The Internet giant could soon begin to 'package' information as a cable television company.
When a long-awaited victory finally comes, it is worth taking a moment to enjoy it. This week, my own industry is enjoying such a time, as Google finally abandoned its predisposition that the news on the internet should be free.
(Read: Companies Struggle to Fight False News)
Google's decision to end the 'first free click' - its policy over a decade that stipulated that news publishers have to give away some stories to appear in the top ranks of their search rankings - simply a step.
(Read: The big business behind the big technology)
But Google (and Facebook, in a symbolic way) are moving towards something bigger: actively supporting paid news and information rather than treating them as a category error.
The destructive syllogism of which open meant free - that to be true to the fluid nature of the internet, publishers had to depend entirely on advertising rather than charging for its content - is fading.
Even the idealistic The Guardian publication, faced with the reality that Facebook and Alphabet are devouring all of their digital ads, is passive-aggressively advocating for money.
But after savoring the moment, it would be advisable for news editors to think about the future. The fact that internet giants and consumers now admit that there is a price to pay for quality information does not mean the price will be high: rather, publishers will face a renewed challenge.
The change of direction of Google is a recognition that the quality of free has entailed a high cost for the ecosystem of the news and for Google itself.
In a way, there is perfect logic to bias the results in the quest for free content; it is irritating to click on a link and find a payment wall, which is why its algorithms favor easy access.
However, ease of access is not the only good of the consumer. News can be good or bad, researched deeply or superficially to get the most clicks.
Having set the incentives in favor of cheap and fast news, Google and Facebook have unleashed an avalanche of dubious content, from sensational to absolute counterfeiting.
The image of Facebook is now affected by the use of false news by Russia in order to distort the election, while Google faces the problem of the degradation of the web itself, which makes searches less useful.
Not all free news items are of low quality - some are just the opposite - but platforms have their own reputation to protect.
The big companies of the internet can provide enough help to the publishers of greater quality. Facebook is having only a modest start, offering to start promoting subscriptions when users have read 10 free stories, but Google goes much further. In addition to abandoning the concept of the 'first free click', it is promising to support subscriptions in several ways.
One is using its transaction and payment technology to process subscriptions, which will be a relief to anyone who has experienced difficulties with the outdated and arcane systems of some publishing companies. Another way is to group your data analysis with that of the publishers, allowing them to identify and target potential subscribers.
This could be very useful, but it raises important questions about how the payment of news will evolve. The questions are particularly strong for publishers who pioneered subscriptions, such as Dow Jones, the New York Times and the Financial Times.
The first question concerns entry barriers. Small publishers, which lack the marketing and data analysis resources of the largest, have been at a disadvantage in building paid businesses. That's one of the reasons why so many have continued more with ad-supported news.
If Google or other companies provide technology and data analysis in a very economical way, they will match the conditions and a series of niche publishers will find it easier to find their markets in the middle of the clutter. So far, there have been few subscribers similar to The Information, a technology news publisher founded by a former Wall Street Journal reporter. This can change.
The second question is what happens to the price structure of the industry. So far, there have been two types of news: free or expensive. I read them Readers can continue to read news free of charge by advertising, or they can pay for one or two subscriptions that give them unlimited access to excellent publications. It is a curiously binary consumer choice.
Other media markets do not work that way. Take the example of cable and satellite television: viewers pay their cable providers for network packets, and sometimes extra for exclusive sports channels and movies like HBO. Paying individually for each channel would cost too much and would be too complicated.
As platforms like Google begin to mediate on paid news, it is easy to imagine companies becoming 'packers'.
It is also easy to imagine that consumers want a service of this type. It is likely that an executive in the field of technology in California would choose - rather than a subscription to a single publication - a package with some access to the New York Times, something to The Information, and something to a local news publication .
It is possible to imagine that the packages help everyone, but the larger news editors shudder when they mention it.
Some of them - perhaps Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon and owner of the Washington Post - can accept less to reach more readers. Others fear they would not cover the cost of news in depth.
In the end, the consumer tends to get what he wants. Paid news publishers should enjoy their win this week. Soon, the market will trigger another fight.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario