Google Testing TV Search Service With Dish Network
According to the Wall Street Journal, Google is testing a new TV programming search service with Dish Network:
The service—which runs on TV set-top boxes using elements of Google’s Android operating system—allows users to search content from Dish as well as other Web video, like YouTube, and to personalize a lineup of shows, according to these [...]
*** Read the full post by clicking on the headline above or, in Facebook, by clicking on the “View Original Post” link below. ***
Is Redmond The Puppet Master In Google EU Anti-Trust Investigation?
As both the Wall Street Journal and Telegraph UK are reporting, the EU has opened a formal investigation into Google’s competitive practices and potential abuse of its dominant market position in Europe. That investigation was triggered by several complaints from private companies, which we discussed in part before.
One of those companies, the shopping engine Ciao, [...]
*** Read the full post by clicking on the headline above or, in Facebook, by clicking on the “View Original Post” link below. ***
Google Resumes China Talks Despite Evidence Of Govt-Hacking Connection
According to the Wall Street Journal, Google has re-engaged with China around its ability to continue operating its number two search engine in the country in an “unfiltered” way. The Chinese have given no public indications that they will permit this in the country, which is ruled by state control of speech and media.
The WSJ [...]
*** Read the full post by clicking on the headline above or, in Facebook, by clicking on the “View Original Post” link below. ***
They’re Back: AP Stories Reappear In Google
In the peek-a-boo dance of the AP-Google negotiation, it appears that AP stories are back in Google News. Earlier this month Danny wrote an extensive post about an apparent deal between the parties to allow the continued indexing of AP stories in Google News.
Now the Wall Street Journal reports:
New articles from the Associated Press have [...]
….
AOL’s Q4: When Failure = Success
And not in the positive “I now know 999 ways not to make a light bulb” way.
AOL’s Q4—their first earnings report since spinning off from Time Warner—numbers have all kinds of red ink and negative signs in front of them: display advertising revenue down 3% total YOY, international display down 22%, search and contextual down 19%, total ad revenue down 8%, subscription revenue down 28%, Other revenue down 5%. The only gain YOY was in US display advertising: a whopping 1%. And despite total revenues being down 17%, AOL still handily beat Wall Street expectations.
Yes, failure = success when people expect almost nothing of you. Says All Things D:
After factoring out one-time charges, AOL posted earnings of 71 cents per share on revenues of $801 million. Wall Street expected earnings of either 62 cents or 66 cents per share, depending on who you ask, on revenue of around $766 million.
And that earnings per share is way higher than, say, Yahoo (22¢).
Of course, the reason the expectations are so low is that none of this is a surprise. Time Warner ditched AOL for just this reason. (Boggles the mind to think that AOL originally bought TW. Crazy, isn’t it?) AOL has long been on the decline. Although CEO (and former Googler) Tim Armstrong is striving to retool sales in both personnel and strategy, their long slog might just mire them deeper in the red ink.
Meanwhile, the CEO of Time Warner got his expected raise.
What do you think? Can AOL survive?
Google Apps May Get Its Own App Store
It’s no secret that what really sets the iPhone apart from other smartphones is its App Store. Google appears to be betting that an app store will help set Google Apps apart from Microsoft’s office and business software.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Google might announce the Apps app store as soon as next month. [...]
….
Readers Hit New York Newsday Paywall Then Turn Around and Walk Away
All of the talk of paywalls for online content that gets the bulk of the attention by the ‘press’ is focused mainly on large publications like the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal. These publications have international readership and have significant influence when it comes to coverage of the major events in the world as well as in the business arena. Because of this significant influence many believe that the paywall discussion is valid because people need these sources to stay informed.
What about paywalls on the local level though? How will more localized papers fare when it comes to asking people who do not subscribe to the publication to pay to see the content online? If the results at New York Newsday are any indication its not a pretty picture.
Crain’s New York Business tells us just how bad it is
Here is one paid model for online journalism that isn’t exactly setting the world on fire: Nearly three months after Newsday put its Web site behind a pay wall, Newsday.com has attracted only 35 subscribers.
In addition, traffic to the Long Island daily’s site has dropped by half, according to Nielsen.
Newsday is the local paper for all of Long Island and a good portion of the NYC borough of Queens. Not exactly a small place. In other words, if there are this many people in the area and there are only 35 of them in three months willing to fork out a few bucks a week to access the information online this has to be viewed as a failure. Here’s what readers who do not subscribe elsewhere see when they try to get information from the website
To be fair it’s not like only 35 people read the online content for the paper since the content is literally available to a large portion of the population.
Newsday.com can be accessed free by the paper’s home subscribers, as well as by Cablevision customers and subscribers to the cable operator’s Optimum Online broadband service.
According to the paper, that means about 75% of Long Island households just have to register to have access. Anyone else who wants to read the paper online has to pay $5 per week.
Still, the number of online subscribers shocked members of Newsday’s union—Local 406 of the Graphic Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters—which is in a bitter fight with the paper’s management over a proposed contract offer that would cut pay by 10%.
