Is Google really gate-keeping?

When we were talking about that Google is acting "psuedo-gatekeeping" today in class, an idea came to me. "How scary! Even though I don't want my taste of news be decided by computers, I'm still too lazy to look for news outside Google news!" True, Google is not really setting a gate and block information, but the impact is similar in terms of what users receive eventually.

So I'm getting curious about how great the impact is. If we can pick some stories from a news organization, and see how much Google news contributes in terms of traffic when the story is on Google news, versus when it's not on Google news. I think Google news has turned the competition between news organizations more bloody. If your story doesn't beat all other similar stories, the story will lose most of the traffic from Google news. (If we can track how many users do go to news stories other than the one Google picked, that will be even more interesting because we can really see the difference.)

Anyways, getting stories onto Google news will be important if the revenue comes from traffic. (KXAN has been trying to get its news onto Google news, but ... And Statesman is always there!)

Will Google pay Journalists, too?

For some reason, I think a lot of people try to copy the model of music industry to news industry. True, there are some similarities.
1. Long time ago, people could only paid for it.
2. Not too long ago, people learned how to receive it for free, legally or illegally.
3. Both industries want users, or somebody else, pay for them, and are working on this direction.

The key point might be, it was illegal to download mp3 for free, and it is illegal now. (Most of the case.) But news articles, video, photos are now legally free online. (And you don't even need to search for it, they are just everywhere.)

There for, from downloading illegally to legally, users' utility rised. As long as the price matches the marginal utility, people might pay.

Then how can we add some value to online news, so that users will pay?

Better way of selection and organization? Google does it well, at least a great number of users think so, but Google doesn't care if it gets paid from users.

I'm still think the mp3 downloading example in China. Will Google pay news organizations, too? (Then Sung Woo's topic will be popular!)

Google/Facebook music services on the way

Our class apparently has its finger on the pulse of new media—almost as if they heard our discussion on Tuesday, Google and Facebook announce music initiatives.

Inferior audiences

David Carr, NY Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/business/media/13carr.html?fta=y
You know, you can argue, as the “digital evangelists” do, that monopoly newspapers should have saved for a rainy day while they were pocketing 15% profits, but when ad revenue drops 48% in a single quarter http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/28/new-york-times-ad-revenue_n_161607.html it’s like kicking a guy when he’s down.
You can tell when content generators and content aggregators are using language like “parasite” and “shut up” that things are getting interesting.

Especially interesting in the video Yonghwan posted are the comments of Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper talking about the importance of competition. So which is it – were newspapers arrogant monopolies which refused to save a bit of their obscene profits or were they aggressive competitors in two-paper towns fighting for the best journalism because that’s what sold? You have to admit, the quality of the journalism is getting a lot worse now, after cutbacks and buyouts... after the economics of media tanked, not before. I’ve said this before – I don’t think daily newspapers or the AP were broken a few years ago (I think they are now). I think what’s broken is the audience. If people strove to stay informed about their communities there would be more value for local newspapers, which still provide unique content – as Google has learned. Inferior goods? How about inferior consumers, who are the driving force behind this: “consumers...are used to paying for entertainment.”

Google to share ad revenue from new reader with newpapers

This is interesting. Google has developed a new, "fast" reader meant to more closely approximate the experience of reading a print edition, and says it will give "a majority" of the ad revenue to the participating media outlets.

Irrationaly consumer: I still love google more!

Again, the reading is here

I guess economists will have a word on my title. You prefer google because that's different tastes, so you enjoy more utility. Come on, I know I'm being irrational!

For:

• Microsoft's conspiracy: I guess Microsoft won't really do it so ostentatiously, but they might make their system support their search engine better than support google. This IS happening. Microsoft developed ActiveX. It's totally not standarized and MS is the only company using it. Other browser can support it, but never as good as I.E. does. (So if one developed a page with ActiveX, user can almost only use I.E.)
• Google is only making money on Ads. (They also do source out actually.) Well, silly stuff like google calendar, igoogle are not really profitible for Google. But that's why google is cooler than other company! Maybe they're not makeing money on it, but isn't it a good way to form the company's reputation?
  

Against:

• Google's 20% policy: When I was an engineer-major student, I always dreamed entering a company like google, because at least I have more possibility to do what I'd like to do. Google's 20% policy might sounds silly, but that's how google absorb smart engineers