Now, after taking a step back, failing to force Google to pay for providing a service that is much more beneficial to Springer than it is to Google, Bild and Springer try to paint a picture that displays them as the victims in this issue, being bullied by big old Google. It gets more absurd by the day.
Also, this right only applies to Google - if you're DuckDuckGo or any other search engine you're still not allowed to show snippets from Springer media. So they are complaining about Google's market dominating position by strengthening it? Utterly absurd.
Will be fun to watch Google presenting those headlines in the search results.
And I agree, it is a ridiculous fight and Springer is more to blame than Google in this case. But, that's what happens in saturated markets. Its business.
- Bild makes money from the online visits.
- Google makes money form the online visits as well.
- Bild actually provides content for Google to generate that revenue.
Why should not Google pay for the content (a percentage of ad revenue generated by the news.google.com would do nicely)?
If you took ice cream for free that doesn't give anyone the right to force you to buy it.
Little business without a lobby in Germany..
If people go to Google News they see traffic from other alternative news sources as well. These people are Google News users and sometimes see e.g. Die Welt content, but Die Welt wants them to be Die Welt users. The publishers are used to having a direct relationship with their readers, they don't want to be competing with news clips and links from budget internet news sites and blog aggregators.
What's most interesting is that they have their own Facebook pages. So these guys are choosing to use Facebook for free to promote their brand, with pictures and excerpts from their articles. The thing there is that a relationship through Facebook can be more direct. The Facebook page is really an extension of the Die Welt web site, bringing it closer to Facebook users and trying to built that relationship. There's no way to do that through Google News.
Now, I do agree they're going about their relationship with Google in a bone headed and self-harming way. However they are doing it for what appear to them to be valid reasons. That's why papers and magazines always preferred direct subscriptions to sales on news stands. If they could have locked news stands into exclusive relationships, they would have.
So I think we can expect to see more initiatives like this from these publishers. Right now they're flailing around blindly and making fools of themselves, but they are not going to give up on their actual goals and eventually are likely to get smart about it. It'll be interesting to see what that looks like, but I doubt any effective initiatives they may come up with will be to the benefit of news consumers.
Very insightful and true. The problem is that they can't find a strategy to make this happen and are capitulating due to their lack of ability.
That is to say, _if_ they could find a way to make aggregator customers instead into their customers, they wouldn't be backing down. What they're discovering, however, is that, even if they weaken Google, they don't strengthen themselves in the process. Readers simply turn to other sources.
This implies that readers perhaps don't value Axel Springer's content over other news sources. Or, at least, they don't value it over the value of aggregators.
[0] http://www.axelspringer.de/presse/Axel-Springer-schliesst-Da...
Doepfner said the resulting dramatic drop in traffic to his company's publications was proof of Google's overwhelming power in the search market. He said he hoped lawmakers, courts and competition regulators would take action to curb its powers.
"Others will have to pick up the ball now," the Springer boss told reporters on a conference call following the publication of the Berlin-based company's quarterly results.
So indeed it sounds like that's exactly what they are saying.
I bet it is more than Bild does.
If nobody allowed Google to do the snippets, Google's news business would sink. But since they cannot pass the copyright law for the entire world, Google's business is less affected by the ban. Because it is a monopoly.
Shit, these guys have a point.
Let's go to extremes and say that everyone the world over blocks Google from indexing and aggregating their news sites. That means that smaller players can enter the market, but if the blocking is based on principle; then those smaller players would have to invest in infrastructure, IP, and still have to pay publishers! Then publishers then also lose out.
From reading the article, it seems like the company is saying we're shooting ourselves in the foot by blocking Google, yet we still want to piss in our revenue fountain.
But how is that supposed to 1. justify Google as a monopolist 2. legitimize the cartels rent seeking ambitions and 3. make that "a point"?
