

Rupert Murdoch has it backwards - cwan
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/11/rupert-murdoch-has-it-backwards.html

======
GavinB
The idea on the table is basically an exclusive distribution deal. These deals
have a long and profitable history. Points of access will often make a
sweetheart deal to have something special to differentiate themselves from
otherwise interchangeable providers. It's why Howard Stern gets paid a premium
to be exclusively on Sirius, and why certain smartphones are only on certain
networks.

That's not to say this is a good idea for News Corp, but it's not a
_nonsensical_ idea.

~~~
Kliment
These deals tend to fall apart over time though, as the content quality
differential fades. If you are the only channel (or network) offering a
certain content (or device) then you win by keeping it as a bundle. But both
content and mobile client devices change fairly rapidly. If others start
producing content that is equally good or even slightly worse, but much easier
to access (due to indexing, being free, being linked to), you lose from your
bundling, and you start losing content as well. If other devices are equally
good or better, you want to break bundling as much as possible so that your
competitors get a smaller share of bundle revenues.

------
po
So the question becomes: How can News Corp. best convert attention into money?

It's too easy to say "If you can't make money from attention, you should do
something else for a living." That's exactly the problem. They make piles of
money out of attention, just not at the margins they have historically.

It is an intractable position, perhaps impossible. However, history has not
looked favorably upon leaders who do nothing and watch their empire and
margins shrink even if it is the only option. These times demand bold
blunders.

~~~
thwarted
These times also demand picking yourself up, brushing yourself off, saying
you'll get it right next time, and trying again. Too many of these old guard
Big Media would rather just sit at the side lines rather than take a lead and
show us where we should be going.

~~~
po
There is no "we" here. These leaders work for their companies and are sitting
precisely at local maximums. It makes sense to sit there for a while, wait for
someone else to discover the new new maximum, and _then_ move toward it and
try to take it over.

~~~
thwarted
You don't get bold blunders by sitting on the side lines. And that "we" could
be just as well be the company's share holders. Being the captain sitting at
the local maximums as the ship is sinking only gets you in the history books
as being the guy who went down with the ship.

------
nir
"If you can't make money from attention, you should do something else for a
living" - News Corp made almost $33b revenues from attention last year.

------
mynameishere
No, the news sites have done the math and google visitors aren't worth the
trouble.

~~~
astrec
If Google visitors weren't worth the trouble News would have deployed
robots.txt long ago.

I think Damien Ivereigh said it best:

 _Murdoch wants to be indexed by Google (if he didn't he could just use a
robots.txt file). He just wants Google to pay for it – which it won't. This is
a classic game of 'chicken'.

Murdoch has started publically complaining about Google in the hope of finding
a government that would change the rules so that Google will be forced to pay,
or at least give publishers some other way to make money out of the
uncontrolled free-for-all that is the internet.

Trouble is, now Microsoft has called his bluff by saying it will give Murdoch
money if it de-indexes from Google and migrates over to Bing.

At best (for Murdoch), this is just an escalation in the game of chicken with
Google. At worst, people will turn around to Murdoch and ask: "Well you say
you need search engines to pay, but you had the offer from Microsoft, why
didn't you take it?"

Murdoch is no dinosaur struggling to figure out how to sit in the new internet
age. He is a very cunning businessman who has figured out that he can't win
this battle using capitalism and the markets alone._

Orig:
[http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Conversations/Rup...](http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Conversations/Rupert_Murdoch_BL89Q?OpenDocument#contribution_link)

~~~
flipper
Yes, News needs Google, they just hate to admit it. Knowing that's true,
Murdoch is trying to maneuver News into a better bargaining position with
Google.

There can be no better sign of who is most powerful in this struggle than the
fact that all the threats and overtures are coming from News and Microsoft.
Google is the Gorilla, Microsoft is the Chimp, and News is the customer who
wants the vendor to _pay_ to provide their service.

~~~
bilbo0s
I can't tell whether or not I agree with you two.

If you are implying that Wall Street Journal readers would not subscribe and
read Wall Street Journal without Google, then I disagree. I think the comment
by @mynameishere is correct, for the Wall Street Journal, Google is probably
sending a lot of riff-raff over. You don't want those users. Even if they
click on the NetJet or Jaguar ad, I doubt they could afford it. And most of
them probably do not know what American Express Black is.

If, however, you are saying that Murdoch and Google are playing a giant game
of chicken, then I would agree.

~~~
flipper
Yes, giant gsme of chicken. I don't think Murdoch has any intention of
blocking Google, he's trying a North Korean-style gambit - "I am renowned for
being difficult and dangerous, give me what I want or I'll do something
nasty."

Murdoch threatening to block Google is like Kim Jong Il proposing to bomb
South Korea - absolutely suicidal, but given how "crazy" he is no one can
count against him doing it.

Like most North Korean gambits, it's mostly posturing but the fact that it
comes from a potentially threatening source means it has to be carefully
considered.

------
memetichazard
There doesn't seem to be anything particularly new or interesting to what's
being said here. In particular, there have been many articles on this issue
submitted already. Is this worthy of being posted on Hacker News simply
because Seth Godin said it?

There's been multiple articles of his submitted that didn't say anything
particularly non-obvious (or so it seemed to me), but this one is particularly
egregious, being short enough to fit into about 2 twitter posts and bringing
nothing new to a conversation that already been progressing here for weeks.

------
mfukar
"Charging money for attention gets you neither money nor attention."

Yet HE pays attention. OH SNAP.