What this outcome may be telling the industry is that paywalls may very well limit the reach of your publication. Long Island is of particular interest considering just how many people have relocated from the area to parts all around the country. Now, if these people want to keep up with current events from ‘home’ they would have to pay and it looks like those folks are saying to Newsday “Forgetta about it!”.
So if this tactic isn’t working to generate more revenue what is the point of doing it? Maybe Newsday doesn’t want to be one of the first major local newspapers to try this and then be one of the first to drop it all in the span of a few short months.
Whatever the reasons this experiment looks to be a huge bust thus far. Not exactly the success story you parade out to other publications considering the same tactic. So what do you think? Will local publications be able to enact a paywall and have success or is this just a desperate move by an industry that decided to change as a means of survival rather than doing it as part of their ongoing business plan to move into the future?
Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!
Google Has a Great Q4 but Suffers at Hands of Secret Society of Whispers
When you’re Google, having a great quarter is not good enough. Apparently, there’s a secret society of Wall Street Analysts that quietly hold Google to a higher standard, says MarketWatch:
However, several analysts maintained their bullish long-term view in the wake of the report, noting that Google missed higher "whisper" numbers even though it handily beat Wall Street’s consensus.
Those whisper numbers meant that Google’s share price is currently drifting 3%, with Google executives likely staring at their stock portfolio wondering what the heck just happened. After all, Google saw net income rise to $1.97 billion in the December quarter, compared with $382 million, earned in the same period a year earlier. Net revenue hit $4.95 billion–beating the target of $4.92 billion Google thought Wall Street was seeking.
Now, here’s something you probably don’t know. All of these numbers can be, let’s say, "massaged." Google likely structured its Q4 numbers to just beat analysts predictions, while keeping some back in reserve for Q1 of 2010. In other words, had Google known about the secret society of whispers, it probably could have topped their estimates too. 
Want more? Google took the unprecedented step of airing its Q4 earnings call on YouTube:
PS. Eric, you might find Wall Street treats you a little kinder, if you had a better grasp of your company’s projections. When asked if YouTube will make a profit this year, "I’d assume so, yes," hardly instills confidence.
Google Buys Search Ad In Response To The China Decision
The Wall Street Journal noted that Google has purchased search ads for queries done on Google.com for “Google Leaves China” or “Google vs. Baidu.” Clearly, Google wants people to read their position on the recent move for them ending the censorship of Google China.
Here is a picture of the ad:
Google, on occasion, will buy [...]
….
New York Times Putting More Bricks In Paywall Discussions
New York magazine is reporting that the New York Times could be announcing its own move to a paid subscription model as early as this week. If this is the case, we may see more of the dominoes fall in this tenuous conversation. It seems that whenever anyone discusses even the threat of paid content online, a hush comes over the room and people start to whisper like they do when your creepy uncle shows up at the family reunion. Well, whether this is the time or not, this could be the year where content makes a break from the free world to either save itself or crash and burn in spectacular fashion for all to watch.
New York Times Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. appears close to announcing that the paper will begin charging for access to its website, according to people familiar with internal deliberations. After a year of sometimes fraught debate inside the paper, the choice for some time has been between a Wall Street Journal-type pay wall and the metered system adopted by the Financial Times, in which readers can sample a certain number of free articles before being asked to subscribe. The Times seems to have settled on the metered system.
There are a wide variety of thoughts on the actual time that the announcement and then the service would happen so suffice it to say, it could be this week and it could be in a few months. The point is that there is pretty good chance that this will happen. When it does there will be plenty of interested parties looking on to help them determine what might be next. Apparently this has not been an easy discussion for the Times and they have looked at several options.
The Times has considered three types of pay strategies. One option was a more traditional pay wall along the lines of The Wall Street Journal, in which some parts of the site are free and some subscription-only. For example, editors and business-side executives discussed a premium version of Andrew Ross Sorkin’s DealBook section. Another option was the metered system. The third choice, an NPR-style membership model, was abandoned last fall, two sources explained. The thinking was that it would be too expensive and cumbersome to maintain because subscribers would have to receive privileges (think WNYC tote bags and travel mugs, access to Times events and seminars).
Now, the article in New York does examine how difficult this process is for the Times because in reality, they are trying to assess what their worth is to the English speaking world from a journalistic and reporting standpoint. Some feel that they could be the last one standing as others go away as a result of online media. If that were the case, the NY Times could garner plenty of ad revenue if they could hold on in the near term. Others are just watching the paper bleed money and feel that there may never be enough ad revenue in the new media world to support the level of reporting etc that they are used to promoting.
I am not sure where I am on this one. I would like to see news outlets like the New York Times survive. We need to pay people to cover stories and do the necessary digging to hopefully get somewhere near the truth. The trouble comes in whether the truth is ever the issue or not. Honestly, it doesn’t matter if a publication is on the left or the right of the political spectrum because the real concern is the bias that exists in many of these big publications. Everything that is reported is spun and often those who get to the position of being a Times reporter use that position as a power base. As a result reporting is out the window. It’s more like opinion and agenda with a few facts thrown in here and there. Sounds a lot like bloggers actually!
Anyway, here’s the easy question for our readers. Would you pay to get the New York Times content online? Yes or no. Oh and since we are a blog please let us hear your opinions as well.
