Thomson Reuters Girds for a Tough 2010
December 5, 2009
The news in the Wall Street Journal today (December 3, 2009) reminded me of the headlines from mid 2008. More than a year ago the headlines were like this one “Thomson Reuters Confirms Hundreds of Job Cuts”. Today’s headline was “Thomson Reuters to Cut Law Unit Jobs.” My hunch is that the addition of legal content to Google Scholar will put significant pressure on Westlaw and other for-fee legal publishers. Job cuts may help… temporarily. The longer term may require more severe actions; for example, shifting from the legacy approach to legal information to a more software centric approach. In a footrace, will Google win or will Thomson Reuters? Place your bets with your retirement fund.
Stephen Arnold, December 5, 2009
I must disclose to the Department of Justice that I was not paid to point out that free legal information may be a big problem for a for fee legal information service.
Google Tosses Another Olive Branch
December 3, 2009
In my research, Google typically offers a pretty good deal and if people take advantage of that deal, fine. If not, the Google moves forward. The challenge in my opinion is to figure out if what Google offers is a good deal. Viewed from Google’s perspective, the benefits (one assumes) are obvious. Viewed from the outsiders’ perspective, the deal may be a bad one or just not recognized as a deal. Google does not have a master of ceremony, to ask, “Door Number 1?”
“Google Offers Publishers Limit on Free News Access” (this is an ephemeral Yahoo link so it may go dead without warning, gentle reader) may be a deal or it may not. I can’t say. The idea is that the Google will provide a control panel so a news outfit can jiggle some settings. Sure, this sounds trivial, and it is. But the news outfit has to know how to find the control panel, take the time to jiggle some settings, and then remember that the jiggling constitutes some willful interaction with the Google.
Let’s think about this.
First, the Google is * trying * to accommodate news outfits who ignored Google for 11 years and now want to use if not control the Google playground equipment. That’s fine. A bit late and somewhat unusual in the knock down, drag out American business world. But Google, if the story cited is accurate, is taking a step.
Second, the deal requires that the news outfits know that a deal is offered. Google does not connect the dots as we point out in the six part video series “How to Make Money with Google”. Googlers connect dots without thought. Googlers assume that when it offers a deal, others can exert sufficient mental energy to see dots and connect them. I recall the risks of using the word “assume”. (Ass-of-you-and-me, according to my grade school teacher in Brazil.)
Third, “control” has lots of implications. These may not be a big deal today but down the road “control” may gather some meaning as Google drives its Hummer forward.
Will news outfits play “Deal or No Deal” or will publishers take Door Number 3? Stay tuned.
Stephen Arnold, December 3, 2009
Oyez, oyez, Government Printing Office. I was not paid to write this fine essay with its references to Monty Hall and Milorad Mandi? Manda, host of the Serbian version of Deal or No Deal.
Google Books in Limbo: The Beat Goes On
November 29, 2009
I detect a note of glee in Alex Pham’s “Google’s Book-Scanning Deal Is Not Sealed Yet.” Google keeps on scanning, and the publishing world keeps on fighting a rear guard action with too few troops and no supply line. Nevertheless, the Los Angeles Times writes:
Critics have argued that Congress, not a private lawsuit in federal court, is the appropriate venue to settle the conflict because its outcome could alter the rights of many people who may not be aware of the case. So even if Chin grants final approval, the settlement could remain mired in courts. Among those who have said they would appeal is Scott E. Gant, a class-action attorney with Boies, Schiller & Flexner. Gant filed a personal objection to the settlement in his role as an author of a book titled “We’re All Journalists Now: The Transformation of the Press and Reshaping of the Law in the Internet Age.” “I am gravely concerned about the rights of the absent class members who are either unaware or do not understand the implications of this settlement,” Gant said. “It could be several years,” he added, “before we will see final resolution.”
And what will change? In my opinion, not too much. Google keeps on scanning and processing. Who is going to do the job? Any national libraries? Thomson Reuters? Reed Elsevier? A consortium of publishers? Too late in my view.
Stephen Arnold, November 29, 2009
I wish to disclose to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department that I was not paid to write this opinion.
The Economist and Its Wobbly Approach to Online Revenue
November 27, 2009
I know that I have to separate the editorial from the advertising parts of the magazine world. The notion of the Chinese wall and genteel competition in which rivals say things like “tally ho, chum” and “well done, my word, well done” are long gone. The problem I have is that this online business is changing the children of the people who write about online revenue. The two worlds could not be more different. The “adults” want to hold on to the traditional business models. I can hear most of the Economist writers, after a dollop of malt singing, “Tradition.” Meanwhile the children do what they do to get music, videos, software, information, and news their way. I am waiting for a sitcom that shows traditional journalists at work and then at home with their children. At work, these folks write “real” news. At home, their progeny get what they need from their iPhone or computer happily oblivious that their parents’ world is about to implode.
I see this tension in “Web-Wide War.” The write up mentions a larger-than-life Web savant and then with all-knowing confidence concludes that Microsoft’s play to pay content to producers to keep content off Google won’t work. Right conclusion; arrived at the wrong way.
