Zell to stop Google stealing his content ?

Sam Zell, the real estate magnate has kicked up a storm on the blogsphere (see Tech Meme http://www.techmeme.com/ for a collection of the articles covering the issue) after suggesting that newspapers should stop giving their content to the search engines.

Of course, IDG’s was not totally immune to such thinking a few years ago, but we realized we were wrong and got over it – fast !

Brilliant as he has proven to be in his field of expertise, it seems as if Sam Zell has not been paying attention. Sam Zell is going to lose billions on newspapers and the Washington Post has no idea what they're talking about.

These stories articulate why Sam Zell is wrong and why organizations such as Agence France-Presse (AFP) capitulated (although I’m not sure that’s how they position their new ménage à deux)

An interesting post by Lucas Grindly lays out a couple of arguments for Sam Zell's stance - I personally do not agree but it's one of the more interesting counter arguments I've read.

Just how powerful is Google and how will it evolve is an interesting debate but rather that worry about the future "artificial intelligence Googlezon", publishers need to focus on the here and now and build their brands around their local and vertical communities. It’s all about your audiences, not all about you.

Having just taken over PC World and Macworld, I know we still have a lot to do in this regard. The attitude, (despite obvious indications to the contrary that the audience needs to be front and center) is still one of pushing out content rather than pulling it in. This approach is a by-product of our print legacy and it's out of date.

I intend to work hard to change this approach at IDG and particularly at PC World and Macworld. In one memorable interaction with Steve Jobs he very calmly told me that is was not I was wrong, it was just that I needed an "attitude adjustment".

I suggest Sam Zell and his team quickly adjust their attitude to the internet or they will be joining the dodo.

Of course, I could be completely wrong and Sam Zell is a wily fox !

Comments

[Michael A. Banks]

A bit late here, but ...

Zell hasn't done his homework. What about the income newspapers take in from ProQuest and other info providers who sell access to historic and more recent newspaper content? (Zell's Chicago Tribune is available through ProQuest's Historical Newspapers collection.) Some newspapers, cut off access to stories that search engines find within a few days of their appearance. The searcher then has to go to a pay site to retrieve the article in question.

Google and other search engines are in effect generating income for the newspapers (at least from those individuals who are willing to pay to see an article). This, in addition to increasing traffic to newspaper Web sites.

All that aside, I am certain that few searchers would be willing to pay for stories that they can access free--especially if they couldn't find the stories because they aren't "finable" by search engines.
--Michael A. Banks
http://www.michaelabanks.com

[Iulian Comanescu]

What Google does is valuable in terms of content, because concentration or synthesis arount the facts, in spite of the automated method. This is why it had such a success. Newspapers won't be able to cope with it. One could also argue that information is free, and only the form is subject of copyright - and the links bulk presented by News.Google.com around every event or fact is a separate content unit. Probably they might start to edit their headlines and the case will be closed.