'Google News' levy why?

expectationlost

you'll have seen the arguement that google (facebook) should pay a levy to news orgs/news site for listing news headlines and showing a snippet

Often those articles won't mention the 'google news' page displays no ads, although this recent think tank proposal does
http://www.respublica.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/The-Mission-of-Media.pdf

Some newspaper people don't seem to get that google listing their newsites is a plus for them, Im never understood really what there problem is, for evey few people that read the headline and snippet and moves on others will clickthrough and read the rest of the article and more of the site perhaps

Why do newspaper think they are special, should google pay every site it lists (with a snippet of its content)?

Spain introduced a google news charge so google news just shut down in Spain and it hurt the newspapers http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/new-study-shows-spains-google-tax-has-been-a-disaster-for-publishers/

I not so familiar with facebook, don't newspapers work with FB and take a cut of the ad revenue?

The think tank proposal (and Greensalde recent speech and articels that touched on it) must have sparked John Horgan to write 'Facebook and Google are killing Independent journalism'

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/john-horgan-how-facebook-and-google-are-killing-independent-journalism-1.2719428#.V4fFsX8pjl8.twitter

he also mention the idea of google/facebook news levy but he moves on to the issue of data

The service they offer consumers is temptingly and ostensibly free; but it is actually based on a Faustian pact in which consumers pay, and pay dearly, by contractually and legally surrendering to the platforms in return (when they tick “agree”) huge amount of detail about themselves on a continuing basis. The information gathered in this way is more than any independent newspaper or broadcasting station could hope to acquire about its readers, listeners or viewers in a millennium. This data is then scraped technologically, without infringing data protection laws, but in ways which enable the platforms to attract advertisers by facilitating their desire to target consumers with a hitherto unimaginable precision.

A good case can be made that the aggregators concerned should be legally obliged, at the very least, to share this information with the media outlets who are the victims of their commercial parasitism, and without whom they simply could not access this information. This is not just “rip and read”, as the newspapers used to complain: it is wholesale piracy.

This seems more similar to the complaints some apps/services have about Apple, like Spotify recently, in that its takes 30% cut and doesn't give them information on who paid for the app (or in-app purchase?), but then google doesn't make any money off the 'google news' page directly. It may use news searches who add to people's ad interest profiles? but all google is doing is listing web pages, why should they pay to list these pages?




so Horgan may not just want a money for newspapers but data on people, I hadn't seen anybody ask for that in relation to newspaper before.

L1011

A lot of sites seem upset that the entire value of their content can be summed up in about 60 words or less per article - what is shown on Google News etc.

Write better content, problem solved.

expectationlost

L1011 wrote: »

A lot of sites seem upset that the entire value of their content can be summed up in about 60 words or less per article - what is shown on Google News etc.

Write better content, problem solved.

80 words it seems https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40543?hl=en which seems alot

although just looking at https://news.google.ie/ I only see about 40 words

and when you search you only see about 20 of the top story https://www.google.ie/#q=google+news&hl=en&tbm=nws

IRE60

I think publishers should really get their stories straight. There's been a deluge of these "We good, Facebook bad" articles of late. One that springs to mind is Katherine Viner the Ed in Chief of the Guardian who said that Google and Facebook were a challenge to "the health of our culture".

But, on the other side of the coin, Facebook delivers up to 40% of the Guardians traffic!

So, what's it to be?

I think that here in Ireland at least, Google and Facebook are the least of the worries when it comes to independent journalism.

expectationlost

IRE60 wrote: »

I think publishers should really get their stories straight. There's been a deluge of these "We good, Facebook bad" articles of late. One that springs to mind is Katherine Viner the Ed in Chief of the Guardian who said that Google and Facebook were a challenge to "the health of our culture".

But, on the other side of the coin, Facebook delivers up to 40% of the Guardians traffic!

So, what's it to be?

I think that here in Ireland at least, Google and Facebook are the least of the worries when it comes to independent journalism.

I saw that and kinda and glanced through it, way too long and rambling, I notice that the Irish Times republished it http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/katharine-viner-how-technology-disrupted-the-truth-1.2723761

a very wide ranging article I don't know why journalists deciding to write clickbait to go after ad revenue is google or facebooks fault (that they run the major ad networks aside)

she mentions

“filter bubble” in 2011, he was talking about how the personalised web – and in particular Google’s personalised search function, which means that no two people’s Google searches are the same

but you've got to expand on that, rather the leave it hanging

monopolisation may be an issue when google and facebook go beyond the algorithm (or start to favour their own stuff)

she says this

(And there’s not much advertising to be got: in the first quarter of 2016, 85 cents of every new dollar spent in the US on online advertising went to Google and Facebook. That used to go to news publishers.)

and links to this http://www.niemanlab.org/2015/12/behind-closed-doors-the-new-social-media/
huh? I'd like to see her back up that last sentence but the link just goes to some conference page

oh god its just so long...

expectationlost

an ST writer commented on John Horgan opinion published by the Irish Times that the IT was taking money from Google via the Digital News Initiative set up to placate news publishers and drag them into the 21st Century
https://www.digitalnewsinitiative.com/fund/
apart from training the Irish Times got a large project funded by them but havn't been able to find out what it is yet

IRE60

If you look at the list of those who have 'taken the king's shilling' (to be glib) here we have Independent News & Media, Irish Times and RTE.

