to content. I elaborate more on this concept at www.howardstevens.info...

Old Media vs. New Media: Who Will Win More Advertising?

The Associated Press is waking up to the fact that they no longer have the monopoly on distributing news. Their business model, predicated on selling content back to member news organizations, is quickly becoming outdated as more and more consumers are getting their news online--where it really doesn't matter on which news site you read a story from the AP.

Beating Up on Old Media

It’s not that newspapers haven’t “embraced technology” it’s that they've failed to see the monumental shifts—in both technology and consumer behaviors--impacting their industry. Newspapers failed to recognize that consumers and advertisers now have an abundance of choice—free or not, the majority of news content between papers if often recycled—their product has been commoditized. Ironically, the Associated Press is the biggest culprit of commoditizing news; but now that they no longer have the monopoly on distributing information globally, they’re crying foul rather than attempting to adapt.

You state, “So the real reason newspapers are disappearing isn't because they don't "get it", it's because in the online world their product effectively has little to no value.” While this may be true with the majority of the content that the AP commoditizes, many newspapers provide invaluable investigative journalism and insightful editorials that are of tremendous value. Monetizing this value requires that the industry acknowledge the economy of new media and focus on the true value that they bring to consumers. Clinging to old models just won’t cut it.

Two other quick points: 1) the music industry clung to old business models for too long—they remained focused on producing ‘the next big hit’ instead of acknowledging diverse consumer interests. They finally seem to be getting it, but their initial resistance opened the door to a mass market of music piracy—a genie that’s very hard to put back into the bottle. 2) Regarding using tech companies IP property for free, you have heard of open source (ie, OpenOffice, mySQL, etc.), right?