WebProNews

Tag: newspapers

  • Law That Forced Google News To Shut Down In Spain Has Really Screwed Things Up

    Law That Forced Google News To Shut Down In Spain Has Really Screwed Things Up

    Back in December, Google announced that it was shutting down Google News in Spain as the result of a new law in that country that requires every Spanish publication to charge Google and other news aggregation services to show snippets from those publications regardless of whether or not the publisher actually wants it that way.

    As you may know, some publishers (typically of the old media variety) aren’t fond of Google indexing their content and showing snippets to users. Some claim it is bad for their traffic despite evidence to the contrary. It would appear that Google News shutting down was actually much worse for traffic (as if it could have possibly gone any other way).

    The law is similar to one in Germany that ensured publishers could charge services like Google for displaying snippets with links, but the difference with the Spanish law is that publishers actually have to charge. That way Google can’t just omit the ones who want to charge. There would be no option to opt out of Google News or to continue letting Google carry on as normal for free. So rather than paying every single publication just to link to their sites and drive them traffic (which is absurd), Google just shut down Google News in Spain and basically washed its hands of the whole mess.

    Unfortunately for the publishers who were happy to get traffic from Google (and again, from other aggregators as well), things aren’t going so well for them either.

    TechDirt is reporting on a study commissioned by the Spanish Association of Publishers of Periodical Publications (AEEPP) on the effects of the law, and they’re not good. It found that it’s stifling innovation in news and hurting publishers of all sizes, but especially smaller ones who don’t have the brand recognition of the bigger players.

    TechDirt’s Mike Masnick hits the nail on the head when he writes, “Of course, for the major newspaper publishers, maybe that’s what they really wanted all along: less competition. But it’s difficult to see how that’s a legitimate public policy strategy.”

    Even beyond the decreased competition among publishers, the aggregator market has apparently dried up in the country. Google still has a business without Google News, but while some others have reportedly found ways to shift business models, a number of aggregators have had to shut down entirely. The report specifically names Planeta Ludico, NiagaRank, InfoAliment and Multifriki.

    What’s particularly disturbing is that this all seems pretty much like the only possible outcome of such a law. It remains a mystery how it could have possibly helped the news industry in Spain.

    You can find the actual study here. It’s in Spanish obviously.

    Image via Google

  • 29% Of Millennials Can’t Recall Last Time They Read A Newspaper

    29% Of Millennials Can’t Recall Last Time They Read A Newspaper

    Last week, a study from the Media Insight Project came out finding that millennials have little interest in paying for news. Now, Retale has some new findings based on a poll of over 1,000 people, looking at newspaper readership, format preferences, and attitude toward paying for content.

    According to that, only 19% of millennials have paid for newspaper content (print or digital) in the last month, while 50% of all age groups are completely unwilling to pay for print. Millennials are the least willing at 55%.

    In fact, 29% of all millennials said that they couldn’t even recall the last time they read a print newspaper.

    “Millennials are a digital-first audience,” said Retale President Pat Dermody. “They’re not consuming print newspaper content in the same way as previous generations. For the industry to adapt, they’ll have to be creative and consider new digital formats to support readership and drive revenue.”

    67% of all age groups were against paying for digital news access while 50% were unwilling for print. About 60% of all millennials said they’re not willing to pay anything for digital news access.

    According to the study, 27% of millennials prefer a Netflix-like, “all-you-can-eat” payment structure for digital news. It also dound that 76% of those 55 and older are completely unwilling to pay anything for digital news access. Millennials prefer to access digital content via mobile browser (37%) vs. PC (35%).

    Here’s what the numbers look like for paying for digital news:

    85% of respondents who choose to get their news digitally cited cost as a key factor. 59% cited convenience, and surprisingly only 39% cited more up-to-date content. For print, 49% cited familiarity, while 37% said the experience is less distracting than a website. 36% cited convenience, and 27% cited perceived credibility of content.

    For those few millennials who do prefer print content, 31% cited credibility compared to 26% citing convenience. For those 35 and over, 39% cited convenience over 26% for credibility.

    When it comes to receiving and redeeming deals and retail promotions, 40% of millennials prefer digital, and this is the largest group that does. 52% of those 35 and over prefer print.

    “Retail circulars have long been one of the most effective marketing tools in retail marketing,” said Dermody. “However, broader trends in media consumption, with readers migrating from print to digital, can’t be ignored. In digitizing print circulars, retailers can navigate the evolving landscape and preserve a proven marketing strategy. They can also better connect with this new and growing group of mobile, millennial shoppers.”

    Image via Thinkstock

  • Under Bezos, Washington Post Has A New Way To Make Money

    Last year, Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos bought The Washington Post. Now, the newspaper is moving forward with a new revenue stream, and it’s something pretty unique for a newspaper publisher.

    The Post will license its content management system to other newspaper sites, according to a report from The Financial Times, which says:

    Potential clients could include the recently launched network of local and regional US newspapers whose subscribers receive free access to the Post’s digital products. The paper views “the partner programme as not just about content but about us offering technology solutions”, said Shailesh Prakash, chief information officer.

    Student newspapers at Columbia, Yale and the University of Maryland already use the Post’s content management software in a trial for how it could be opened up to other professional news services.

    The Post is already adding engineers and expanding its design and development efforts with a new office. The paper has reportedly added 20 engineers to its team of over 200 this year.

    Business Insider, which Bezos also invests in, points to comments he made at its conference:

    The internet has radically disrupted traditional newspapers, so there’s a lot of invention and experimentation to be done … even though I didn’t know anything about the newspaper business, I did know something about the internet and companies reacting to the internet. That, combined with the financial runway that I can provide, is the reason why I bought the company.

    The Post has reportedly added about 100 people to its editorial staff since Bezos took over.

    Image via The Washington Post

  • Bezos’ Washington Post Puts Amazon Affiliate Links In Articles

    Over the weekend, some observers noticed that the Washington Post, which was purchased by Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos last year, was featuring Amazon “Buy it Now” buttons/affiliate links in certain articles.

    Paul Carr at PandoDaily points to an article called “What Divisive ‘Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’ cover says about books and readers.”

    The article is about the cover art for a 50th anniversary edition of the book. Six paragraphs in there’s a paragraph that says:

    The cover is certainly a departure from other incarnations of the Roald Dahl classic, most of which (including the current U.S. printing) have featured the famed whimsical illustrations by Quentin Blake. But the “Modern Classics” imprint under which the new edition will be released is not a children’s book line.

    According to Carr’s article and a few other accounts, the words “Roald Dahl classic” contained an Amazon affiliate link, and a “Buy it Now” button appeared next to it. The link and button appear to have since been removed.

