Morning:
21°c
Newspaper publishers will be able to limit how many of their articles internet users can read before they have to pay for them Google, the world's biggest search engine, announced today.
The surprise move came as Google faces increasing pressure from publishers particularly Rupert Murdoch and his News Corporation empire who accuse search engines of using valuable content which costs them nothing to generate advertising income.
In typical Google style the change of strategy was posted on a blog entitled “Google News”. Josh Cohen, senior business product manager, said: “As newspapers consider charging for access to their online content, some publishers have asked: Should we put up pay walls or keep our articles in Google News and Google Search? In fact, they can do both.” He said publishers can use an updated program called “First Click Free” so that users are limited to five articles per publication per day. As soon as a reader clicks on a sixth article up pops either a subscription or registration site for the publisher.
San Francisco-based Google's new policy was released as top media moguls met in both Washington and India to discuss the future of their industry.
Murdoch, at the Washington summit, said of the internet: “Good journalism is an expensive commodity. We need to do a better job of persuading consumers that high-quality news and information does not come free.” The Wall Street Journal, which Murdoch bought for $5 billion (£3 billion) last year, is one of the first major titles to have moved to an online subscription model.
But Murdoch wants The Times and other papers to follow suit next year. Without naming Google, 78-year-old Murdoch attacked what he called the aggregators of content. He said: “We invest tremendous resources in our project from technology to salaries. To aggregate stories is not fair use. To be impolite, it is theft.”
Google's Cohen also offered publishers another concession stating that they would help them to promote “preview pages” which help drive revenue to their sites. These would typically contain just the headline and first few sentences of any story and be labelled “subscription” on Google's search results lists.
Cohen said: “These are two of the ways we allow publishers to make their subscription content discoverable, and we're going to keep talking with publishers to refine these methods. After all, whether you're offering your content free or selling it, it's crucial that people find it. Google can help with that.”
Murdoch has recently started negotiations with Microsoft and its new search engine Bing to see if he can get the software giant to pay him a fee for carrying exclusive access to News Corp news stories.
Reader views (11)
Old Murdoch looks more like an ageing Andrew Neal now he's dyed his hair orange. He may have power and money and wants even more but I suggest RM first concentrates on getting a new tonsorial technician. No one will take him seriously in his present state.
- John Coker, Leighton Buzzard, 02/12/2009 20:16
Report abuse
Murdock is a 78-year-old dinosaur who hasn't got a clue about how the internet operates; he just knows that he doesn't control it, and that is driving him crazy . Let him continue to ravey - poor dear, he's probably down to no more than several billion dollars these days. If anything, it will be most amusing to watch him crash and burn. Enjoy your content, Roop - you'll probably be one of the few reading it.
- Dan, Toronto, Canada, 02/12/2009 19:27
Report abuse
Murdoch states that “Good journalism is an expensive commodity." Presumably he won't be charging for the Sun then?
- Dave, Bloomington, IN USA, 02/12/2009 19:19
Report abuse
I dont care what Google offer if these limited and bias stories come at a cost, I will save my money and read a book or check out sites that provide independant news at no charge. Stick yoru news Murdoch you make plenty from advertising revenue without charging for the crap editorial, the voice of an ex advertising rep .
- Nicola, australia melbourne, 02/12/2009 18:02
Report abuse
The fact is both Newspapers and Online Media agencies cannot survive on just revenue for news content only, they all rely heavily on payments from advertising. Hence restricting access to any of these sites will seriously reduce revenue steams frown advertisements, etc.
In my opinion Murdoch’s news is extremely scant and lacking good quality well-written material, certainly no loss to ‘Joe Public’. So go on (as saying goes) cut your nose off to spite your face News Corp and goodbye.
- Carl Barron, Christchurch, Dorset, 02/12/2009 17:57
Report abuse
Get a grip, Grandad.
You may think the world can't enough stories about Katie and Peter or your completely biased news coverage. But in the real world, if it's not free, nobody is really going to pay to see online news.
- Charles, Kennington, 02/12/2009 13:47
Report abuse
The FT and Wall Street journal provide financial information of value to bankers, businessmen, policy makers who need such info and have the means to pay for it. It is difficult to see how other broadsheets could successfully impose charges for reading, given that so much of their news is available elsewhere, and that their average reader is probably more strapped for cash than the readership of FT and WSJ. Few of their columnists are so exceptionally fantastic that I would pay to read them. The drop in online readership might well make such publications less attractive to advertisers. Will it still be worth doing it? Let's see how the maths works out.
- Susie, London, UK, 02/12/2009 13:14
Report abuse
This is yet another case of the Murdoch clan throwing their dummy out the pram until they get want they want...they already have enough power and are certainly not lacking in funds...Google were wrong to back down.
- Andy, london, 02/12/2009 12:47
Report abuse
Why has he dyed his hair orange?
- Neil, London, London UK, 02/12/2009 11:10
Report abuse
the greed of murdoch and his attempt to control the media knows no boundries he should stick to the outback
- Anon, leicestershire, 02/12/2009 09:50
Report abuse
Surely this is madness, they do not own the news, any site could republish the facts.
I doubt people will pay for news online (unless very targeted) therefore all they are doing is turning away readers (and advertising revenue), who will go to smaller free blog like sites.
- Ed, London, 02/12/2009 08:59
Report abuse
