Picking our Pockets to Save the New York Times–Isn’t there a better way?
Rupert Murdoch just announced he is going to take all New York Times material out of Google’s search engine, putting it all exclusively on Bing. He claims he will be getting a more targeted reader, and less of the casual looky-loos Google brings. There is also talk afoot that he will begin charging subscription rates so people can look at their content online. Is this really what it will take to save the future of world class reportage?
I feel your pain, Mr. Murdoch. With more people reading your content for free on the net, why would they subscribe? No full recycling bin…no newsprint on your hands…no trees killed for the pursuit of truth, liberty and transparency. But all that free access doesn’t pay for the Jerusalem bureau, now does it? People have to pay for that level of reporting somehow, somewhere. With newspaper subscriptions dropping to historic lows, and online advertising unable to bridge the gap, the free ride for readers on the Internet will almost certainly have to end.
Is punishing Google searchers and forcing them onto Bing really the best way to generate revenue? Bing’s search engine is still not as comprehensive as Google, no matter what their cool ads say. I don’t want to have to search two different locations to get the answer to one question. I read a lot of publications online for business and fun. If I have to pay for each and every publication I read online, I will soon stop reading at all. Who can afford, or even keep up with, all those subscriptions? Instead, I’d probably start stalking the bloggers who do have the subscription, and read their links. You can bet that there are a lot of people out there who in this tough economy, will do the same.
Mr. Murdoch, may I humbly make a suggestion? Put your results back on Google, and any other search engine that wants you. Then band together with other major sources of real journalism…The entire Gannett network, USA Today, the television network sites, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News and World Report and The Wall Street Journal, for starters. Charge users ONE SET YEARLY fee for unlimited, sharable access to all these sites, including video streams, podcasts and the like. Revenue would be divided among all the publications. People who just want one story could be directed back to one central place, set up an account, and be charged 99 cents for every download…as if they are downloading music on i-Tunes. The revenue would be directed back minus a small system fee, to the individual publication it came from.
Come to think of it, that’s a damn good idea. If you’ve got any venture capital to throw around, call me :).
