Holy Kaw! All the topics that interest us

Google strikes back

Media_httpdldropboxcomu102435fotolia678639xsjpg_npgdyvnbfgpdfkd

Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, strikes back at Rupert Murdoch in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal (which Rupert owns, by the way). Here’s the good stuff:

With dwindling revenue and diminished resources, frustrated newspaper executives are looking for someone to blame. Much of their anger is currently directed at Google, whom many executives view as getting all the benefit from the business relationship without giving much in return. The facts, I believe, suggest otherwise.

Google is a great source of promotion. We send online news publishers a billion clicks a month from Google News and more than three billion extra visits from our other services, such as Web Search and iGoogle. That is 100,000 opportunities a minute to win loyal readers and generate revenue—for free. In terms of copyright, another bone of contention, we only show a headline and a couple of lines from each story. If readers want to read on they have to click through to the newspaper’s Web site. (The exception are stories we host through a licensing agreement with news services.) And if they wish, publishers can remove their content from our search index, or from Google News.

And here’s even better stuff:

It’s understandable to look to find someone else to blame. But as Rupert Murdoch has said, it is complacency caused by past monopolies, not technology, that has been the real threat to the news industry.

Kudos to the WSJ for running the piece—assuming some editor didn’t lose his or her job for doing this. I just can’t wait to watch Google and News Corp go at it.

Alltop has this covered six ways to Sunday: Google, WallStreetJournal.alltop, and Journalism.alltop

Photo credit: Fotolia


Comments (28)

Dec 03, 2009
Olivier liked this post.
Dec 03, 2009
Josh Way said...
This is a CEO masterpiece of a response!!
Dec 03, 2009
Brian said...
I can't imagine a rebuttal that could be very effective in countering these points.
Dec 03, 2009
Sanjay Maharaj said...
I agree with Eric Schmidt's comment about CEO's being to complacen and then they try to find a scapegoat when their company is in trouble. Koodos to Eric
Dec 03, 2009
Nathan said...
I think the word Rupert is looking for is "touche"
Dec 03, 2009
Black Swan said...
I think the word looking for Rupert is "douche"
Dec 03, 2009
Private2 said...
I applaud the editor for letting this through when it's critical of their owner. Perhaps they can debate this on Murdoch's other property, Fox News.

At which point they'll find a way to blame Obama for their woes.

Dec 03, 2009
Joshua Monge said...
RT @GuyKawasaki Google Strikes back at NewsCorp. I believe Mass Amateurization is really to blame. #heymonge #shirky
Dec 03, 2009
JulesLt said...
On the other hand, I look at Google's profits and think 'well, he would say that, wouldn't he' - they seem to be the one firm who have worked out how to make real profit from those 100,000 clicks per second.

(But I won't be sorry to see Murcoch out of business, given his support for the political Right - but his concerns do affect the other sides too)

Dec 03, 2009
srmason said...
These same CEOs blamed Craigslist for massive ad revenue losses in last month's (or so) Fortune.
Dec 03, 2009
Dennis Gaskill said...
Round 1 goes to Google's Eric Schmidt. This could get interesting. :)
Dec 04, 2009
giannicatalfamo said...
I think Rupert it's saying: "Monopolies are perfectly all right, as long as they are mine"
Dec 04, 2009
Kathi Rabil said...
I think you guys are missing the point. In the interest of fair play and healthy competition, monopolies are not good for business!
Dec 04, 2009
pressog said...
ouch. time to take the paper out of news and become what they should be: reliable sources of information
Dec 04, 2009
Ben Ortega said...
You're to blame too Guy. You could have just referred your readers to pick up a copy of the WSJ to see what was said but instead you chose to publish just the juicy parts.

You're on News Corp's radar now!

Dec 04, 2009
mweisburgh said...
It's great publicity for both of them. Murdoch is one smart individual!
Dec 05, 2009
Flowsionet said...
I really don't think that Google needs even more publicity @mweisgh
Dec 06, 2009
Steve Nagel said...
Eric's spot on with regard to monopolies; the new monopolies are tearing the old ones apart. Next up: academia.
Dec 06, 2009
nalex said...
The old news model is still a part of the new evolving one. Evolution is the choice of superior models over less effective/efficient ones. The news media themselves are to blame if they evolve by failing to deliver information accurately. i.e. Murdoch's Fox news is really entertainment. It seems a stretch to call it news.
Dec 06, 2009
Jay Groccia said...
I think google should send the entire News Corp to cyber Siberia by removing ALL News Corp IP addresses from its search index. Game over...thanks for playing.
Dec 08, 2009
Alex Schleber said...
@Jay, have said the same thing for weeks. Of course that would be rash... Google will play along... for now. In fact, they were quick to throw Old Media a bone in the form of the new 5-clicks/day option that content owners can turn on at their discretion for Google News.

Note that you also didn't hear much out of Microsoft anymore in terms of them paying off Murdoch to get exclusive rights for BING to serve up his content in their results. Why? Because the economics just aren't there.

Dec 08, 2009
BrownEggMktg said...
"assuming some editor didn’t lose his or her job" -- I think google would be better job security than WSJ.
Dec 09, 2009
Alex Garnica said...
When someone write a media script on this battle, this text will be one of crucial parts.
Dec 11, 2009
bla bla said...
Well Google should employ their own Journalists and Photo Journalists to work on its own News Stories the content is already diminished to a low level, they are stealing and pushing the market of real news worthy content from journalists and photo journalists to a level where it is not workable as a correct profession.

If Google thinks that their option's are obviously so great why don't they first look at the very brink of the problem of protecting the copyrights from Journalists and Photo Journalism through software,

The truth is that they effectively don't care as long as they can get away with it, like we see so much of in todays world with institutions that have a strange take on what is fair to a market and its real causes on the real market and individual professions.

We see all to frequently Images and Articles (Syndicated) or stolen do we ever ask what was that person being paid to bring us that piece of News or why Newspapers now "suck" because of this very lack of funding, which ever way you want to look at it without any prior copyright consent of the article writer or the Image owner of the photograph under the law this is breaking all International Copyright laws, this is an Industry that really needs the coders to be shown their correct place in society and the market place.

How long can this dire consequence go on where one big company like Google can trample all over the law of Copyrights of journalists, photo journalists and infringe upon the content market without any consequences.

It naturally can't so lets look forward to a time of better News and Content that has to be paid for and the coders return to what they trained for and what they are good at.

Dec 13, 2009
Miguel Wickert said...
Impressive. Game, set and match! Google all the way!
Dec 16, 2009
Ralph M Bohm said...
ohhh, poor rupeee
Dec 16, 2009
Tech said...
Good on Eric. Newspaper executives are really looking for someone to blame because they didn't have the foresight to capatilize on online news earlier.
Dec 16, 2009
jengelballs said...
Murdoch could use a little bitchslapping. Besides, who's he to complain.

Leave a comment...