    According to Carr, they’re doing it with all their book reviews though, and there is still a visible example here (at least still visible as of the time of this writing). It’s the same kind of thing – an affiliate links and a “Buy it Now” button. They’re doing it on various news items and letters to the editor, Carr says.

    People have had mixed reactions to learning that the newspaper site has been turned into an affiliate of Bezos’ Amazon. Some find it “creepy” or otherwise shady. Others just see it as a legitimate way for a newspaper to make some extra money. As some have pointed out, other newspapers have implemented similar strategies.

    Still, this was bound to draw some level of scrutiny being that Bezos owns both parties involved.

    After announcing his purchase of the newspaper last year, Bezos wrote in a letter, “So, let me start with something critical. The values of The Post do not need changing. The paper’s duty will remain to its readers and not to the private interests of its owners. We will continue to follow the truth wherever it leads, and we’ll work hard not to make mistakes. When we do, we will own up to them quickly and completely.”

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • Google Makes Deal With Local Publishers In U.S.

    Google and The Local Media Consortium, which is made up of 800 newspapers and 200 local broadcast outlets from 41 member companies throughout the U.S., announced a strategic partnership, which will see Google providing the consortium’s members with ad products.

    The consortium will launch a private ad exchange powered by Google’s DoubleClick Ad Exchange technology. Additionally, members will have access to DoubleClick for Publishers, and the option to run AdSense ads on their sites and Google Custom Search-powered search results.

    “The Local Media Consortium represents the best of what the web has to offer in terms of content and engaged local audiences,” said Laurent Cordier, Managing Director, Americas Partnerships, News & Magazines for Google. “We’re looking forward to working with their leadership and members to build on this partnership and help grow the businesses of valued newspapers and news stations from across the country.”

    “By partnering with Google we are able to bring Google’s digital tools, technology and sales opportunities to all of our media members and our advertisers across the country,” said Patrick J. Talamantes, President and CEO of consortium member The McClatchy Company. “The vast size and scale of the Consortium’s collective audience makes this kind of partnership possible with one of the world’s top digital companies. We’re excited about the possibilities of this partnership.”

    Consortium member sites account for 10 billion monthly ad impressions, 2 billion page views and 240 million monthly unique visitors.

    Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

    Image via Google

  • This Chart Shows That Google Is Bigger Than Newspapers And Magazines

    Business Insider has put together a pretty interesting graph that is getting a lot of attention in the media. It illustrates, citing data from Google, the NAA and the PIB, that Google is now bigger than both magazines and newspapers in terms of advertising in the U.S.

    Google vs newspapers and magazines

    Business Insider CEO Henry Blodget presented the graph as a slide at the Ignition 2013 conference, and it really does paint a vivid picture about just how big of an impact Google has had on the advertising industry as the print industry declines.

    And again, this is just the U.S.

    Google is reportedly on pace to do $60 billion in revenue this year, most of which will come from advertising. And they’re even giving away some for free.

    In some countries, Google is working with publishers to help them monetize their content using Google ads.

    Image: Business Insider

  • Breaking Bad Fans Pay Tribute to Walter White in Albuquerque Journal

    SPOILERS ahead…

    A high school science teacher and giant Breaking Bad fan recently teamed up with a bunch of Facebook fans to give Walter Hartwell White the proper obituary that he deserves.

    I mean a real obituary, in an actual newspaper.

    The Albuquerque Journal, to be exact. The obit was purchased by David Layman and some fans from the Facebook group he created, the Unofficial Breaking Bad Fan Tour, and was seen on the paper’s page A4.

    “I’ve been a humongous ‘Breaking Bad’ fan since the beginning,” Layman told the Albuquerque Journal. “I was actually in the pilot, and putting the obit in the paper was fitting, because the series was based in Albuquerque and it provides some of us some closure.”

    You’re goddamn right.

    Images via Unofficial Breaking Bad Fan Tour, Facebook, , and YouTube

  • The Implications Of Bezos’ Purchase Of The Washington Post

    As you’ve more than likely learned by now, Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos is buying The Washington Post for $250 million. The news was announced Monday afternoon, and the Internet (at least the business end of it) just about exploded with excitement, skepticism and other reaction in general.

    Can tech mogul Bezos reinvent the newspaper? Let us know in the comments.

    Just in case it hasn’t been made immediately clear by whichever source you first learned the news from, Amazon is not buying The Washington Post, but rather Bezos is himself, and reportedly only for less than 1% of his personal net worth, no less.

    Bezos wrote a letter to Washington Post employees, which has been published at WashingtonPost.com. He begins by noting that he understands the news will be greeted with “a degree of apprehension,” and that “it is only natural to worry about change.”

    “So, let me start with something critical,” Bezos says. “The values of The Post do not need changing. The paper’s duty will remain to its readers and not to the private interests of its owners. We will continue to follow the truth wherever it leads, and we’ll work hard not to make mistakes. When we do, we will own up to them quickly and completely.”

    He notes that he will not be leading the company day-to-day, and that the Post already has “an excellent leadership team” that is staying on. It was noted in the initial announcement that publisher and CEO Katharine Weymouth, president and GM Stephen P. Hills, executive editor Martin Baron and editorial page editor Fred Hiatt would continue in their respective roles.

    “There will, of course, be change at The Post over the coming years,” Bezos continues. “That’s essential and would have happened with or without new ownership. The Internet is transforming almost every element of the news business: shortening news cycles, eroding long-reliable revenue sources, and enabling new kinds of competition, some of which bear little or no news-gathering costs. There is no map, and charting a path ahead will not be easy. We will need to invent, which means we will need to experiment. Our touchstone will be readers, understanding what they care about – government, local leaders, restaurant openings, scout troops, businesses, charities, governors, sports – and working backwards from there. I’m excited and optimistic about the opportunity for invention.”

    “Journalism plays a critical role in a free society, and The Washington Post — as the hometown paper of the capital city of the United States — is especially important,” he adds. “I would highlight two kinds of courage the Grahams have shown as owners that I hope to channel. The first is the courage to say wait, be sure, slow down, get another source. Real people and their reputations, livelihoods and families are at stake. The second is the courage to say follow the story, no matter the cost. While I hope no one ever threatens to put one of my body parts through a wringer, if they do, thanks to Mrs. Graham’s example, I’ll be ready.”

    Donald Graham, CEO and Chairman of The Washington Post Company, also put out a letter about the sale. In that, he says, “Our revenues had declined seven years in a row. We had innovated, and to my critical eye our innovations had been quite successful in audience and in quality, but they hadn’t made up for the revenue decline. Our answer had to be cost cuts, and we knew there was a limit to that. We were certain the paper would survive under our ownership, but we wanted it to do more than that. We wanted it to succeed.”

    Weymouth put out a letter as well, referring to Bezos as “one of America’s great innovators and most respected business leaders.”

