Comments on: Murdoch and Google redux

By: Alexander

Alexander — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:55:01 +0000

Good on you Mum, enjoyed the Oz article but it cost me $1.50. BTW why don’t you write an article – “Cynicism – a comparison of US and Australian blog respondents” – something like that. Could be amazing findings…….

Oh, and something for you to mull over – while it may be possible for Rupe to save the day the problem he has is too many advisers who understand too little about the Internet. and have too little imagination. Some even have a proven track record of sending top non Rupe properties downhill. And look what is happening to Myspace……. Let’s hope quality journalism isnt flushed away in the fall-out.

By: John Grono

John Grono — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:35:58 +0000

… in other words Holgs … it’s a race to the bottom. I wonder why Murdoch doesn’t want to play that game?

By: Holgs

Holgs — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:39:23 +0000

I tend to agree with your comments in the article. I think a lot of people obsess about how their material appears in google, but the reality is that better traffic comes from other sources, and building up a readership of people who value your content. One of the problems google seems to be creating more broadly is that it encourages people to create low-cost, low-value content monetised by low-value advertising (ie. adsense).

By: Tim Kastelle

Tim Kastelle — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 05:57:08 +0000

Nice article Tim. While I’m working at considerably lower volume than you are in terms of readers, I’ve still been giving these issues some thought myself recently. I see your point about the wave of sudden readers not being in your advertisors’ target market, but I’m still not sure that the long-term benefit was modest. For example, how many of the extra 25k might have added you to an RSS feed? I’ll bet there was some kind of jump resulting from the surge. Analytics for blogs still seem to be pretty hard to figure, but I think that at minimum we need to be measuring both hits and feeds. Figuring out how the two interact for a particular blog will end up being quite valuable.

By: JeffD

JeffD — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 05:21:45 +0000

@ Larry, says the guy who can’t even follow a thread. A thread..? What’s a thread, doh! You must be one of the News LTD Shills sent out like a good republican just like the rest of Fox (Faux) news, to insult anyone that dares says the truth about News LTD, even if it is bad.

By: mumbrella

mumbrella — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 05:06:53 +0000

Hi Gavin,

I suspect not. But there again, the tide of outside opinion has tended to be that Murdoch’s plan doesn’t stand a chance. So to have yet another person write that would be pretty boring.

Cheers,

Tim

By: Larry

Larry — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 05:05:42 +0000

who let grampa simpson on here!! and when did he change his name to jeffD

“a … then b … c would usually follow”

By: JeffD

JeffD — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:55:01 +0000

No John;
I dont pay for online comment, my visits to the sites I do frequent gives them the numbers they need to reach advertisers they need to exist, like a free publication, twhich even News LTD owns a few around the world.

And why would I want to pay for Tolls when the fuel taxes we pay with every litre are suppose to go into making roads. Why is it ok to take our taxes for roads via the bowser, and then charge us to use the road that our taxes are suppose to produce, that’s a double tax. Good on ya Labor! and all those ’special’ deals you do with corporations to ream everyone, you know, all those blue collar workers your suppose to represent and think about….

By: John Grono

John Grono — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:00:36 +0000

Jeff … good to see you’re willing to gamble your money away, but not pay for online content. I bet you were also one of those people who said they’d never pay to use a toll road.

By: JeffD

JeffD — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 03:30:50 +0000

If News Ltd ceases all it’s printing tomorrow, would we notice? or would we care? Will the internet survive? Murdoch seems to think it wont without him. The ‘internets’ is already writing his obituary, and News LTD’s. Well, actually, he’s writing the Obit’ for News LTD each time he opens his mouth.

By: JeffD

JeffD — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 03:27:54 +0000

Murdoch Vs Internet. Ive got my money on the Internet being around longer, and being stronger, even without him!

By: Gavin

Gavin — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 03:08:11 +0000

yeah, and is it normal for da oz to not give link love?

By: mc

mc — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:55:33 +0000

“But this bonus Google traffic was going to be of little interest to our advertisers.”

Because the people involved aren’t in the target audience? If so, this is unlikely to be much of a factor in Murdoch’s thinking, given the relative broadness of most of his properties.

By: Gavin

Gavin — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:54:18 +0000

Tim
Think Matt’s point is worth revisiting. i read your Crikey piece, which was rivetting. I haven’t gone to da Oz as yet. However, if the outcome of the Crikey piece was that Rupert was up himself (as everyone else thinks), do you think da Oz would’ve asked you to write for them?
Cheers
Gavin

By: mumbrella

mumbrella — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:18:26 +0000

Hi Larry,

I was delighted to be asked to write the piece, and didn’t ask for payment, as the potential exposure made writing the piece worthwhile on its own. The same has previously applied when writing for the likes of the Walkley magazine, Crikey, ABC online and others.

Cheers,

Tim – Mumbrella