The realties are:
- Demographics are on Google’s side. Traditional news delivered on a little used service is not where the demographic’s collective head is at
- Google has traffic. Bing.com does not have traffic. Traditional content will not close the gap between Microsoft and Google. What it will do is encourage Google to release some of its informational potential energy. No additional cost for the GOOG and lots of excitement for the folks in the canyon below the cliffs.
- The cost to the media companies is going to be too much. Microsoft might pay through the nose for a year, but what happens when “Google’s thousand cuts” strategy bleeds revenues from Microsoft’s two big money product lines? What happens when the Google cash stops rolling in? Money talks.
To sum up, I think this is classic old school analysis. Enjoyable. I wonder what big rocks will push on the trudging publishers on the dirt road below. Wait. I hear the whistling now.
Stephen Arnold, November 27, 2009
Disclosure: I thought someone would pay me to write this article, but I was wrong. I cannot be correct. I used to work for traditional publishers. Oh, wait. I was involved in electronic products. Successful electronic products. I avoid dirt paths in valleys where Googlers play Foosball until it’s time to drop a rock on those below.
Google Delivers a Teeny Weeny E-Book Surprise
November 26, 2009
Gobble, gobble. That’s the sound of Google’s practicing another money eating exercise. Google has a yen for Japan I think. Navigate to “Google Japan to Start Paid E-Book Service: Report”. Keep in mind that this MarketWatch story might be a premature flag. I did find it interesting, however. For me, the telling comment was:
Upon the launch of its service, Google Japan aims to stock an online library of up to 10,000 books. It is already in talks with smaller publishers to sell their works on Google Edition, the report said.
This push will take place in the US, Britain, and now Japan.
Stephen Arnold, September 26, 2009
Disclosure: Council of Foreign Relations, oyez, I was not paid to point out that the Google likes sushi. I will not include in the story this question, “When will Google go to an author and license the author’s output directly?”
The Google Fear Bulb Lights A Decade Too Late
November 25, 2009
Magazine publishers are a clever group. The mass market titles which I loved when in grade school have gone. The magazine industry chased niches, but the Internet delivers niches. Now in an act of innovation, magazine publishers are going to form an alliance to tame the digital wolves. The idea is to have domesticated digitals in the content kennel.
I found “Time Inc.’s Squires Assembles Team of Rivals to Harness Digital Media” quite fascinating. The New York Observer reported:
Each magazine publisher now believes it’s too risky to go it alone to find new ways to get consumers to pay. If they all join together, the reasoning goes, they stand a better chance of producing greater revenue.
When I read this passage, my addled goose mind interpreted is as saying something along the lines, “Google is going to disrupt our business. We can make more money doing digital stuff ourselves.”
Please, read the original story because maybe I am either too tired or too jaded to dig deeply into this bold idea from the magazine mavens.
In my research for Google: The Digital Gutenberg, I came to the conclusion that the Google has a good head of steam built up. The infrastructure is mostly complete. The deal breaker engineering problems have been mostly resolved. The company has a heck of a user and customer base. The firm’s pace of new product and service introductions is increasing.
The magazine publishers have a problem similar to Microsoft’s with regard to Google. First, the “time’ needed to get the group organized, solve technical problems, and get revenues flowing is going to give the Google more time to move forward. In fact, if fate conspires against traditional publishers, Google may just go to authors and sign them up to write original news and analysis, research, and monographs for Googzilla.
Then what happens?
Google’s lead just get bigger. The publishers are starting to get in gear, but I think the 11 year head start might be a bit of a challenge. I advocate surfing on Google, not trying to fill a cup with a puncture in its side. Just my opinion.
Stephen Arnold, November 25, 2009
I wish to disclose to the Office of Citizen Services that I was not paid to send this public service message to the two or three readers of this Web log.
De-Indexing: Word of the Week
November 25, 2009
Short honk: I gave up learning new words. Addled geese don’t have much to say or think. Cogito ergo quack. I read Taranfx.com’s “Microsoft to Pay for De-Indexing from Google.” The story was not new for me, but I did latch onto the word “de-indexing”. Great word. Maybe it will lead to great riches?
Stephen Arnold, November 25, 2009
I want to disclose to the Department of Agriculture that this turkey of a write up was not something I wrote for money or a leg. The word “de-indexing” is a turkey.
Publishers Get the F Scott Fitzgerald Treatment
November 24, 2009
If you are a fan of F Scott Fitzgerald, you know he skewers his targets with a thin, sharp rapier. When the point finds its mark, often the victim does not realize at the moment that a fatal blow has been struck. I thought of F Scott when I read “Screening the News” by Mrinal Desai, founder of CrossLoop. the story appeared in TechCrunch and I think that that the publication used Mr. Desai as a sharp rapier. The victim is the traditional print media which seems intent on making the word “paywall” next year’s Oxford English Dictionary. Traditional publishers may want to “unfriend” people like Mr. Desai.