    “The Washington Post has earned a worldwide reputation for tough, penetrating, insightful, and indispensable journalism. With the investment by Mr. Bezos, that tradition will continue,” Weymouth says.

    “While he expects The Post to remain profitable, his focus is on the essential role that our journalism has on dialogue and the flow of information in our society,” she says. “Mr. Bezos knows as well as anyone the opportunities that come with revolutionary technology when we understand how to make the most of it. Under his ownership and with his management savvy, we will be able to accelerate the pace and quality of innovation.”

    To many, the news of the deal came as a pretty big surprise, but as Quartz points out, there were signs that it was coming. They give three of them: Bezos sold roughly $185 million in Amazon shares on Friday, Bezos is friends with Graham, and he “love running unprofitable businesses.”

    Okay, that last one might be a bit of a stretch, but writer Tim Fernholz does have a point when he says, “At Amazon, Bezos has focused on market-share and customer satisfaction, often at the expense of his margins. Nonetheless, markets have continued to reward his disinterest in their metrics, sending Amazon’s stock soaring above $300 despite the company’s $7 million in losses last quarter.”

    And it’s not as though Bezos hasn’t shown an interest in the news industry in the past. He did, after all, invest in Business Insider, which has quickly become a major web publication since expanding beyond its original Silicon Alley Insider model.

    The investment came in April, when BI CEO Henry Blodget had this to say in an email to staff about the $5 million investment (which wasn’t all from Bezos, but also included some financing from other investors):

    This capital will allow us to continue to invest aggressively in many areas of the business, including editorial, tech/product, sales and marketing, subscriptions, and events. As we mentioned last night, it will also allow us to expand our office.

    Jeff’s investment grew out of a dinner he and I had about a year ago. We talked about the business, and he was excited about it. (He sees some parallels with Amazon). A few months later, he expressed an interest in investing. My reaction was basically “Hell, yeah!”

    Naturally, Blodget had some thoughts about Bezos’ purchase of The Washington Post as well. He notes that having Bezos as an investor has been great, then speculates about why he might have bought the Post:

    First, I’d guess that Jeff Bezos thinks that owning the Washington Post will be fun, interesting, and cool. And my guess is that, if that is all it ever turns out to be, Jeff Bezos will be fine with that. This is a man who invests in rockets and atomic clocks, after all. He doesn’t necessarily make these investments for the money. Or bragging rights. Or strategic synergies.

    Second, I’d guess that Jeff Bezos thinks that there are some similarities between the digital news business and his business (ecommerce) that no one in the news business has really capitalized on yet.

    After listing some specific similarities, he suggests that the Washington Post business could be complementary to Amazon in that Amazon already produces content, is in the subscription and media-gadget businesses, and is getting into local deliveries. Also, in the sense that news might sometimes encourage people to buy things.

    Some have suggested that Bezos’ purchase of the newspaper business is something of a charity case. You know, like he has a lot of money, and feels that he has some kind of duty to contribute to the saving of journalism.

    Washington Post reporter Lydia DePillis doesn’t see it that way. She writes, “First of all, don’t be deceived by the fact that Bezos is buying it himself, rather than Amazon–there’s little reason to believe this is a passion project. It just would’ve been tricky to make it a public takeover, because corporations don’t know how to value a newspaper’s future earnings. And besides, though the markets have been remarkably patient with Amazon’s continued losses, a money pit like the Post would’ve been harder to stomach.”

    She notes that while $250 million may not seem like a lot compared to some other acquisitions, it’s a lot for “a company with a lot of liabilities,” noting that the Boston Globe just sold for $70 million.

    She speculates that the Post’s site will get a big redesign, and “could become a major new sales and advertising platform”. She also suggests that Bezos can obtain a lot of data from owning a new service, among other things.

    Despite Bezos buying the business on his own, rather than as Amazon, plenty are still expecting there to be some Amazon connections. Whether or not these occur remains to be see.

    Search Engine Land’s founding editor Danny Sullivan made an interesting comment on Twitter: “The once inconceivable idea Google would buy [The] New York Times took [a] giant leap toward reality with Amazon-Wash Post deal.”

    This stems from comments Google executives allegedly made a few years back. Here’s what Eric Schmidt said back then:

    “We had a series of conversations about what to do about content, and we ultimately decided to not to get into the content business. We looked at the New York Times but also other institutions. Rather than naming them, let’s just say we did a survey. And our conclusion was we are not very good at [content].

    “We like information, but we think it’s better for those to be managed the professionals that are managing them well. I’m careful not to ever rule out anything, because that’s a mistake as a CEO. But I would tell you it’s highly unlikely we would get into the content business.

    “It’s fundamentally better for us to be the supplier of platforms and monetization and revenue and advertising and subscription services to all of these players. We desperately need the newspapers, the magazines, the media companies to be successful because we need their content.

    “The thing we can offer is better monetization, better targeting and a better user experience viewing content created by very, very sophisticated people. … If it’s content, where you have people producing content that viewers are looking at, we’re better off powering it, not writing it and owning it.”

    Of course, a great deal of time has passed, and Google has already had to start putting money toward news publications in some cases. Who knows what’s possible? Some of us would just like to see Google News get actual news right in terms of when it was published.

    In addition to The Washington Post, Bezos will get the Express newspaper, The Gazette Newspapers, Southern Maryland Newspapers, Fairfax County Times, El Tiempo Latino and Greater Washington Publishing. He will not, however, get Slate, TheRoot.com or Foreign Policy, which will all remain part of The Washington Post Company.

    The WaPo Labs and SocialCode businesses, the company’s interest in Classified Ventures and certain real estate assets like the headquarters in Washington D.C. will also remain with the company.

    The Washington Post Company will be changing its name in light of the deal, but what that name will be has yet to be determined. The deal is expected to close later this year.

    What do you think about Bezos buying The Washington Post? Do you think it will remain completely separate from Amazon? Do you think the move is good for the newspaper? For the industry in general? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    Image: James Duncan Davidson (Flickr)

  • Newspapers Are Dying For A Lot Of Reasons, And Craigslist Is One Of Them

    Newspapers are dying. It’s an inevitable fact that the Internet has made print newspapers largely irrelevant. People think that the Internet has only robbed newspapers of their readers due to the medium’s ability to deliver news faster, but a new study has found that the Internet has been taking ad dollars from newspapers as well.

    The Raw Story reports a new research study to be published in Management Science by New York University has found that Craigslist took a huge chunk out of newspapers’ classified ads business between 2000 and 2007. How big of a chunk? At least $5 billion.

