SF Chronicle's Stages Of Google Grief Lead To Suggestion For Google To Just Buy Newspapers

from the follow-the-discussion dept

First off, before someone brings it up in the comments, I’ll point out that the following post refers to the views of various columnists at the SF Chronicle, rather than any sort of discussion among those who have any real impact on the SF Chronicle’s strategy. However, it is quite amusing to see the “stages of Google grief” showing up on the editorial pages of the struggling San Francisco newspaper who has had to rid itself of hundreds of reporters lately. Back in March, columnist David Lazarus (who apparently is no longer at the paper) vented his frustration about the internet by suggesting that newspapers get rid of free content entirely, with the goal of blocking off so-called moochers like Google News (despite the fact that, yes, Google News actually sends the Chronicle more readers). Then, in May came the bizarre suggestion on the SF Chron editorial pages that Google had a social or moral obligation to simply hand money over to newspapers. That got lots of people laughing, so now, yet another columnist at the Chron has adjusted the thinking to suggest that rather than just hand over money, Google should buy some newspapers, but then just leave them alone, noting that Google would probably make for a better newspaper boss than Rupert Murdoch. This seems to be sort of the full circle Google of thinking here. First, denial that Google is an opportunity to actually drive more business to newspapers. Then, anger at Google and a plan to block it off. Then there’s the bargaining/begging phase where they suggest Google simply owes them money. Next comes depression (represented by all the layoffs) and finally acceptance that Google as a buyer could be the savior for newspapers.

Filed Under: ,
Companies: google, sf chronicle

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “SF Chronicle's Stages Of Google Grief Lead To Suggestion For Google To Just Buy Newspapers”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
15 Comments
GaBoy says:

SF Chronicle's Problem

It is interesting how newspapers want to have the best of both worlds. They want to sell subscriptions to offset the cost of the print and distribution of the paper product that advertisers pay to be included in. Then they want to make money on-line where printing costs are almost nil and distribution is done at very low cost (free?). Of course, they get upset when search engines make it easy to find specific articles so you don’t have to read through the entire paper.

Make up your mind newspapers. Remember, those same reporters you pay to provide articles could easily put their own articles on-line themselves with their own ads and bypass you completely. Content is worth something, but it may not be the price you put on it. Google has given us a whole new way of thinking about the price of advertising……

matt m (user link) says:

Nought to do with Google

Why do newspapers assume Google is somehow taking readers from them online? The real issue is that once they go online, they are competing against the whole world to report on a story.

When they throw some dead trees into your driveway there is very little competition for getting advertising in front of people that they will actually pick up and look at. But I can read 90% of the national and world coverage they offer elsewhere- at places like CNN that have video of what they can only tell me about secondhand. However, the Chronicle is probably the best paper focusing on their region, better than any national news source, so they should focus on being the leaders for any story that pops up in that area, and when that story is of national or international interest, they should be the ones using news aggregators to get that content out there.

What local newspapers need to do is become more local. How many national newspapers do we need? It’s an economic inefficiency that is rightly being reduced. They are trying to be an aggregator and a local news source. That seems like a confused business model for a web site, even though it happens to make sense for dropping a physical paper at your door.

Anyway, relating this Google is just because they are the easiest example to point to of people making money off of internet advertising, but I don’t think a significant percentage of that comes from google news. There aren’t even any ads on that page!! The real story here is that the content you need for a physical paper is not equivalent to what you need for a website.

George Parsons says:

Google is evil all around

As a reality check…most local papers sell ads LOCALLY. That means they do not want everyone and their mother from all over the world looking at their site. Local advertisers pay rates appropriate for local ad run rates. So handling the extra bandwidth and traffic makes no sense for most local papers. Daily national papers are a different set, but those are only like 30 total. Also having more users that are guaranteed not to solicit from local advertisers actually DECREASES ad rates since the % of viewers to click throughs or sales is lower.

Google, to be fair, has mooched or cheated everyone equally. They have their own mass transit system (why use and help grow public transit that ALREADY exists)? They have defaulted on their video service (you BOUGHT that video–oh that is Google speak for rent) — here is some funny money to buy more crap from us. Oh healthcare industry has a problem — just take MORE ads out with Google to state your case (remember that blog fiasco). Oh your Gmail account got hacked — and that is our problem how exactly? And we are still in beta (forever).

|333173|3|_||3 says:

Re: Google is evil all around

Permanent beta does allow some legal escapes, since they would be at least partially exempt from any obligations to monitor or filter content for child protection, counter-terrorism or general censorship purposes, which is both expensive and difficult, and has different requirements in different countries. This way, they simply say that their product is a beta and not ready for general use, and hope they get away without their product being banned.

Anyway, Gmail does have a good security record.

Gary Ansorge says:

Music and the web

One thing to note: when it comes to recorded versions of music, depending on the complexity of the music and the particular ambiance of the concert venue, there is no way to retrieve the actual concert experience via a recording. No matter how good that recording is, it cannot recapture the live experience because of contrapuntal music delay and reflection peculiar to each venue. Even a live venue recording will not capture the exact experience of each individuals particular head size(which moderates the perception of music as it arrives at each ear in a unique and slightly delayed fashion) and the individual neural response to the environment. Which is why it has been truthfully said, “There’s nothing like a Grateful Dead concert,,,” and there never will be,,,

Ergo, for really complex music there is still the money generating concert experience that will likely never go away.

Gary 7

Maychic.com/wealthology (user link) says:

SF Chronicle's Stages Of Google Grief

When a company preaches “Don’t Be Evil”, so as to use it as a smokescreen to do evil with reckless abandon, ofcourse the end result would be that it would attract more evil to itself and would eventually be buried in evil. This company has no content of its own and yet makes billions every year from other peoples’ contents, including the mass media. Someday soon, the world would wake up to stench of the evils by this cocky company and happily banish them into obscurity to Siberia where they belong.
Maychic

Rover (user link) says:

What about an alternative to Google News

Here’s what I don’t understand – why don’t newspapers band together and create a valid alternative to Google News? How hard can it be – picking the stories that are most mentioned among member publications? Goddamit – do it with a live human editor if you can’t manage the algorithm!

Or is it that the only thing that unites newspapers is their hatred for Google and they can’t work out anything among themselves?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...