Newspapers in the Googlespace

[Waleed Al-Shobakky; published on IslamOnline.net, Oct 17, 07]

It is good news—for now—that Google is pushing major newspapers to open up their vaults.

With no fanfare the New York Times pulled the plug on its TimesSelect program this last September. Through TimesSelect, launched in October 2005, the Times started charging readers (who were not subscribers to the print edition) for access to some sections of the online edition, particularly that of opinion columns. Clearly, the objective was to capitalize on the New York Times’ fame as one of the world's best news papers to generate revenues through its online presence.

That was a fair thing to do. Why did the Times shut it down then?

The way the Times explained the closure implies it probably had to. In a short note, the Times cited “significant alterations in the online landscape” over the period TimesSelect was in operation that made it in the best interest of the New York Times readers and “brand” to grant full online access to all readers. Most important among those alterations was the fact that “[r]eaders increasingly find news through search, as well as through social networks, blogs and other online sources.”

Loyalty Crisis

While other factors were named, it is rather obvious that search engines—particularly Google—were the main reason behind this shift of direction. Reading between the lines of the statement, we find that the eminent newspaper is acknowledging that most of its online readership does not have particular loyalty to the Times. The new audience, the Times found out, is composed of Web-wanderers (or “googlers”) who use Google and other search engines as their gateway to information on the Web, rather than rely on a number of trusted Web sites.

The massive adoption of Google and its competitors as the universal homepages, or starting points, in every Web experience indeed has significant implications. One of them is that names or “brands” in the cyberspace may not be able to retain the value traditionally attached to them.

And Wikipedia (the free collaborative encyclopedia) is a case in point. Wikipedia is the emblem of Web volunteerism. Its entries (now in more than 104 languages) are contributions from anonymous users, rather than accredited experts. But because they are open to search engines to recall and display, they have a higher likelihood of ranking higher on result pages than, say, those of the Encyclopedia Britannica, which are hidden behind subscription walls.

Over the past two years it became rather the norm that whatever you are “googling” about (eighteenth-century musician Nicolo Paganini, Geneva Conventions or the irritable bowel syndrome), a Wikipedia entry will very likely show among the top five search results. That indicates that so many people have “linked” to the Wikipedia entry more than to other Web pages carrying the keyword you are searching about.

After all, Google’s algorithm, PageRank, works by assigning value to pages based on the number of links they receive. The value of each link, in turn, is determined by the value of the page from which it originates. A link from the Washington Post, therefore, carries far more value than one from, say, my own blog site. So when a Wikipedia entry ranks high on Google’s result pages, it is a translation of the number and weight of links that forward readers to the open-to-all encyclopedia.

Web Extinction

The proven efficiency of the PageRank in getting relevant results engendered a new habit of mind—the perception that “if it does not show on Google’s result pages it probably does not exist.” This of course is far from true. Google cannot, for instance, display pages from the subscription-protected content of newspapers and archive databases, which is an incredibly vast amount of information.

The rise of Google therefore presented content providers (particularly newspapers) with this existential puzzle: eliminate the subscription shields (and lose an important revenue stream) or the alternative is Web irrelevance and extinction.

On September 19 the New York Times grudgingly and unceremoniously yielded to the first option. The paper went even further and started offering free access to its archives from 1987 and on to the present. Before introducing TimesSelect, access to the archive was limited to seven days back.

To be sure, it is good news to have more of the Times’ high quality journalism available for more readers. Yet that development may also be a silver lining of a growing cloud. That is, thanks to Google and company, more and more newspapers find it difficult to reap returns on their property (good journalism and deserved reputation). It should come as no big surprise Philip Meyer’s prediction in his book The Vanishing Newspaper: Saving Journalism in the Information Age that newspapers will be extinct in the United States by 2043.

The Cyberspace and the Googlespace

Newspapers that open up their formerly protected content do not do this as a sign of hopelessness. In doing this they seek to continue to figure favorably—that is, among the top results— on result pages of search engines and hence more readers to their articles and Web site. That in turn would attract more advertisers.

And the biggest advertising company in the world today is none other than Google itself. Its revenues for this year are expected to be $11.5 billion—up 58% from last year’s.

Google places its “contextual ads” to related articles on Web sites of all stripes, whether of a reputed newspaper or a personal blog. Through its AdSense program, Google serves as the mediator between advertisers and content providers, no matter how small or how big.

It in fact is so common today to find Google’s quintessential text ad links on almost every site you visit. And here is how it works: an advertiser would specify one or more keywords, say, “Nokia accessories”. Whenever these keywords show on Web sites participating in the AdSense program, an automatic ad link to the “nokia accessories” advertiser will appear on the same page. The advertising revenues are shared between the content provider, on whose site the ad link appears, and Google.

Google’s AdSense has provided a source of income to the otherwise obscure small-time content providers, such as personal Web sites that offer reviews of consumer electronics, or sites of hobby-centered communities. Before Google these sites would not be sustainable.

Here lies Google’s paradoxical effect. Whereas it dulls the value of reputed content providers (by serving as almost the ultimate gateway to their content), it affords a lifeline to hobbyist and amateur content providers by making them available to Google users.

For Google, the quality of content on those small sites is no issue. What matters is whether they are able to attract a large enough number of users—and therefore more clicks on ad links—and more inward links, which would translate into higher ranking on search result pages.

“[Google’s] market lead,” a recent New York Times report on Google’s share price rising past $600 maintained, “is so large that advertisers tailor their technology to work best on Google ad networks, and Web publishers design their sites to best pull in more Google users.”

It could be argued therefore that Google’s engine is inherently biased for quantity. This does not automatically mean a bias against quality—but oftentimes this is the end result. As noted above, Wikipedia, a natural Google darling, ranks higher on Google’s engine than the subscription-only, expert-generated and edited Encyclopedia Britannica.

Google’s predominance thus promotes a culture that “venerates the amateur and distrusts the professional” as Nicholas Carr, former senior editor of the Harvard Business Review, wrote in a different context.

How, or whether it is possible, to avert this tide is a matter worth public debate. And as we enthusiastically embrace Google’s new technology offerings, we need to be aware of the consequences of its becoming our “auto-pilot” search engine, to quote a Chicago Tribune commentator. Unsurprisingly, the Economist Sep 1 issue’s cover story—which shed light on Google’s sprawling power—carried this uneasy title: Who is afraid of Google?