    So, what kind of impact has Craigslist had on small newspapers? The study found that there was a massive 20.7 percent drop in classified ad rates in the seven years surveyed by researchers. During that same time, they found that subscription prices rose by 3.3 percent while circulation fell by 4.4 percent. With those numbers, it’s a losing game for small newspapers unless they can somehow convince readers to pony up even more money per newspaper.

    What should worry more newspapers is that the study didn’t take into account any decline in classified ad rates from 2008 to 2012. The researchers fear that newspapers may have felt the sting of Craigslist even more over the last four years. The study also didn’t take into account other online classified ad services so the impact could be even greater.

    Despite the doom and gloom surrounding the death of newspapers, the researchers are largely positive. They feel that newspapers are adjusting their business models to deal with the shortfall left behind by the loss of readers and ads. That’s true for the larger newspapers, like The New York Times, that have successfully transitioned to online and mobile.

    Unfortunately, there are a lot of small papers without any online presence at all. They will feel the sting of declining readers and ad revenue the most. It doesn’t help that those same small papers are never afforded the resources to successfully transition to an online business model.

    If all else fails, maybe those smaller papers can ask a bored, rich white guy in Silicon Valley to buy them.

  • Jeff Bezos Is Buying The Washington Post

    The Washington Post Company just announced that Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos is buying its publishing business, including The Washington Post newspaper for $250 million.

    I bet you didn’t see that coming.

    To be clear, Bezos is buying it. Not Amazon. It will not become an Amazon property.

    “Everyone at the Post Company and everyone in our family has always been proud of The Washington Post — of the newspaper we publish and of the people who write and produce it,” said Donald E. Graham, Chairman and CEO of The Washington Post Company. “I, along with Katharine Weymouth and our board of directors, decided to sell only after years of familiar newspaper-industry challenges made us wonder if there might be another owner who would be better for the Post (after a transaction that would be in the best interest of our shareholders). Jeff Bezos’ proven technology and business genius, his long-term approach and his personal decency make him a uniquely good new owner for the Post.”

    “I understand the critical role the Post plays in Washington, DC and our nation, and the Post’s values will not change,” said Mr. Bezos. “Our duty to readers will continue to be the heart of the Post, and I am very optimistic about the future.”

    Bezos wants publisher and CEO Katharine Weymouth and president and GM Stephen P. Hills, executive editor Martin Baron and editorial page editor Fred Hiatt to continue in their respective roles. Apparently they have agreed.

    “With Mr. Bezos as our owner, this is the beginning of an exciting new era,” said Weymouth. “I am honored to continue as CEO and Publisher. I have asked the entire senior management team at all of the businesses being sold to continue in their roles as well.”

    In addition to The Washington Post, Bezos will get the Express newspaper, The Gazette Newspapers, Southern Maryland Newspapers, Fairfax County Times, El Tiempo Latino and Greater Washington Publishing. He will not, however, get Slate, TheRoot.com or Foreign Policy, which will all remain part of The Washington Post Company.

    The WaPo Labs and SocialCode businesses, the company’s interest in Classified Ventures and certain real estate assets like the headquarters in Washington D.C. will also remain with the company.

    The Washington Post Company will be changing its name in light of the deal, but what that name will be has yet to be determined. The deal is expected to close later this year.

  • Chicago Sun-Times Lays Off Its Entire Photography Staff

    In yet another sign of the effect the internet has had on physical newspapers, the Chicago Sun-Times this week announced that it has laid off all of its staff photographers.

    The newspaper released a statement on the move, saying that its audience is “seeking more video content with their news.” The statement, in full:

    The Sun-Times business is changing rapidly and our audiences are consistently seeking more video content with their news. We have made great progress in meeting this demand and are focused on bolstering our reporting capabilities with video and other multimedia elements. The Chicago Sun-Times continues to evolve with our digitally savvy customers, and as a result, we have had to restructure the way we manage multimedia, including photography, across the network.

    According to a Chicago Tribune report, the Sun-Times’ financial situation also heavily contributed to the layoffs. The Tribune cited an unnamed “knowledgeable source” as saying the Sun-Times is not currently profitable due to several recent failed initiatives, such as the short-lived online video segment The Marin Report.

    The Chicago Newspaper Guild, the union that represents many of the laid-off photographers, has stated that it will fight the layoffs. Guild President David Pollard called the move “shocking and disheartning.”

    “The photojournalists that have contributed to this company over the years have been invaluable and it is appalling that the Sun-Times has made such a move that will impact the quality of photojournalism the newspaper produces,” said Pollard.

  • Newspapers Support AP Fight Against Meltwater

    A group of newspapers, including The New York Times, has lent its support to The Associated Press in a lawsuit against Meltwater, a company that scans news from around the world, and helps businesses track keywords and topics of interest. The service reportedly reproduces headlines and story snippets for clients, along with links to the actual stories – pretty much like a search engine.

    The TImes filed a brief with the court, calling Meltwater a “free-rider,” which engages in the “wholesale copying and redistribution” of its news reports.The brief is also endorsed by other publishers including Gannett and McClatchy (via PaidContent).

    As described on its site, Meltwater offers a product that tracks keywords, phrases, and topics in over 192,000 sources from over 190 countries and 100 languages, and monitors these sources consistently throughout the day. It searches an unlimited amount of keywords throughout the publications, and lets customers receieve daily reports at the timing and frequency of their choosing, “collated into easily digested categories,” as the company describes it.

    Interestingly, the brief paints Google News in a positive light, at least in comparison to Meltwater. The publishers claim that the rate of clickthrough is much greater with Google News and similar services than it is for Meltwater.

    TechDirt reported on the battle between the AP and Meltwater as far back as last April, saying that if the AP’s argument gains traction, it could “effectively outlaw search engines”. Mike Masnick shared this statement from Meltwater at the time:

    Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of copyright misuse. Through this Complaint and through other means, Plaintiff seeks to misuse its limited copyright monopoly to extend its control over the Internet search market more generally, thereby improperly expanding the protections afforded by U.S. copyright law. Among other things, AP has misused its copyright monopoly by demanding that third parties take licenses for search results, which do not require a license under U.S. copyright law, and AP has also formed a consortium (called NewsRight) with the purpose of further misusing its copyright monopoly to extract licensing fees that exceed what the law allows.

    We’ve discussed Newsright in the past.

    Meltwater has actually filed a counter-suit against the AP on the grounds of libel, and has the support of the EFF, and as Jeff John Roberts at PaidContent points out, even the Google-backed Computer and Communications Industry Association has backed Meltwater’s claim that it’s a search engine. He shares the NYT Amicus Brief:

    NYT Amicus Brief for Meltwater by

    Earlier this month, Meltwater issued a press release saying it was taking the fight to protect Internet users from unintentionally infringing copyright law.

