Microsoft and News Corp Forging Anti-Google Web Pact

by Jordan Yerman | November 23, 2009 at 10:28 am
185 views | 38 Recommendations | 5 comments

Microsoft wants to pay Rupert Murdoch's News Corp to pull its material from Google's search index and list with Bing exclusively. In other words, Bing will have exclusive rights to deliver search results for News Corp content. In terms of making a quick buck, I can see how this is attractive to Rupert Murdoch, but, in terms of long- (or even medium-) term health for his online properties, this is a really bad idea.

I'm not sure that Rupert Murdoch entirely understands the true dynamic of the web's balance of power. "Content is king" is a cute slogan, but how that content is packaged, served and found are far more valuable to a business, especially when we're talking about mainstream news, which tends to replicate in terms of subject matter across properties to the point of near-interchangeability. In other words, when you surf across MSM websites, you'll see fairly similar content presented in slightly different formats.

If News Corp really wants to pull itself from the world's largest search engine, then that's fine: the corresponding plunge in traffic will serve as a quick object lesson. Who's the bigger fish in the online world, News Corp or Google? Did I even need to ask? Google has no real incentive to pay to index any news company's content, since they serve relatively few ads on Google news pages, so, if News Corp pulled out of Google, the search giant wouldn't suffer too much. Ultimately the victim here will be Bing, who will be saddled with a bill to News Corp while the "exclusive" content isn't that exclusive after all, and likely won't leave much of a desire for Google users to switch browsers. Users can find the same material via CNN, Al Jazeera, BBC, Guardian, NYTimes, Bloomberg, SMH, M&G, etc, etc, etc.

Would a Google News ecosystem without News Corp material look different? Yes, but I bet most surfers wouldn't notice.

This leads to another question, though: which, if any, other news organizations has Microsoft approached in its attempt to catch up to Google?

This is the second time this month that rumors and speculation have surfaced about News Corp. delisting its content from Google. In early November, News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch told Sky News Australia that his company might block Google from indexing its news Websites once all of the company's news properties erect pay walls by next year.

Any newspaper is able to remove their content from Google's index. It takes two minutes. You've probably noticed that this is not a popular action, because ultimately online publications want viewers. An up-front financial arrangement makes this more attractive, if you're a third-grader. In pre-web terms, how much would someone have to pay for you to willingly take your business out of the Yellow Pages?

Advertisement
recommend This comment thread is now closed
2
Hugh Askew

kind of fascinating to watch these companies slogging around through their billions, trying to figure out a way to make more billions to slog around in.

3
A. Tran

News is a commodity that is readily available well beyond what News Corp hopes to control, let alone charging fees for contents that can be found elsewhere. 

I agree that Bing will end up at the losing side, once New Corp folks figure out that it can't harness the contents of the web, at will.  

Danny Sullivan has an interesting view on this matter last month:

Now let’s take your 50% more on search referrals idea. So Bing will offer to pay the Wall Street Journal 50% more than the ZERO Google currently pays for millions of referrals it sends the Wall Street Journal and other newspapers each day right now?

These newspapers don’t pay to be in Google’s editorial listings. They get tons of traffic from Google for free. What you really mean is that perhaps they could hope to convince Bing to pay them if they block Google from having their stories (and really, a headline link and short summary of their stories, not the stories themselves) in return for a gamble that Bing will send them either as much traffic or less traffic but more revenue.


0
Spydermonkey

Well, I not a fan of microsoft, so I doubt that I will be using bling bing, what ever :)

And this is just another reason not to as far as I'm concerned...

I will also agree with the above comments, I don;t see how this is going to help them get traffic in any real way, just another way to get free publicity that might or might not work

0
master_jim2008

It's the global domination game, (real version) not the home game. And it is backed by the same folks who brought you 9/11, The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush, Cheney, the Pnac boys, Bill Gates etc are all a part of it.


2
A. Tran

An additional quote to follow up on my comments earlier.

Extra, extra, read all about it! Exclusive news, only in today's edition of Bing. You won't find these stories in Google! Only in Bing! Get your Bing now, hot off the press!

Reality check time. Earlier this decade, the Wall Street Journal wasn't listed in Google at all, due to a total paywall and restrictions that it had up. Despite that, Google developed into the search juggernaut it is today. Clearly, that Wall Street Journal being in Google wasn't crucial to Google's success. 

So it's a dumb move by Bing? Probably if Bing overpays.


This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

NowPublic on Facebook

What is NowPublic?

NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.

Find out more

Crowd Power

Hugh Askew
First Flagged at 10:38 AM, Nov 23, 2009 by Hugh Askew

Related Stories

Recommendations (38)

Most recently recommended by:
 

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from