Re WSJ ends Google users' free ride, then falls 44% in search results

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Charles Arthur <charles.arthur () gmail com>
> Date: June 14, 2017 at 6:10:42 PM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Cc: lauren () vortex com
> Subject: Re: [IP] WSJ ends Google users' free ride, then falls 44% in search results
>
> I’d bet that the WSJ (and the staff there) would rather have the income from subscriptions. A 4x increase in 
> conversion might translate into some useful money. 
> Notice how other news orgs (Time, Vocativ, the no-paywall-at-all HuffPo) are laying people off all over the place. 
> The WSJ has done some layoffs too, but it’s looking less worried than those which are losing advertising to Facebook 
> and… Google.
>
> Placement in search results matters less with the growth in social too: Twitter and Facebook, not to mention email 
> newsletters, are increasingly important.
>
> best
> Charles
>
> On Twitter: http://twitter.com/charlesarthur
> The Overspill:
> http://theoverspill.wordpress.com/
> More:
> http://www.charlesarthur.com/
>
>
>
>
> > On 14 Jun 2017, at 20:47, Dave Farber <farber () gmail com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > > From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
> > > Date: June 14, 2017 at 12:53:38 PM EDT
> > > To: nnsquad () nnsquad org
> > > Subject: [ NNSquad ] WSJ ends Google users' free ride, then falls 44% in search results
> > >
> > >
> > > WSJ ends Google users' free ride, then falls 44% in search results
> > >
> > > http://www.columbian.com/news/2017/jun/11/wsj-ends-google-users-free-ride-then-falls-44-in-search-results/
> > >
> > >      After blocking Google users from reading free articles in
> > >    February, the Wall Street Journal's subscription business
> > >    soared, with a fourfold increase in the rate of visitors
> > >    converting into paying customers. But there was a trade-off:
> > >    Traffic from Google plummeted 44 percent.  The reason: Google
> > >    search results are based on an algorithm that scans the
> > >    internet for free content. After the Journal's free articles
> > >    went behind a paywall, Google's bot only saw the first few
> > >    paragraphs and started ranking them lower, limiting the
> > >    Journal's viewership.  Executives at the Journal, owned by
> > >    Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., argue that Google's policy is
> > >    unfairly punishing them for trying to attract more digital
> > >    subscribers. They want Google to treat their articles equally
> > >    in search rankings, despite being behind a paywall.
> > >
> > > - - -
> > >
> > > The ranking change is exactly what should have happened. A paywalled
> > > article is less useful to the average Google search user than a free
> > > article, so it's completely reasonable that this differential is
> > > reflected in search results rankings. Sorry, WSJ, I'm playing the
> > > world's tiniest violin for you.
> > >
> > > --Lauren--
> > > Lauren 
> >
> > Archives  | Modify  Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now       



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20170614181548:023A317C-514F-11E7-9A96-F670272602D9
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com