  • Don’t Expect Google To Fund Publishers All Over The World

    Earlier this month, Google announced an agreement with publishers in France, which involves Google creating a €60 million fund called the DIgital Publishing Innovation Fund to “help support transformative digital publishing initiatives for French readers.” The agreement came after a lengthy battle with publishers who wish to be paid for the privilege of search engines to link (with snippets) to their content. It’s a similar mindset to that of publishers all over the world.

    Reuters called the agreement “a deal on payment of media links”. That’s certainly what it feels like. Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt explained the deal:

    First, Google has agreed to create a €60 million Digital Publishing Innovation Fund to help support transformative digital publishing initiatives for French readers. Second, Google will deepen our partnership with French publishers to help increase their online revenues using our advertising technology.

    This exciting announcement builds on the commitments we made in 2011 to increase our investment in France—including our Cultural Institute in Paris to help preserve amazing cultural treasures such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. These agreements show that through business and technology partnerships we can help stimulate digital innovation for the benefit of consumers, our partners and the wider web.

    From the sound of it, however, we shouldn’t expect this to set a precedent for how we’re going to see Google operate around the globe. For one, in Germany (where Google has been facing a simliar battle), publishers aren’t all that interested in a deal like the one in France, as it would be a Google-specific “solution” to their problem, and wouldn’t apply to other search engines.

    For that matter, Google is not looking to enter similar agreements with publishers in other countries. TechCrunch reports that Google has no plans to create “digital innovation” funds for publishers outside of France. The publication shares this statement from a Google spokesperson:

    “While we are always happy to talk to publishers about additional ideas for driving traffic, engagement, and monetization, we are not currently looking to create a fund outside France.”

    Google did reach an agreement with publishers in Belgium in December, following six years of litigation, but it did not involve one of these funds. Rather, as part of that agreement, Google said it would advertise its services on publishers’ media, and publishers would optimize their use of AdWords. Google would also work with Belgian French-language publishers to “help increase publishers’ revenue,” collaborating on ways to make money with Paywalls and subscriptions, and with AdSense and the Ad Exchange. Google would also work with Belgian publishers to implement Google+ social tools and launch YouTube channels.

    When Google announced that deal, it said it would like to come to similar terms with publishers around the world, so we may be seeing more of this type of “solution,” rather than Google just funding publishers. As we’re seeing, each country’s publishers has a unique view of the situation, and it doesn’t look like we’re going to see a worldwide standard.

    In Brazil, publishers have gone so far as to simply pull out of Google News.

  • German Publishers Reportedly Won’t Go For A Google Deal Like Those In France

    Google and France President Francois Hollande, on Friday, announced a deal that the search giant has made with French publishers to who want to be paid for the content that Google links to.

    Google agreed to create a €60 million fund called the DIgital Publishing Innovation Fund to “help support transformative digital publishing initiatives for French readers.” Google says it will also “deepen” its partnership with French publishers to help increase their online revenues using Google’s ad technology.

    Though Google has indicated that it hopes to reach similar agreements with publishers in other countries, it doesn’t look like those in Germany are going for it. Germany’s The Local reports that German newspapers have rejected the idea of copying the agreement Google made with French publishers:

    The German association of newspaper publishers (BDZV) said the French agreement did have some positive points. The major of these was that it was established and accepted “that the aggregation of content from third parties as a business model costs them money,” said Anja Pasquay, BDZV spokeswoman on Sunday.

    But she said a drawback was that the French solution only referred to Google. “The publishers there have no legal recourse against other aggregators who operate in the same fashion – or those who will do so in the future,” she said.

    Back in December, Google made a deal with publishers in Belgium. While not exactly the same as the one it made in France, it seems that German publishers would take similar issue with such a deal.

  • Would You Ever Pay To Link?

    Money for links. What a concept. We’re not talking about paying someone to have them link to you. We all know Google’s stance on that. If you pay for a link that passes PageRank, and Google discovers it, you’ll find yourself with some SEO problems, to say the least. The fact that people do engage in this practice, however, illustrates that links can be valuable. People want others to link to their content, because that means potential eyeballs on their sites. How backwards is it then, that there are actually organizations who think their content is so special that they have the nerve to charge others for the privilege of linking to it.

    There is some great content out there, but is there any that is so good that you would pay just to link to it? Keep in mind, we’re not talking about republishing that content and linking to the original source. We’re not talking about writing a blog post, maybe pulling a quote or two, and linking to the original source. We’re not even talking about pulling snippets and linking to content in Google fashion (which has certainly been a controversial topic in the publishing world for years). No, we’re just talking about a simple link.

    Would you ever pay to link to any piece of content? If so, in what kind of scenario would payment for links be justified? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    There was a bit of an uproar last week (understandably), when a story made the rounds, claiming that the National Newspapers of Ireland, a group representing 16 national daily, Sunday and weekly newspapers and 25 local and regional newspapers, is enforcing a policy requiring any site linking to one of its member publicationsto pay at least 300 Euros (and more than that for multiple links).

    Lawyer Simon McGarr posted an article about attempts from the organization to get money from one of his clients, a domestic violence charity, for linking to newspaper content. McGarr wrote:

    This year the Irish newspaper industry asserted, first tentatively and then without any equivocation, that links -just bare links like this one- belonged to them. They said that they had the right to be paid to be linked to. They said they had the right to set the rates for those links, as they had set rates in the past for other forms of licensing of their intellectual property. And then they started a campaign to lobby for unauthorised linking to be outlawed.

    These assertions were not merely academic positions. The Newspaper Industry (all these newspapers) had its agent write out demanding money. They wrote to Women’s Aid, (amongst others) who became our clients when they received letters, emails and phone calls asserting that they needed to buy a licence because they had linked to articles in newspapers carrying positive stories about their fundraising efforts. These are the prices for linking they were supplied with:

    1 – 5 €300.00
    6 – 10 €500.00
    11 – 15 €700.00
    16 – 25 €950.00
    26 – 50 €1,350.00
    50 + Negotiable

    McGarr’s story was picked up by Slashdot, and was referenced by media industry analysts like Jeff Jarvis, Jay Rosen, and Matthew Ingram, who wrote a good piece about the situation.

    McGarr called the whole thing: “2012: The year Irish newspapers tried to destroy the web.” He has since followed it up with some Twitter reaction, and an update about the policy from Newspaper Licensing Ireland (a group set up by the Newspapers of Ireland), who issued a statement on Friday.

    He quotes the group as saying, “For personal use: NLI never requires or requests a licence for personal use of newspaper content.For commercial use: NLI does not require a licence from any organisation which only displays or transmits links to newspaper content. A licence is required when there is other reproduction of the newspaper content, such as display of PDFs or text extracts.”

    So, apparently still no quoting, commonly considered to be fair use (within reason).

