Having managed two aggregation sites, I really wanted to write something original and insightful to dispel what Rupert Murdoch and the Associated Press had been spewing out to the media regarding news aggregators. They say we're no good. We steal. We're "parasites." It's time for us to pay for using their headlines and teasers, even though we're linking those headlines directly to their sites. To my surprise, I don't have much to add to what has already been said about their comments. Judging by those comments, Murdoch and the AP are pretty clueless when it comes to the internet and new media.
If you go to ap.org, all you get are links to AP stories on newspapers that license their content. The AP doesn't have a website to house their content so they must think that links, therefore, have no value to them. They are wrong. Links have value to their clients. Links bring traffic to their clients. If they stop internet users from linking to ap stories from their clients, their content will be highly devalued. Their clients will demand lower licensing fees or leave and move on to one of their competitors. Instead of wasting money on developing a software to find and fine people for linking to their content, they should throw that money into creating a destination site, like Reuters, that could take advantage of the traffic generated by links. That'll open another source of revenue for them, and maybe then they'll finally learn the value of links. But I doubt they'll do that. They're so clueless they've even hired a media consultant who's more clueless than they are. It's a really bad, albeit amusing, case of the blind leading the blind.
Let's move on to Rupert Murdoch. The newspaper industry is bleeding readers and advertisers. Murdoch, who owns a bunch of newspapers including the Wall Street Journal and New York Post, is pointing the finger at news aggregators. He thinks, like the AP, that they can charge people for using their headlines and teasers. If those theives don't comply, they'll have to stop linking to his newspapers. My advice is before he goes and executes that plan, he should first talk to traffic managers from each of his newspapers. They'll explain to him what a bad idea that is and, hopefully, won't get fired for it. The good news is not all major newspapers think like him.
These guys need to be open-minded and listen to some real experts in this field. Going after aggregators and bloggers who reference and drive traffic to their content won't solve their problems; it'll only make it worst. Instead of pointing fingers and threating lawsuits, they gotta look within themselves and be more creative about generating revenue and cutting costs. Most of the websites for prominent newspapers are already build with the latest and greatest web technology, so I think they're fine there. As for the AP, I still don't understand why they don't have a destination site yet. They're the biggest news network in the world. If they would just build a decent website and put all of their content there, they'll easily become one of the biggest news sites on the web. It'll open up another source of revenue for them. C'mon guys, just put up a damn website and stop with this headline-and-teaser tracking software nonsense - it's a waste of your money and time. Don't listen to Arnon Mishkin. The guy don't know what he's talking about.
