Q&A: Why the Guardian wants Google to pay up

 

Gallery

Posted on 14 Jul 2009 at 15:50

The Guardian Media Group's Simon Waldman tells us why he thinks Google should pay to use a newspaper's content

Google is facing a media backlash, with several newspaper groups demanding compensation for the search giant's use of their journalism on Google News. Rupert Murdoch, the Associated Press and the Guardian Media Group have all claimed the news aggregator should contribute more than simply links to their sites.

Here, the Guardian Media Group's director of digital strategy and development, Simon Waldman, tells us why he thinks Google should pay up.

Q Are newspaper websites stuck in a position where they can't live with Google, and can't live without it?

A We can – and do – work with Google in a wide variety of areas (we have an AdSense deal, we use its Apps internally, we are a DoubleClick customer), and of course it's a major source of traffic. At the same time, we also have a phenomenally loyal audience that comes straight to our site every day. So, to put it in your terms, we can live both with Google and – if we had to – we could live without it. But we believe there is much greater mutual benefit for us to work together in a way that creates a fair balance of value for both of us.

Q Is it not hypocritical for newspapers to employ SEO experts to push them up the Google rankings, and then complain that it's harming their revenue?

A We've never complained that Google is harming our revenue. Our problem isn't with search and aggregation – which we believe creates significant consumer value. And SEO, used well, is just good practice. Our problem is the terms on which our content is aggregated – the only benefit to us is traffic. And because of Google's dominant position in the market, it makes negotiating over terms extremely difficult.

We've never complained that Google is harming our revenue

Q Do you believe that Google should be paying newspapers to use their content on services such as Google News?

A Yes. Google's Marissa Mayer has said that Google News is worth $100m to the company in referrals alone, and that's before it started recent attempts to monetise Google News. I think it is only fair that some of that value is shared with the content creators that allow the product to exist in the first place.

Q Is there any prospect that newspapers will charge for content when the likes of the BBC is providing a good news service for free?

A I suspect you'll see some experiments around the market in the coming months. But it isn't clear that shutting up previously free services is the right way to go. The BBC, of course, doesn't help.

Q If Google won't pay for news, and charging for access isn't a realistic prospect, how will sites such as Guardian.co.uk survive?

A I remain pretty bullish about our medium-to-long term prospects in both the display and recruitment advertising markets, and we have a very strong online dating business. Alongside this, I think that print display advertising has plenty of life in it yet; and newspaper cover prices are proving very resilient. Overall, I think this gives us a pretty sound base for the future – but we know we have to continue to innovate and look for new revenue streams, as well as continue to press for more equitable terms with search engines and aggregators.

Q The Guardian recently launched its Open Platform – is this the kind of service that will generate future revenue?