    “Of more general social value, the damaging assertion that permission was required (and could be refused) to link to another website has been abandoned,” wrote McGarr. “For the sake of the country’s free exchange of views, this is a significant development.”

    The group put out a much longer press release on the matter. Here’s what that says under “Our Position on Linking”:

    Some of the discussion over the last few days has been around whether a hyperlink from one website to another, in itself and without any more, constitutes copyright infringement. That exact issue was in fact one raised a number of months ago in the Consultation Paper issued by the Copyright Review Committee appointed by the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to review existing copyright legislation. In the Consultation Paper, the Committee expressly requested that submissions would be made by any interested parties on the issue and as to whether our existing copyright law should be changed so as to specifically include a positive statement to the effect that linking in itself, without more, does not constitute an infringement of copyright legislation. This request for submissions was made by the Committee in the context where the Committee itself states in its Consultation Paper that there are “divided” views from Courts as to whether the display of links in itself is an infringement of copyright. The Consultation Paper was made publicly available and anyone was free to make a submission on it.

    NNI made a submission to the effect that our view of existing legislation is that the display and transmission of links does constitute an infringement of copyright and our existing copyright law should not be amended in the manner discussed in the Consultation Paper. We understand that some people do not agree with that interpretation of the law. Equally, there are others who do agree with it. As already indicated, the Committee itself acknowledged that there are divided views on this. We await, in due course, the final report from the Copyright Review Committee and await sight of whatever they might say or recommend on the point.

    It is important, in fairness to us and our members, to specifically note here that the submission made on behalf of NNI to the Copyright Review Committee also expressly recognised that there is a distinction between the sending and receipt of links for personal use on the one hand and the sending and receipt of links for commercial purposes on the other (despite the fact that the same legal principles apply to both). NNI specifically stated that its members accept that linking for personal use is part of how individuals communicate on-line and that our members have no issue with that. Emphasis ours.

    As Ingram points out, the statement from the group “confirms that it is lobbying to have Irish copyright laws define links as copyright infringement.”

    As far as the distinction between personal and commercial use, where exactly is that distinction in today’s online world of social media, blogging, citizen journalism, and content creation and curation?

    The whole thing is kind of ironic, because even many of the major media corporations of the world, would like to see more linking to their own properties. Look at this case from last year where a guy had to go to court for linking to copyright infringing content.

    The argument about links has been going on for many years now. In the end, there is always the question, do links not drive traffic to the content in question? There are many publications on the web who would love to be linked to more (You can count us among them. By all means, link.). Why is the newspaper industry so resistant to the way of the web, even as the industry embraces it as a platform? Is it just that their content is so good that online-only publications could never match the quality? I’ve seen plenty of original reporting and breaking news coming from online-only outlets. I can’t think of too many who would try to charge for a link, or even a link and a snippet or quote or “text extract” within the bounds of ethical fair use.

    What content is so good that people should pay for the right to link to it? Tell us what you think.

  • Does Google Even Need Newspaper Publishers?

    In case you haven’t been following, Google has been battling traditional media publishers in a number of countries for years. Publishers want Google to pay to license their content so they can point to it in search results. In Brazil, 90% of the country’s newspaper circulation pulled out of Google News entirely. In France, Google faces a potential law which would require it to pay publishers to keep pointing to their content.

    We’ve discussed this situation numerous times, but Frédéric Filloux, GM for digital operations at Les Echos Groupe and based in Paris, has put out an interesting article looking at how traditional media fits into the Google equation, and the data he shares doesn’t make it seem like Google would miss these publishers too much.

    He looks at Google Trends data to look at the most searched terms in the U.S., France and Germany.

    “Except for large dominant American news topics (‘Hurricane Sandy’ or ‘presidential debate’), very few search results bring back contents coming from mainstream media,” he points out. “As Google rewards freshness of contents — as well as sharp SEO tactics — ‘web native’ media and specialized web sites perform much better than their elder ‘migrants’, that is web versions of traditional media.”

    He then brings up monetization, and how media contents contribute to Google’ bottom line. He looks at the most expensive keywords, which include things like: insurance, loans, mortgage, attorney, credit, lawyer, donate, degree, hosting, claim, conference call, trading, software, recovery, transfer, gas/electricity, classes, rehab, treatment and cord blood.

    “By construction, traditional media do not bring money to the classification above,” writes Filloux. “In addition, as an insider said to me this week, no one is putting ads against keywords such as ‘war in Syria’ or against the 3.2 billion results of a ‘Hurricane Sandy’ query. Indeed, in the curve of ad words value, news slides to the long tail.”

    He talks about all that Google has done and continues to do to deliver results to users for various types of search itself (as in not having to send users to other sites), such as shopping, flight search, etc., the Knowledge Graph, and concludes that as far as Google is concerned, having newspaper articles is just “small cool stuff”.

    In other words, Google can get by just fine relying more on “web native” media, if traditional media publications want to pull themselves out of the mix.

    This all comes at a time, mind you, when social media is playing an enormous role in breaking news (look simply to Twitter and Instagram’s roles in Hurricane Sandy news last week). Google has a whole other issue to worry about on that front.

    Losing any source, whether that be a newspaper or real-time access to tweets, does set Google back in its stated mission – to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible, but it’s looking less and less likely that Google will ever truly be able to accomplish that mission. Not only would this require cooperation from competitors, Google also faces potential regulation from various governments.

    As far as the traditional media, if Brazil is any indication, they may be in no worse shape without Google. The publishers that pulled out don’t seem to be missing the Google referrals too much, even if their traffic is a bit lower. On the other hand, that is a country where Google News has been deemed “irrelevant”.

  • Google vs. Publishers: Who’s Right?

    The story is old, but it is ongoing. It’s the same argument that’s been around for years, but it’s reaching a boiling point, and it’s doing so at a time when the flow of news is coming from more directions than it ever has before. Hurricane Sandy is just the latest in a long line of examples proving that point. Publishers want Google to pay them for the right to point to their content, and Google does not wish to do so.

    Should Google have to pay to link to content in Google News? Tell us what you think.

    The battle continues in Europe. This week, Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt met with French President François Hollande, who according to a report from Bloomberg BusinessWeek (in an article that I did not find by using Google News), “demanded Google reach a deal with publishers”.

    Google responded to the French point of view even before Schmidt’s meeting. Here’s what the company said in a blog post a couple weeks ago:

    The web has led to an explosion of content creation, by both professional and citizen journalists. So it’s not a secret that we think a law like the one proposed in France and Germany would be very damaging to the internet. We have said so publicly for three years.

    Google’s point about the “explosion of content creation” is very valid. Google has been pretty consistent in that it will not pay publishers to link to their content in search results. The question is whether Google users will noticeably suffer if Google stops including content from certain publishers.

