Forbes:
The AP and Google have been debating content and compensation issues for months. In an interview with Forbes on Wednesday, [Associated Press Chief Executive Tom] Curley warned that if Google doesn't strike the right deal with the AP soon, "They will not get our copy going forward."
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Just to be clear here...
This would not threaten Google's ability to search and link to newspaper sites that are AP members.
What it affects is the ability of news.googl
This is part of the whole scheme of long form written journalism finding a revenue model in the digital age. Most of the advertizing revenue has gone to aggregators who do not pay enough to cover the wages of reporters. When getting news on the web was small this could be floated as a public service or building the reputation of the paper. Not so any more. Ideally if AP can negotiate a better deal with Google then better deals will also follow from other news aggregators like news.yahoo
AP is struggling to get money for info on the web. That genie is out of the bottle, so either they go to a subscription model like Stratfor.c
They can also take their ball and go home, do they think they are the singular source of news in the world? Will the average Google News reader (I suspect we all are) even notice their absence? Doubtful, but not for lack of good content. Others will step in and fill the void quickly, and Curley will be forced to realize how the wired world works one way or another.
True enough. Google has the wherwithall to do a complete end around AP, hire its own journalists and become the aggregator itself. It's not as if there aren't enough of them looking for work. Maybe they'd even do a better job as Google employees than AP employees.
Murdoch has his fingers in this.
http://new
He has his fingers in da.mn near everything.
Beware of leviathans. They are apparently too big to fail (see, AIG).
Ummm, sorry to throw a wrench in the blind-ambition on the web here, but imagine, just for a second, if ALL the print media got together and boycotted GOOGLE. Guess which company would be out of business TOMORROW? Not the print media.
GOOGLE.
Imagine doing searches on Google where REAL news sources were excluded from the results. Good luck finding anything of use on google except corporate propaganda and uninformed blogs or retail websites.
Just imagine for a moment if all search engines boycotted the media which consistently gets their facts a$$ backwards.
that would mean NO MORE AP AND FOX on the net.
that would mean NO MORE AP AND FOX on the net.
WOOHOO!!
I understand your assumption but consider that all web traffic does not concern "news". Google is the defacto standard (today) for searching the web structure. I would venture to say that the two parties need each other, but Google might have a upper hand where it concerns emerging branches of the media tree that are strictly web based.. AP is playing "gangsta". That has become my concise term for what is going on concerning certain aspects of observable society. Desperation is so thick, the underbelly is showing in broad daylight and nobody seems to care or notice. Dignity has gone out the window and raw greed is standing stark naked in the middle of the intersection of progress and decline.
"I would venture to say that the two parties need each other, but Google might have a upper hand where it concerns emerging branches of the media tree that are strictly web based."
Grain- no doubt Google has not just an upper hand when it comes to emerging branches of the media tree that are strictly web based-- i would say they have a stranglehold on those branches. The problem for Google is that not even the established branches of online media make that much money. The "emerging branches" make nothing-- at least no one has figured a way to monetize those branches yet, so they can go ahead and have the upper hand as much as they want, it doesn't mean anything to the AP or others because it has yet to be monetized.
I think you're wrong. People who search Google News aren't going to go out and buy a paper if they can't read a story. Google directs MASSIVE amounts of traffic to the pages of news outlets, which is why they play the game on Google's rules.. After hitting the page linked by Google, people will click other stories, etc, and the print media sites get hits, which equals ad money. Nobody's paying to advertise on a site with low traffic.
Remember, to them it's all about ad money. Less traffic = less hits = less revenue.
98% of this country doesn't even know Google News exists. Almost 100% of Google searches are Google-- plain and simple.
interesting point, which comes first on the web the chicken (news media) or the egg (google). I tend to think other news orgs will come into being to fill the void. there are many blogs presenting factually correct info showing that main stream media is in fact not doing a good job (glenn greenwald comes to mind but what about alternet, etc?)
AP is carried by yahoo if people want it they can go there, in the mean time google should run an internal news page test without AP stories just to see what that looks like. They probably already have which is why they are toying with AP.
and there is nothing preventing google from carrying new york times (or any other papers content ) sans AP. which i would WELCOME!
Hard copy media is shrinking faster than GDP. They're trying desperately to find web-based platforms that make money. You ought to check out the address stops when you click on a news link. Good chance you'll see google.ana
i just love when a loser threatens a winner.
Seems to be a theme, lately... first the Neocons threatening the Dems (we'll hold our breath til we turn blue in the face unless you pass OUR version of the bill), and now this. Well, at least it's entertaining, even if it is pointless.
AP is a dinosaur that will hopefully die soon.
i seen a sign in a bar on date line it had black letter sign WHINING WITH A BIG X on it this is approietate
Shouldn't news be made available to the public AT NO COST? I understand that these people want to make money, but the whole "news" thing should be more altruistic than corporate. Once large sums of money are involved, the chances of corruption increase exponentially.
What do you do for a living? How would you like to provide that service at no cost?
That can happen through advertising and other models yet to be formulated, but somehow the journalists have to be paid. They have themselves and their families to feed. Or do you want to sign up to work as a journalist for free. Now that would put them all out of business.
Good for them.
Keep printing your news on paper that people can buy tomorrow.
And hold on to that typewriter too.
Somebody call the 'whaaaaa-m
Larry, Moe, & Curly wooooo, wooooo, woooo, still ridiculous. and as anoter poster said better watch out AP maybe degoogled.
TYPICAL CORPORATE GREED!!!!!
Google is incorporated too.
How does Curley think he is going to keep AP copy away from Google? Stop publishing it entirely?
Call Larry and Moe, the third stooge has been found.
Loading comments…
| 05/ 1/09 07:18 AM