The guts of the story is that a motivated and sharp person like Mr. Desai can get along just fine without relying a whole lot on traditional publishing companies’ products. The write up is a tutorial on how to stay informed and use information instead of working the way people did in the Dark Ages. In case the clear explanation and links don’t drive the point home, a nifty diagram is included. I wanted to reproduce it, but the goose does not need a legal eagle darkening his Harrod’s Creek sky. Just navigate to the story on TechCrunch and scroll down until you see the headline “Social Distribution Channels.” You are there.
Several observations:
First, I think the article makes clear how traditional media faces an uphill battle in its slog against the digital environment.
Second, I like very much the method of Mr. Desai. I picked up a few good ideas too.
Third, TechCruch has used an F Scott Fitzgerald technical with a wonderful adeptness.
I wonder if the traditional media know that they have been run through with cold digital steel?
Stephen Arnold, November 24, 2009
I wish to disclose to the National Gallery of Art that I was not paid to write about this artistic piercing of traditional media.
Mashable Champions the Google Wave
November 24, 2009
I just read Mashable’s “How Google Wave is Changing the News” by Leah Betancourt. She points out that outfits like the Chicago Tribune are using Google Wave. One interesting comment was:
“That experiment was definitely an eye-opener. My understanding of Wave has always been that it’s a valuable tool for small-team collaboration. So to see it succeed as a larger-scale crowd sourcing tool was unexpected to say the least,” Nystrom [media person] said by email. “People quickly swarmed the wave and provided a ton of really smart insights. Things we had never thought of.” He added that they’ll definitely do more of this and that it’s just a matter of identifying which topics would benefit from collaboration.
She pointed out that users and traditional media are learning about the dips and rolls of Google Wave at the same time as traditional media. Who will be better able to surf on Google? I have seen older surfer dudes, but the youngsters seem to be more abundant.
Stephen Arnold, November 23, 2009
Reporting in that this was a freebie. I think I shall use a Vulcan mind meld to communicate freeness to those charged with monitoring geese at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Counting Wave use cases seems to be their responsibility.
Microsoft and News Corp.: A Tag Team of Giants Will Challenge Google
November 23, 2009
Government regulators are powerless when it comes to online. The best bet, in my opinion, is for large online companies to act as if litigation and regulator hand holding was a cost of doing business. While the legal eagles flap and the regulators meet bright, chipper people, the business of online moves forward.
The news that News Corp. and Microsoft are, according to “Microsoft Offers To Pay News Corp To “De-List” Itself From Google”, and other “experts”, these two giants want to form a digital World Wrestling Federation tag team. In the “fights” to come, these champions—Steve Ballmer and Rupert Murdoch–will take on the unlikely upstarts, Sergey the Algorithm Guy and Larry the Math Whiz.
Which of these two tag teams will grace the cover of the WWF marketing collateral? What will their personas become? Source: http://www.x-entertainment.com/pics5/wwe11click.jpg
The idea is to “pull” News Corp. content from Google or make it pay through its snout for the right to index News Corp. content. The deal will probably encompass any News Corp. content. Whatever Google deal is in place with News Corp. would be reworked. News Corp., like other traditional media companies is struggling to regain its revenue traction.
For Microsoft a new wrestling partner makes sense. Bing is gaining market share, but at the expense of Yahoo’s search share. Microsoft now faces Google’s 1,001 tiny cuts. The most recent is the browser based operating system. There is the problem of developers with Microsoft’s former employees rallying the Google faithful. There’s the pesky Android phone thing that went from a joke to a coalition of telephone-centric outfits. There’s the annoyance of Google in the US government. On and on. No one Google nick has to kill Microsoft. Nope. Google just needs to let a trickle of revenue slip away from the veins of Microsoft. The company’s rising blood pressure will do the rest. Eventually, the losses from the 1,001 tiny cuts will force the $70 billion Redmond wrestler to take a break. That “rest” may be what gives Google the opportunity to do significant damage with its as-yet-unappreciated play for the TV, cable, and independent motion picture business. Silverlight 4.0 may not be enough to overcome the structural changes in rich media. That’s real money. Almost as much as the telephony play promises to deliver to the somewhat low key team of Sergey the Algorithm Guy and Larry the Math Whiz
Sergey the Algorithm Guy and Larry the Math Whiz take a break from discussing the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of normality. Training is tough for this duo. Long hours of solitary computation may exhaust the team before it tackles the Ballmer-Murdoch duo, which may be the most dangerous opponent the Math Guys have faced.
I look forward to the fight promoter to pull out all the stops. One of the Buffers will be the announcer. The cut man will be the master, Stitch Duran. The venue will be Las Vegas, followed by other world capitals of money, power, and citizen concern.
Nicholas Carlson reported:
Still, if News Corp were to “de-list” from Google, we’d expect to see all kinds of ads touting Bing as the only place to find the Wall Street Journal and MySpace pages online. Maybe that’d swing search engine share some, but we doubt it.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