    This is currently being put to the test in Brazil, where 90% of the country’s newspaper circulation has pulled its content out of Google News. The publishers seem to be getting by fine without Google News (they haven’t pulled out of Google Web Search). The Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas reported that these publishers have only seen a decrease in web traffic of 5%. Isabela Fraga and Natalia Mazotte report:

    “The (newspapers) themselves believed that the 5-percent loss was a price worth paying to defend our authors’ rights and our brands,” said Ricardo Pedreira, ANJ’s executive director in a phone interview with the Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas.

    “The fact is, Google News is absolutely irrelevant in Brazil,” said Carlos Müller, ANJ’s communications advisor. “If you go into Google News now and search for (Brazil’s) President Dilma, you’re going to see that none of the websites of the main newspapers in the country are there.”

    “It’s important to point out,” he added, “that the portals of some news companies are still (in Google News).”

    That doesn’t mean, however that publications everywhere could get by as well without Google News. The Bloomberg article quotes Ricardo Pedreira, executive director of Brazil’s National Association of Newspapers, as saying, “Every country has a specific reality, and I think there will probably evolve different models in each nation.”

    Google is already facing turbulence in Germany and Italy, in addition to France, so we may very well see publications pulling out of Google News in these countries as Google refuses to pay. Google has made the point in the past, that without said publications, users would be able to find information from other sources.

    In September, Google revealed that Google News is currently available in 72 editions in 30 languages, and counts 50,000 publications among its news sources.

    “Linking to a diverse set of sources for any given story enabled readers to easily access different perspectives and genres of content,” Google said recounting the product’s history. “By featuring opposing viewpoints in the same display block, people were encouraged to hear arguments on both sides of an issue and gain a more balanced perspective.”

    If publishers pull out, they face having their viewpoint lost from users’ view. However, that certainly does not mean that they will not be able to reach audiences via different means, thanks in some part to that explosion of content Google refers to.

    Social media has rapidly emerged as a major source of news consumption in recent years. People don’t have to rely on Google News (or search in general) as much as they might have in the past. People have news driven to them via Facebook, Twitter, and numerous other channels all day, every day, right to the phones in their pockets.

    In a recent article, I made the case that Google is even risking pushing more news seekers to Twitter specifically thanks to its lack of real time search. Twitter is the place to go if you want to find up to the second updates about anything, like say, a hurricane.

    While Google has certainly offered some valuable resources related to Hurricane Sandy, it wasn’t Google that all of the journalism articles were talking about over the past week, with regards to how the news was coming out. There was a lot more talk about Twitter and Instagram (pictures from which were often surfaced via Twitter).

    Sure, Google News has continued to serve its general purpose, but the news, as it often does, was breaking on Twitter. Google’s right. There’s an explosion of content, and that’s not going to change. People will find ways to get their news with or without publications in Google News (many of these same publications will be easily found via social media).

    So who needs who more? Google or publishers? Google will want to make sure it has enough quality sources in its results, but it is unlikely that they will have to pay many publishers to do so, because thousands simply want to be discoverable in Google, and are happy to be there without demanding fees. Google does have an agreement with the AP for hosted content, and it’s possible that Google could look to plug any potential holes with similar arrangements, but it’s unlikely that Google will submit to such deals with a sizable number of publications. They simply don’t need all of that content that badly. Do they?

    Well, I would say no they don’t, to be a useful service. Readers can get by without a lot of the sources currently in Google News. But, on the other hand, losing a significant amount of publications would also be a continued failure at Google’s mission, which is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible. It seems that this mission is not worth paying publishers as far as Google is concerned.

    What would you do if Google News lost 90% of newspaper publications in your country? Would you miss them? How would you consume your news? How do you consume it now? Let us know in the comments.

  • Matt Cutts Has To Explain Paid Links To Newspaper

    Google’s Matt Cutts has a new blog post up about paid links. He says he was contacted by an unnamed newspaper who saw its Pagerank drop from a 7 to a 3, and wanted to know why. The reason, as Cutts explains, was because the site was selling links that passed PageRank, which is, of course, a violation of Google’s quality guidelines.

    Cutts shares an email he sent to the newspaper (leaving out the identifying info). Here’s a chunk of what he had to tell them:

    In particular, earlier this year on [website] we saw links labeled as sponsored that passed PageRank, such as a link like [example link]. That’s a clear violation of Google’s quality guidelines, and it’s the reason that [website]‘s PageRank as well as our trust in the website has declined.

    In fact, we received a outside spam report about your site. The spam report passed on an email from a link seller offering to sell links on multiple pages on [website] based on their PageRank. Some pages mentioned in that email continue to have unusual links to this day. For example [example url] has a section labeled “PARTNER LINKS” which links to [linkbuyer].

    So my advice would be to investigate how paid links that pass PageRank ended up on [website]: who put them there, are any still up, and to investigate whether someone at the [newspaper] received money to post paid links that pass PageRank without disclosing that payment, e.g. using ambiguous labeling such as “Partner links.” That’s definitely where I would dig.

    Cutts goes on to suggest that after the site completes an investigation, and gets rid of any paid links that pass PageRank, it submit a reconsideration request.

    In the comments section of the post, Cutts notes that a drop in PageRank toolbar is an indication of Google’s decreased trust in a site. In this case, because of link selling.

    Of course since the Penguin update (and even before it), people have been getting messages from Google about bad links, and it’s caused a lot of panic. This panic seems to be reflect in the comments of Cutts’ post, with some webmasters wondering if they should simply place nofollow on all of their links to avoid Google penalties.

    Well, if everyone put nofollow on all of their links, it would pretty much render PageRank meaningless, wouldn’t it?

    One reader suggests that PageRank shouldn’t even be made visible to the public, as high PageRank blogs draw more spam.

    The subject of paid links also came up in this Webmaster Hangout Google hosted yesterday.

  • Warren Buffett Declares Free News Unsustainable

    When Warren Buffett speaks, Wall Street listens. The 81-year-old Chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway has used his keen business sense to become one of the richest men in the world. So, when Warren Buffett says that free news is bad business, publications around the world might want to take a second look at their business models.

    Buffett’s proclamation came in a letter he wrote to employees of newspapers that Berkshire Hathaway recently acquired. Bloomberg quotes the letter in their report:

    “This is an unsustainable model and certain of our papers are already making progress in moving to something that makes more sense,” Buffett wrote in a letter to editors and publishers of Berkshire’s daily newspapers. “We want your best thinking as we work out the blend of digital and print that will attract both the audience and the revenue we need.”

