The Daily Telegraph seems to want to have its cake and eat it with Google.

10 comments

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/24/google_vs_telegraph/

At some stage G needs to call somone bluff and drop old media from the index if they want to play hardball.

Comments

Syndication is welcome with

Syndication is welcome with my own news sites - but if The Telegraph wishes to be removed then is that really going to be all that difficult? I've usually found Google News people to be very helpful.

Heh...

Opponents argue that Google has a de facto monopoly on search, and so controls the gateway to internet news, and should therefore be compelled to share the huge profits it draws for relatively little effort.

Fair point (OK fairish) but relatively little effort?

The Telegraph drops Google listings then that part of their search market share goes to competing news items. I would guess quite a large part of news site traffic is bookmarked, direct type in or links from other sites anyway, but the search traffic must account for a decent part of it.

Perhaps they should cost the impact of the loss of the FREE eyeballs on their online adverts, services, etc before they start crying about what is fair and what isn't.

MG

Pull the plug

See how fast they'll BEG to be re-included if Google and Yahoo simply dump The Daily Telegraph.

If it's out of the collective internet mind, people will soon forget they ever existed.

HINT FOR STUPID PAPERS: Put "Disallow:/" in your robots.txt

They have just realised the internet...

...doesn't play by their 19th century rules.

And that no one under the age of 40 is reading their print editions, in fact it is pretty easy to forget they exist these days.

I can see a younger generation who are much more specialised in their reading habits and very difficult to target as a generation than any generation before them.

It's the ONLINE generation

I don't think age is really a factor to this problem as my wife and I quit subscribing to print editions almost 10 years ago as did many of my friends and we're all 40+. My father-in-law is 80+ and has his browser set to start on his Google personalized home page with a bunch of newsfeeds on it.

As a matter of fact, the local SF Bay Area & SJ papers begged me to take it FREE just to keep their subscriber numbers up and I told them NO NO NO!

The only paper I permanently subscribe to on a regular basis is Charmin and it's a crappy publication.

No doubt the distribution

No doubt the distribution (paper) is outmoded but the underlying product (content) is solid, hard to imagine NO NEWS, the question is who is entitled to deliver/brand the content.

I don't think google gets a free ride indefinitely and if the "dinosaurs" missed anything it was the parasitic attack by google on their stuff, they'll wise up sooner or later. I'm sure most consumers would trip over themselves to get their news and google isn't that centric to the equation.

As with other high quality content producers, they just don't NEED google.

Fast forward a bit here and you can see google dictating what publishers do with their sites ala matt cutts w/the paid link bit.

Best thing for publishers NOW is get off the google juice as quickly as possible.

but the Newspaper Co only have LCD Content

..thats Lowest Common Denominator Content aimed at a mass market, I read lots of online content very, very little from the 'old' media companies because their coverage of anything I'm interested in is superficial.

Describing them as high quality content producers is laughable at best, high volume, low quality, content producers is a better description.

well the DT's

An upmarket paper esp now Murdoc owns the times.

How eaver they did can a load of journalists recently I suspect its more run by beancounters than journalists these days.

Interesting that a paper thats very critical of the protectionist european practices is copying them :-)

The Telegraph don't trust their journalists

Whilst we're on the Telegraph, has anyone noticed that they nofollow all links within articles on telegraph.co.uk.

Maybe they don't trust their own journalists and editors.

Ho hum

Old media giant doesn't 'get' new media. Unless they're using a subscription model (which they're not), I just don't see how they have a leg to stand on.

*world rolls over & goes back to sleep*
*Google continues counting piles of cash*

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.