Rupert Murdoch says he’ll bar Google from indexing any of his sites.
Apparently Murdoch is under the impression that readers who come into his vast media empire (which includes Sun, The Times, The Wall Street Journal, FOX News/movies/channel, MySpace and I-don’t-even-remember-what-else) through Google aren’t going to lead to any sort of profit:
If they’re just search people… They don’t suddenly become loyal readers.
As those “search people” are worthless, they can be ignored and blocked in Murdoch’s world. He explains that the only way to actually make any money on the internet today is to charge for all content and force users to access it directly, because otherwise “no news websites or blog websites anywhere in the world [would make]serious money”.
On one hand, good luck with cutting off one of the most used paths to any online content and then expecting a cheque, Rupe. On the other, if Twitter can charge Bing and Google for indexing rights, shouldn’t one of the world’s most powerful content creators be able to? [Business Insider]
John
Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 7:21 AMOut of touch, rich, and petty old man.
Herald-Sun Reader
Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 9:36 AMThis will have no impact whatsoever. People who read Murdoch’s media generally aren’t smart enough to drive a search engine.
PinballLes
Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 9:40 AMLet him do it. I cannot wait for his “empire” to crumble. Plenty of alternatives out there.
Justin
Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 9:41 AMHaha I google something a while ago and found a Gizmodo article by doing it.
Now I read articles on this site every day.
Mike Biggs
Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 9:50 AMYeah, I’ve never continued to visit a website day after day after day after day because I found it in a search….oh wait…there’s that Gizmodo site and 20 others I visit every single day of my life. He should actually IP ban everyone that visits one of his sites from a search engine. Those peasant “Search people” never buy anything….slackers. We should all be reading trees that have been cut down and pulped into newspapers.
that explains alot
Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 9:57 AMwell doesn’t that just explain alot, noow I can see why network TV has no idea and so to the news.com.au website, they seem to be very poorly organised…
it good OLD rupert
Dave
Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 11:22 AMI would be interested to see what Murdoch thinks the Daily Telegraph is worth to a reader?
Personally, I think he’d have to pay me to read that rubbish.
Nick T
Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 12:03 PMMaybe the quality of his sites are why search people don’t keep coming back?
Personally, I couldn’t care less if he wants to ban traffic through google, there are plenty of other places to read the same information.
Let’s face it, it’s all about money. I’m sure their profits are down, and their stranglehold on media at risk thanks to the internet. Which can only be a good thing right?
I don’t care much for any of the sites mentioned. So you just go ahead and cut your nose off to spite your face mate!
Nato
Tuesday, November 10, 2009 at 5:56 PM“There are no websites or blogs making serious money. Maybe some are breaking even or making a little money like 2 million.”
Is that a bad thing? No.
Move with the times antiquated old fogey.
You win the title of person I’m most ashamed of who was born in Australia. Glad he got that US citizenship, you can have him.
matt
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 2:46 PMhas he heard of advertising?