    According to Bloomberg , Buffett wants to buy more newspapers and will shift their focus to more local, community-oriented news. This may be newspapers’ last great hope, as digital news companies that have tried to orient toward community news, such as AOL’s Patch, have not seen success. Niche news is certainly the best bet for a pay-for-news service, and The Wall Street Journal’s paywall has made money due to that publication’s first and last-word status within the business community.

    Now, Buffett has a higher business acumen than almost any person alive, so questioning his views on that subject is not usually good for an investor. However, it is possible that his age has kept him slightly out of touch with developing technologies, much the same way news mogul Rupert Murdoch has struggled on the web. The fact is, every Twitter user is potentially a journalist. Every blog author is a publisher. The ability of the internet to disseminate information instantly means news will spread without news organizations. Whether or not Buffett knows it, news organizations will have to acknowledge the power of the free flow of information on the web. With publishing essentially free, that means news will be free, whether sustainable business models can be built around it or not. Though some hybrid paywall schemes, such as The New York Times’, have see limited success, the face remains: news is free now.

    (via Bloomberg)

  • Times-Picayune to Only Print Three Times a Week

    Times-Picayune, one of the oldest newspapers in the nation, will only print three times a week beginning this fall. By doing so, New Orleans effectively becomes the largest city without a newspaper that runs seven days a week. Additionally, three other papers owned by Advance Publications, The Birmingham News, the Press-Register in Mobile, and The Huntsville Times, will cut down to three days, as well.

    After all is said and done, the newspaper will only run print editions on Wednesdays, Fridays, and Sundays.

    Although the Times-Picayune won the Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in 2005, the recession, as well as competition from numerous online news outlets, has forced the company’s hand. Lay-offs are expected, though no details surrounding the cutbacks have been announced as of this writing. Currently, the Times-Picayune has one of the highest circulations when compared to other large-market papers.

    Anne Milling, a member of the Times-Picayune advisory board, is extremely saddened by the news, so much so that she and other backers are currently considering starting another daily newspaper. “We always do things differently,” Milling stated. “It’s part of our tradition: You wake up with a cup of chicory coffee and read the newspaper.”

    Found by Francis Lumsden and George Wilkins Kendall in 1837, the paper was originally called The Picayune, named after a Spanish coin which also served as its price. After her husband died in 1876, Eliza Jane Nicholson inherited the publication, which was facing some financial issues at the time. In order to help reinvigorate the newspaper, writers began to introduce articles devoted to society, children, and women, which effectively tripled its circulation. In 1914, The Picayune merged with its rival Times-Democrat, becoming The Times-Picayune in the process.

    People are clearly saddened by the cutbacks, as evidenced by the amount of heavy-hearted posts currently popping up on Twitter. Have a look at some of these reactions below.

    Very sad news. The paper where I started my career, The Times-Picayune in New Orleans, will end daily publication http://t.co/J3XeZ935
    49 minutes ago via TweetDeck · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    The Times Picayune crew at Molly’s, celebrating the paper’s life rather than mourning its death. http://t.co/rSwun9Yu
    5 hours ago via Twitter for iPhone · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    New Orleans Times Picayune About to Undergo Big Cuts http://t.co/4NfQBXuO A great town deserves a great paper.
    1 day ago via bitly · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    New Orleans is a great city. The Times-Picayune is one of its treasures. This is sad for anyone who reads, anywhere. http://t.co/vy35LACp“”
    1 day ago via Twitter for iPad · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

    So the Times-Picayune, one of the great papers, will now publish on Wed/Fri/Sun only. Not like anybody reads about the Saints on Mondays.
    23 hours ago via TweetDeck · powered by @socialditto
     Reply  · Retweet  · Favorite

  • Associated Press: You Can Link, But It’s Not Encouraged [Updated]

    The Associated Press and the Internet at large have had something or a rocky relationship through the years. The organization has not taken kindly to the direction web news has gone in…essentially since the rise of blogs. In 2009, AP President Tom Curley talked about how “even minimal use” of its articles online required licensing agreements, according to the New York Times. WebProNews covered this at the time as The AP’s Desperate Attempt To Outlaw Search Engine Links.

    The AP basically just wanted to be paid for any use of their content, even if that means linking. Besides search engines, Drudge Report was specifically named in a NYT piece on the topic. All that site does is link. Not even with snippets.

    With that in mind, it seems the AP would not be too keen on a blog or other news publication referencing an AP story on a topic, even with a link. But then you see the AP putting out something like this. I’d like to screen cap it, but I don’t want the AP to be able to say I’m reproducing their article. You can click the link and look at it if you want, but I’ll describe it.

    It’s a six-sentence-long article about a man suing the maker of Assassin’s Creed. It’s based on a report from The Carlisle Sentinel (which is much longer). It mentions the publication, and includes the URL in parentheses. It has little to no added value compared to the original piece. It seems like the kind of thing, that if the AP’s and Carlisle Sentinel’s roles were reversed, the AP wouldn’t be very happy with.

    A few interesting points about the AP’s linking strategy here:

    1. Why put the URL in parentheses rather than just link some anchor text like the rest fo the web does?

    2. The URL isn’t even a clickable link. The user would have to copy and paste it into their address bar.

    3. The URL is a bit.ly URL, so you can’t even see the site’s domain it is pointing to.

    At least when a blogger links to an AP story, it can potentially drive referrals to the original piece.

    Update: The AP points out that they do provide links in the stories on their own site. “Of course, the AP puts links in copy. They work on some downstream sites, not others, and they work on our own sites,” Paul Colford, the AP’s Director of Media Relations, tells WebProNews. He points to the referenced article on the AP’s site.

    Fair enough, though perhaps a policy requiring these downstream sites to link would be beneficial.

    Colford also makes a point to note that the “AP’s unique pedigree as a cooperative, owned by its 1,500 or so member newspapers, some of whose stories we rewrite for our state wires (and a tiny fraction of these, such as big exclusives, also end up in the online feed licensed by our commercial customers, including the portals).”

    The Sentinel’s piece has 0 comments. 0 tweets. 0 Facebook recommendations. The Yahoo News page featuring the AP’s version has 192 comments alone.

    We contacted the AP about its policy on linking. We asked: If a blog wrote an article, which was six sentences long, and one of those sentences was referencing an AP report (with a link), would this be acceptable to the AP?

    The AP’s Gloria Sullivan responded, “This is what I know…no wording can be changed in any AP article, no article can be summarized or altered in any way…but you can link to an AP article (say if you are referencing or referring to something).”

    “Of course, this is not encouraged,” she added.

    To clarify, we asked: Linking to an AP article when referencing or referring to something is not encouraged?

    “In all honesty, we don’t earn revenue when someone links to an AP article, so I don’t really go around posting a billboard for people to do it (if you get my drift),” she said. “But you have permission.”

    There you have it. The AP gives you permission to link.