Murdoch may have lost the plot... a little - but not entirely.
Digital strategy usually revolves around maximising exposure and driving traffic.So why does Brand Republic’s recent article and Sky News Australia's broadcast expose Rupert Murdoch’s intention to hide his paid content sites from Google and other search engines? Has he gone mad?
Jim Woodhead, Account Director at Freestyle, has a lot to say about it.
Semantic web and the future of SEO
Rupert Murdoch’s assertion that you can’t keep the machine of national news working if no-one is paying for content is quite right, and I would agree that SEO generated readers are not loyal readers too. I also agree with his underlying point that while the BBC is mandated to give their content for free, it’s going to be impossible for the other news providers to compete with that and maintain standards (accepting the argument made by Nick Davis in “Flat Earth News”, that Murdoch’s organisation has undermined the freedom, quality and performance of journalism across the world). Additionally, I can see where he is coming from in terms of search engines and Google in particular stealing content. In many ways, it does and it’s a channel that has a lot of influence currently. But we shouldn’t be surprised if that power fades over the next few years. Many of the semantic changes and developments that web 3.0 are heading towards will fundamentally alter how we interact with the web and Google et al will be left looking for a place in that new landscape.
The right content = conversion
There’s a bit of cutting off your nose here though, but then I think that the scope of this facial reconstruction depends largely on the way the scalpel is used. Stick everything behind a pay-wall and you’re limiting the number of people who can access the content that’s most important to both News Corp and their audience, but give away the right content for free and you’re able to create something that is nicely balanced and poised for conversion. As an example, I started to download a couple of Podcasts from The Times because they were recommended. This lead to me reading the associated blogs, and then using the website RSS feed for my news. On Saturday, I find myself buying the paper and I wonder whether I become a regular reader. By offering the podcast and the blog for free, then you’re likely to start to drive conversions in to the meat and drink of the organisation
But, they are just playing in to the hands of smaller and more nimble competitors I hear you say... Perhaps – but so long as that paid content has a decent level of value-add (and I would look to their sports coverage for the best indication of where they can achieve this) then they are providing a compelling reason for consumers to go out and pay for that content. While there will be a proliferation of small news providers offering free content they will come and go and Murdoch’s bright enough to see that. He can also see that advertising real-estate is losing value hand over fist and until users are willing to accept more behavioural rather than contextual targeting this will always be the case.
Also, don’t forget to factor in the idea of bundling this content in with other subscription options. Perhaps if I am a Sky subscriber, then I can have access to The Times online for free (ish)? All of News Corps titles even? Oh, and with all of that subscription insight that they have, then perhaps they could better target advertisements at me and generate further supporting revenue that way? And then maybe they’ll go out and buy a mobile network too... Wouldn’t that be interesting.