Interesting People mailing list archives
Re WSJ ends Google users' free ride, then falls 44% in search results
From: "Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 18:15:39 -0400
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-- LaurenArchives | 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
Current thread:
- Re WSJ ends Google users' free ride, then falls 44% in search results Dave Farber (Jun 14)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re WSJ ends Google users' free ride, then falls 44% in search results Dave Farber (Jun 14)
- Re WSJ ends Google users' free ride, then falls 44% in search results Dave Farber (Jun 14)