Google Almost Bought a Paper
Google Almost Bought a Paper
That's what CEO Eric Schmidt told the Financial Times yesterday. In an extensive Q&A with the newspaper, Schmidt reveals that Google (GOOG) seriously considered either buying a newspaper as a for-profit enterprise or hiring a pack of smart lawyers to reconfigure the paper as a nonprofit venture. He doesn't name which paper, of course, but the Financial Times reporters pointedly remind their readers that the hedge fund Harbinger Capital Partners offered Google its twenty percent stake in the New York Times. Ultimately, however, the company decided that going so far as owning an outlet that actually produced copy, rather than simply aggregating and organizing it, would be "crossing the line" between a content company and a technology company. Wall Street Journal writer Jessica Vascellaro argues that this position is growing increasingly flimsy. After all, she writes, both YouTube and Google's Book Search project are awfully close to resembling content production.
The real reason may be twofold. First, as Schmidt readily concedes, the targeted papers are either far too expensive or burdened with too much debt and liabilities. Second, the advertising model for general news reporting is obsolete, and Google's execs have decided instead to work with papers such as the Washington Post (the parent company of which also owns TBM) to come up with a new model that can subsidize serious general news gathering. The days when general display ads would float on the page, contextually disconnected from the substance of the stories, are over. But who wants their ads tied to stories of Gitmo torture? Unless the business model radically changers, there will be no revenue stream that props up the most serious and important news stories.
So what does Schmidt have in mind for the Washington Post? "It seems to me that the newspaper that I read online should remember what I read. It should allow me to go deeper into the stories. It's that kind of a discussion that we're having." In other words, the paper will store and archive a catalogue of the stories you read, steer more stories along those lines to your eyeballs, and keep you coming back for more by knowing what you're most interested in. Google already remembers what you search for, in order to more accurately match ads to your search screen. Now, it seems, Schmidt would like to apply this technique to news gathering.
In other news, Schmidt flatly refused to share more revenue with newspapers whose headlines Google aggregates. He argues that the traffic Google steers toward media outlets more than makes up for the ad revenue it gets from collecting headlines. And he's probably right. If you want to read the entire Q&A, click here.
Recent Feeling Lucky Posts
-
Chris ThompsonNovember 20, 2009
-
Chris ThompsonNovember 19, 2009
-
Chris ThompsonNovember 18, 2009
-
Chris ThompsonNovember 17, 2009
-
Chris ThompsonNovember 13, 2009
RSS
Twitter
Comments
WHO KILLED THE NEWS PRINT INDUSTRY
WHO KILLED THE NEWS PRINT INDUSTRY
(Who Killed Davey Moore, Bob Dylan)
WilliamBanzai7
Who killed the Newsprint Industry,
Why an' what's the reason for?
"Not I," says the mogul of Cable TV,
"Don't point your ink stained finger at me.
I could've stopped it on Channel 108
An' maybe kept them from his fate,
But the audience would've booed, I'm sure,
At not gettin' their money's worth.
It's too bad they had to go,
But there was a pressure on me too, you know.
It wasn't me that made them fall.
No, you can't blame me at all."
Who killed the Newsprint Industry,
Why an' what's the reason for?
"Not us," says the hyper web connected crowd,
Whose clicks filled the ethernet cloud.
"It's too bad they've suffered this plight
But we just like to Web surf all day and all night.
We didn't mean for them t' meet this death,
We're just like to read on the internet,
There ain't nothing wrong in that.
It wasn't us that made them fall.
No, you can't blame us at all."
Who killed the Newsprint Industry,
Why an' what's the reason for?
"Not me," says Google's CEO star,
Puffing on a big fat Google cigar.
"It's hard to say, it's hard to tell,
We always thought that they were well.
It's too bad for all good Netizen's that they're dead,
But if they were sick, they should've said.
It wasn't me that made them fall.
No, you can't blame me at all."
Who killed the Newsprint Industry,
Why an' what's the reason for?
"Not me," says the advertising man,
With his online rate card still in his hand.
"It wasn't me that knocked them down,
My hands never touched them none.
I didn't commit no ugly sin,
Anyway, I put money on them to win.
It wasn't me that made them fall.
No, you can't blame me at all."
Who killed the Newsprint Industry,
Why an' what's the reason for?
"Not me," says the Luddite newspaper writer,
Pounding print on his old Smith Corona typewriter,
Sayin', "Good old journalists ain't to blame,
There's just no money in a paperless print game."
Sayin', "News journalism is here to stay,
It's just the old American way.
It wasn't me that made them fall.
No, you can't blame me at all."
Who killed the Newsrint Industry,
Why an' what's the reason for?
"Not me," says the blogger whose posts
Laid them low in a cloud of free editorial mist,
Who came here from outside the media club door
From the digital world where the golden rule is not less but more.
"We hit them, yes, it's true,
But that's what I am NOT paid to do.
Don't say 'murder,' don't say 'kill.'
It was destiny, it was the media God's will."
Who killed the Newsprint Industry,
Why an' what's the reason for?