Across the water, there are some big hitters: Archant, Sky News, Mirror Newspapers, Telegraph Media Group,The Economist and the FT - to name but a few who have received funding from the Google digital programme. Notably absent are News UK.

And, I admit, I read the 'abridged version' in Campaign or Media Week - thank God - I may save that link and at least read it in its original!

expectationlost

IRE60 wrote: »

If you look at the list of those who have 'taken the king's shilling' (to be glib) here we have Independent News & Media, Irish Times and RTE.

Across the water, there are some big hitters: Archant, Sky News, Mirror Newspapers, Telegraph Media Group,The Economist and the FT - to name but a few who have received funding from the Google digital programme. Notably absent are News UK.

And, I admit, I read the 'abridged version' in Campaign or Media Week - thank God - I may save that link and at least read it in its original!

where are you seeing RTE and INM on that list? oh in the participants https://www.digitalnewsinitiative.com/participants/ perhaps they just got general training

and other papers collaborating via the 'editors picks' on the google news page http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/editors-picks-feature-launched-by-google-for-irish-news-sites-315979.html

launch partners include BreakingNews.ie, Irish Independent, Irish Times, RTE, TV3, Journal.ie, Joe.ie, and Her.ie.

FAQ https://support.google.com/news/answer/1004865?hl=en

expectationlost

Google, Trying to Endear Itself to Europe, Spreads $450 Million Around http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/technology/google-europe-lobbying-eu.html

on the other side, google lobbying gov, did 1916 archive projects to get close to gov

Elmo

I think news agency should be annoyed if the article is posted in full on a social media service. Really it should be headline, few lines of opening paragraph and a link to the rest of the paragraph.

If another website want to print the article in full then a fee should be applied. Sites should negotiate with individual titles to negotiate a fee. Newspapers could set up an IMRO type organisation to keep negotiations simple. INN perhaps could take on this role. In the same way netflix neg rights for shows from a wide range of distributors.

expectationlost

Elmo wrote: »

I think news agency should be annoyed if the article is posted in full on a social media service. Really it should be headline, few lines of opening paragraph and a link to the rest of the paragraph.

If another website want to print the article in full then a fee should be applied. Sites should negotiate with individual titles to negotiate a fee. Newspapers could set up an IMRO type organisation to keep negotiations simple. INN perhaps could take on this role. In the same way netflix neg rights for shows from a wide range of distributors.

yes but Im not sure if thats what the problem they have is, apart from a particular site here doing it on industrial scale that should just be sued out of existence, its much more adhoc, difficult to manage and some including the INN have a problem with even headlines and links which is unreasonable. I wouldn't want to give INN any power, they are very extreme and regressive in their thinking.

expectationlost

how much money does newspaper make off each reader with advertising? before accounting for all others costs

FewFew

I always hear warning sirens when Facebook and Google are clumped together on this topic.

Google is only bad news for publications that don't play by Google's rules. So if you don't get your SEO headlines and properly tagged photos etc. you're going to lose out to your competition.
Yes, Google tend to change their algorithms and pull the rug out from under people, but it's only negative if you don't adapt. It is, as far as I can see, a playing field that is growing increasingly level.

I've seen Irish publications get huge wins from Google News (both "in the news" and news.google) where they've tapped in to bigger audiences. You can easily count on 10k views for about five minutes of exposure on news.google.com (and that's not even a prominent position.)

With Google the user is looking for a topic or just latest news. Even news.google is based on trending news searches.

Facebook on the other hand... Facebook has publishers by the balls and seems to just keep squeezing. Despite all the talk of Facebook becoming the other big search engine, I'm pretty sure user behaviour is still "Oh, my friend shared this story and it appeared on my timeline."
I've only come across one publisher that had Facebook traffic under 25% of their overall (and that was really because they weren't performing as they should.)
Most publications are probably so reliant on Facebook at this stage, that they're stuck and of course Facebook has been tightening the hold over the last few years, so first it was all about the photos, then videos, now live feeds etc. all the while a smaller % of the audience is seeing the content.

Another point - Facebook promotes clickbait articles. Google should, in theory, cut down on them.
Unfortunately the aul inverted pyramid style of writing we enjoy on this side of the Atlantic means the small Google snippets usually give the important parts of the game away. Although, I've seen some in-depth journalism do really really well in Google searches over time, so, again its all down to strategy on the part of the publications.

Anyhows, that was a bit rambling, but, yes, it scares me when Google and Facebook are mentioned in articles as if they're the same beast.

expectationlost

FewFew wrote: »

I always hear warning sirens when Facebook and Google are clumped together on this topic.


