Mark Cuban: Kill News Aggregators, End Free Links

Newsweek:

Some are talking about making readers pay subscription fees. But the most radical idea, and the one I find most intriguing, is being advanced by Mark Cuban, a billionaire Internet entrepreneur. Cuban's advice: declare war on the "aggregator" Web sites that get a free ride on content. These aggregators--sites like Drudge Report, Newser, and countless others--don't create much original material. They mostly just synopsize stuff from mainstream newspapers and magazines, and provide a link to the original.

Read the whole story: Newsweek

Comments

[arvay]

08:27 AM on 09/08/2009

From the article:

"If your Web site blocks links but your competitors don't, you're basically committing suicide. You'll be cut off from a big source of traffic, while aggregators will survive by feeding off your rivals."

"But if the old companies do start charging fees, they will drive away readers. Advertisers will go where the audience is—which means they'll spend more of their advertising dollars on the upstart sites. The new guys will start making serious money, and will be able to hire reporters and editors away from the old-guard companies . . ."

This looks like a way to replace our largely non-functional "news" media with genuine journalism, not tied to big corporate interests and influenced by lobbyists and interest groups .

Maybe HuffPo will start hiring full-time investigative reporters soon? Not a bad idea.

[noamjunior]

09:20 PM on 09/07/2009

I bet stagecoach operators also complained when cars were invented- its' called technological advances and it sometimes makes the previous bizz model obsolete - instead of trying to set the clock back- deal with it and move on

[noamjunior]

09:16 PM on 09/07/2009

if the "news aggregators" didnt do a better job - they wouldn't be generating traffic

[Osusuki]

02:54 PM on 09/07/2009

Sounds to me like just another businessman unsatisfied with the millions he has already siphoned off from the economy. If Cuban doesn't want to let "his" work (the work he didn't do, but is only to happy to sell) out for free, that's fine with most of us. For every one of him there are a thousand hungry bloggers who do just as much or more research, produce better copy, and aren't hamstrung by corporate censors. You don't see them complaining about being picked up by HuffPo, Drudge, or anyone else. It's only the people who are used to making money off this game and who want to make more who talk about increasing their share of the pie by blocking access to on-line content. And they can go sit in a corner, count their money, and rot.

[motherofsons]

09:13 PM on 09/06/2009

I visit HuffPo for the news and I know that the information I consume here is from organizations (mostly news) that have invested in staff and infrastructure to gather the news.

HuffPo has leveraged its success off these organizations.

Sorry Cuban is right.

[mexamerican]

01:16 AM on 09/08/2009

i'd pay 50 bucks a year to subscribe to huffpo.

[CvillePatrick]

02:24 PM on 09/06/2009

BUT: Think about the bigger picture here. The aggregator sites (Huffington Post included, of course) are responsible for forwarding MILLIONS of readers to the content housed on the originating sites. The "problem" is that the content provider sites are failing to innovate in order to find ways to capitalize on that traffic. One part of the challenge is that these readers are accessing the content via a "back door" link and then moving on...thus they are not really "consuming" the whole site in the way a typical reader might.

A possible solution: make people watch a short commercial in order to access any article that is not accessed via the home page of the content-providing website. [And this should be mandatory--no skips allowed.]

**IF I know I will have to watch a 15-second commercial in order to access content (and it has a timer at the top so I can see that it really will only be 15 seconds), then I will. What's the big deal? The New York Times should start this rolling by making people watch a commercial in order to access the major columnists. The demographic that reads them would immediately attract high status advertisers.

[DamaskinosWasRight]

03:57 PM on 09/06/2009

+
I block 90% of ads .......
+

[Brian Ross]

04:08 PM on 09/06/2009

Unfortunately, that is NOT true. I run the oldest sports magazine on the Internet, and I can tell you that the reads on aggregator sites NEVER even approximate what comes to a paid site. The drop off rate is more than 98%.

Also, when people feel that there is a "free" option, they will take it every time. The problem, in the land of aggregators and advertising thieves (my opinion) like GOOGLE is that you have to have a whole lot of unique users, hundreds of thousands a day, just to make a little bit of money. Companies with niche product, like mine, that, in the print world, used to be able to make decent money with the niche, can't make a nickel here on the web with ads, and are almost entirely supported by subscriptions.

What we need is leadership. Thank you Mark! Subscriptions can be very low cost. Ours at SZ is $11.99 for the year, or a buck a month, roughly. We figure that is reasonable for the 300-500 pages of original content that we offer throughout the year.

If you want good, professional content on the web, you have to pay for it. Period. Not any different than going to the store and buying a magazine, except for those of you cheapskates that read it there and put it back.

[noamjunior]

09:09 PM on 09/07/2009

What you call aggregators- I would cal "commentary"- Cuban is dreaming and if you think people are suddenly going to pay for what they get for free- so are you

[Zachary Pick]

02:41 AM on 09/08/2009

The internet has changed completely since Cuban made all his money. No business model from the old media will ever truly be profitable again. Reporters, editors, and the like will still be able to make money. A sustainable model will be found, its just a matter of time. Subscriptions will not work on the internet.

People will find a business model that works and it will get copied, leaving those who actually create the content(rather than the ones who publish it) to be in at least as good, if not better shape then they currently are. It is the Mark Cubans, Rupert Murdocks and all the other bigwigs who don't actually create the content that will be hurt by this new model of media.

Reporters and editors have nothing to worry out in the long run, but those who are stuck in the old way of doing things will find their opportunities quickly drying up. Making money on the internet is all about being fluid, if you can't adapt to the rapid changes that happen on the internet, you are going to have some problems.

