The decision by Google to restrict access to content through its Google News service is a landmark moment.
It’s always been the case that if you wished to access paid-for content from a trade magazine or newspaper, but didn’t wish to pay for it, Google News was your best friend. Under the new rules publishers can limit users to a maximum of five free articles a day.
At first glance this seems to be a signal from Google that they are softening their stance towards the publishing industry – perhaps triggered by pressure from News International and other leading publishers. I recently attended a breakfast briefing with Patience Wheatcroft, the Editor of the Wall Street Journal Europe. Patience was thoroughly convinced that content must be paid for – and that Google was ‘an effective way of giving away publisher content’ which received a strong laugh of support from the media attendees.
The classic argument from publishers is that they cannot afford to maintain editorial teams and a high quality product with falling print subscriptions and advertising revenues – especially if Google makes their content available for free. Google’s response is usually that publishers can opt out of the Google search mechanism and the value Google brings is ensuring your visibility to hundreds of millions of people.
Recently Josh Cohen, Google News, Product Manager said in a blog on the Google site that “publishers are asking: Should we put up pay walls or keep our articles in Google News and Google Search? In fact, they can do both - the two aren't mutually exclusive. There are a few ways we work with publishers to make their subscription content discoverable.” The new ‘five articles per day’ option certainly seems a positive step forward and, as Google points out, it gives publishers a chance to engage regular readers, perhaps signing them up to a subscription.
My interest lies beyond the publishing industry. Google is moving into a vast number of industries and giving away access to information in exchange for the ad revenues it generates. Last week Google announced it would forge links with estate agents without charging them to post house inventory on its new property site. This looks set to cripple sites like Rightmove which charges several hundred pounds per month for a property listing and Sarah Beenie's newly created online property business.
Similarly Google is a proponent of OTT (Over The Top) applications which deliver video and entertainment to consumers across their broadband networks (prime example Youtube, which is Google-owned of course). Telecoms operators are infuriated that so much data is moved along their networks requiring expensive network upgrades and yet the operator receives little or no remuneration from the likes of Google. Operators are also upset that Google’s Washington lobby arm is pushing for tighter regulation of networks to ensure net neutrality – removing an operator’s ability to restrict traffic. Some arguments say that operators shouldn’t be allowed to offer QoS guarantees only on certain applications but should offer them on all, and that bandwidth pricing differentiation, i.e. £5 for 2Mg, £10 for 8Mg etc should be limited and operators should be forced to offer the highest bandwidth possible in the interests of human development. With more space I would discuss the music industry as well.
It’s yet unclear how these disputes will be resolved, but with Google’s softening stance it seems the front line has moved in the publishers’ favour. I’ve long wondered why telcos, publishers, the music business, now rightmove et al don’t consider more cross-industry action – that would certainly be worth watching.