Another point - Facebook promotes clickbait articles. Google should, in theory, cut down on them.

they did till http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2016/08/news-feed-fyi-further-reducing-clickbait-in-feed/ although i guess there trend will still be there

is there a list of news org doing facebook instant articles? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Instant_Articles are they only way to revenue share with facebook? will any irish one do it?


https://www.socialbakers.com/statistics/facebook/pages/total/ireland/media/printed-media/ http://digiday.com/publishers/uk-publishers-using-facebook-instant-articles/ https://media.fb.com/2015/12/16/instant-articles-launches-to-android/

FewFew

expectationlost wrote: »

they did till http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2016/08/news-feed-fyi-further-reducing-clickbait-in-feed/ although i guess there trend will still be there

is there a list of news org doing facebook instant articles? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Instant_Articles

Yeah, I'm being too loose with my use of the term clickbait. In terms of a race to the bottom, Facebook is the greatest driver. I think it's the Guardian that always maintain that a lowering in editorial standards is an editorial decision rather than a result of the platforms etc., but wow, Facebook sure makes writing non-news content very attractive because you can package it to your audience in such an click-enticing way.

expectationlost

News publishers could charge search engines for story extracts http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/news-publishers-could-charge-search-engines-for-story-extracts-1.2768682?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter still A MAYBE
if newspapers don't wnat to indexed by google they just add a nofollow instruction etc, done.
why does not EU demand they pay for every website, surely the content of almost all websites is copyright ?

expectationlost

Make Google and Facebook pay for public service reporting says Roy Greenslade again highlighting submissions by the Media Reform Coalition (1 guy?) and the NUJ https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/nov/08/make-google-and-facebook-pay-for-public-service-reporting

wants 1% level on big digital companies put into the digital economy bill

Des Freedman, professor of media and communications at Goldsmiths who chairs the MRC seems to be moving away from the copyright or ads or traffic argument to a google/facebook don't encourage quality (or pay enough tax) and dominate the online ad industry so me must put a tax/levy on them arguement

It is widely acknowledged that although companies like Google do not profit directly from their use of journalistic content, news services play a key role in their ‘user experience’ and thus add immeasurable value to their businesses. There is a legitimate basis for a legal framework that ensures digital intermediaries make a meaningful contribution to supporting independent media in the public interest. Rather than simply enforcing ancillary copyrights, a public media trust should be established with the specific purpose of supporting initiatives that make a measurable contribution to news plurality.

they draft bill is here http://www.mediareform.org.uk/blog/media-plurality-draft-bill

The Trust shall be responsible for collecting a 2 per cent levy on the net profits of content
providers and intermediaries classified as exercising significant power of voice, in accordance with
the provisions set out in s6(1) and 6(2).

2. Content Intermediaries
(1) A content intermediary is a person or entity that serves primarily to direct consumers
toward news content providers and does not produce or aggregate original news content as its
core concern. Examples may include, but are not limited to;
a. Search Engines
b. Social Networking Sites
c. Internet Service Providers
d. Content sharing platforms

6. Meaning of Significant Power of Voice
(1) A content provider will be deemed to exercise Significant Power of Voice if it;
a. Reaches an audience of [xx] people across radio, television and newspaper markets, or
b. attracts more than [xx] unique online users in any given month.
(2) A content intermediary will be deemed to exercise Significant Power of Voice if it attracts
more than [xx] unique users in any given month.

ps Yet another study shows news aggregators (google) have a market-expanding effect on the digital newspaper market. http://infojustice.org/archives/37320 traffic at the newspaper sites increases when google news is available not decreases.

pps Apple news is start to become more a thing now

IRE60

In the first quarter of 2016 -”digital”* was the fastest growing medium, that’s a given and you would think that all boats would rise on the tide – but no.
90% of the growth in Q1 2016 in Digital went to Google and Facebook.
Take the latter: 47% of US citizens say they “get their news from Facebook” - and that seems to be a accepted term. However I think it’s like saying I get my news from Easons!
If Facebook didn’t “repurpose” quality content from elsewhere (aka publishers), content that was costly to produce, then Facebook would be full of inane crap about your mates new dog/new child/what they did last night – utter, utter crap.
But throw in quality content from publishers you have a platform that now reaches 67% of the American population. That 67% log on, not to find the inane rubbish I alluded to, but to get quality content - sourced by Facebook and paid for by non-Facebook platforms.
Having said that, I think publishers had utterly prostituted themselves when it comes to their relationship with Facebook – I would start!
*Digital is a stupid term as it lumps together media that are disparate – but we’re stuck with it!



expectationlost: thanks for the links - I'll pour over them later (when something else is pouring!)

expectationlost

interest update about the plans for a google news levy from politico.eu, which they have stalled particualy due to lobbying from smaller publishers http://www.politico.eu/article/plan-to-make-google-pay-for-news-hits-rocks-copyright-reform-european-commission/ as ever the author point out the self defeating premise of the tax, but then never makes the distinction between providing free snippets and the benefit a reader would get from clicking through to the full article, thats where the worth is, thats whats worth payingfor either by subscription or via ads.

the author makes a comparison with radio where they pay a license to play songs but aren't snippets really just radio stations reading out and commenting on the news which they don't pay for, atleast it somewhere in between those two comparisons.