[BikeFreak]

01:46 PM on 09/06/2009

Mark Cuban is all about making money and getting nothing for free.

I am a fan of free news links. I believe the more options available for people to get news and information the better.

There are a large portion of the population that simply will not spend a dime (for whatever reason) on the internet to get services. Are these people to lose out on news and info just because a select few believe there is money to be made by withholding this?

No. The more people from all walks can access information on a variety of sites, the stronger this country can be.

[Brian Ross]

04:10 PM on 09/06/2009

Of course writers, photographers and editors work for free. That's how you get that good stuff without paying. Ads don't support diddly on the web unless you generate HuffPo like traffic, which, for more niche publications, is impossible. So it's either charge or perish.

It's not greedy to ask someone to remunerate you for your hard work. Not sure what you do, but do YOU give it away for free?

[BikeFreak]

08:45 PM on 09/06/2009

If you don't like it, quit. Do something else in which you will get paid what you want. Or learn a thing or two about how free news/info sites can be used as advertisement for your purposes.

News and information should be available free to anyone and everyone without having to purchase something. Makes you look like a greedy fool to suggest otherwise.

[noamjunior]

09:10 PM on 09/07/2009

good luck with that- but it is pretty tired to listen to you whine becasue you are trying to charge for what other people are giving away for free

[Tadpole7]

09:16 AM on 09/06/2009

Isn't he friends with Jon Gosselin? Shouldn't he be off partying on a yacht somewhere, rather than polluting the waters with inane ideas about ruining the internet for everybody?

[Paul Peete]

12:15 PM on 09/05/2009

"If the aggregators can't link to other people's stories, they die. With a few lines of code, the old-media guys could snuff them out." Hey Mark, if aggregators bring traffic to your site, they bring dollars through advertising. Go ahead and cut off high volume click through traffic and see who dies first. The Internet is all about traffic to your site, with it comes revenue.

[DocSyracuse]

12:33 PM on 09/05/2009

Right on, Mr. Peete.

[zukervati]

01:05 PM on 09/05/2009

Please see my other comment below. I would agree with you. However, most of the time us old-timers at HP just click the "comment" section to get HP's summary post - akin to getting a news bite from USA Today! In that case, the site is never visited and therefore no site visit and any subsequent clicks.
Personally, I don't click on ads (don't even pay attention to them for that matter) and therefore worry that others are probably doing the same thing - resulting in less and less money for beat reporters and other journalists to share.
Revenue model aside, the real work of a journalist needs to be properly compensated. Any sharing model that accomplishes that can prove Mr. Cuban wrong.

[noamjunior]

09:12 PM on 09/07/2009

well if most people are commenting and not reading the story - why should USA today get the traffic in the first place

[DamaskinosWasRight]

11:12 AM on 09/05/2009

+

Cuban has the right intention but the wrong approach.

The new revenue model that will actually work is Subscription Federation.

Subscription Federation grants the subscriber, for one low monthly fee, access to all the quality online journalistic content.

Each subscriber's fee is broken up to each online site based upon which sites the subscriber visited and how long they were there.

There are no antitrust concerns because all the sites in the Federation are still in competition and no revenue is guaranteed.

The small fee each site gets is compensated for by the huge number of subscribers.

Details: http://corporate-statesmen.org/images/Subscription_Federation.pdf

and if you like that: http://corporate-statesmen.org/policies.html

+

[hatmadder]

03:01 AM on 09/05/2009

Gee...doesn't that lovely face make you want to hear every precious word he has to say?

[escribacat]

02:44 AM on 09/05/2009

I almost always click to the original story from HP. In fact, I've come to depend on HP to aggregate links to the most interesting stories -- instead of surfing around myself looking for interesting stories. Most of the sites I visit are via HP, so it makes no sense to me that they would want to block that.

[DocSyracuse]

12:32 PM on 09/05/2009

Do you like Cuban's idea or not? Sounds like you don't. Don't you realize he's made millions from the internet?

[Whitley2009]

07:39 PM on 09/06/2009

I'm like you, I don't have time to go to the original stories. I rely on HuffPost.

[JumpDownTurnAround]

11:06 PM on 09/04/2009

What? Make these sites responsible for telling the story in their OWN words? Why that's preposterous! Then you'll have to make sure that they have some kind of journalistic quality about them. That would have to make them do some investigating of facts. How dare you even ask that of these sites!

[DocSyracuse]

10:02 PM on 09/04/2009

Sounds like someone is jealous of Dru dge.

BTW Mr. Cuban, Drudge has a history of breaking big stories, and the site does frequently post it's own news.

[escribacat]

02:41 AM on 09/05/2009

I don't believe I've ever seen a Drudge-originated story longer than a paragraph.

[DocSyracuse]

12:26 PM on 09/05/2009

True. But why does the length of the copy matter? He broke the Monica Lewinsky story, for one. He just hit the major facts. He leaves the exposition to others.

[DocSyracuse]

12:31 PM on 09/05/2009

BTW: Your post above only supports my argument. Do you like Cuban's idea or not?

[Chem is she]

08:13 PM on 09/04/2009

Great idea, Mark. THat will totally work. You CLEARLY have a grasp of how the internet works. Good for you.

[jcwtts1]

09:48 PM on 09/04/2009

He has something of a grasp, he made billions using it.

J

[DocSyracuse]

10:09 PM on 09/04/2009

Yes. But his idea here is weak. The sites Dr udge links to enjoy a substantial increase in their hits (and no doubt, hits to their advertisers). I think Cuban is the only one complaining about 'aggregators'.

[pfc1369]

06:14 PM on 09/06/2009

No one makes billions who does not have a grasp....around a multitude of throats.