Media Companies Ask Google to Favor Their Content Over Blogs

Nat Ives reports in AdAge that a number of major media companies have asked Google to give it favorable positioning over blogs...

Many publishers resent the criteria Google uses to pick top results, starting with the original PageRank formula that depended on how many links a page got. But crumbling ad revenue is lending their push more urgency; this is no time to show up on the third page of Google search results. And as publishers renew efforts to sell some content online, moreover, they're newly upset that Google's algorithm penalizes paid content.

"You should not have a system," one content executive said, "where those who are essentially parasites off the true producers of content benefit disproportionately."

What year is this? I thought it was 2009. But when I read this I felt like it was 2004 all over again. Although there may be two sides to this story, the way that AdAge is reporting it, there are number of major flaws with the media's argument here...

First, the lines between media and blogs have been obliterated. What's TechCrunch or Engadget? Sure they are blogs but they run ads. So are they social media or media? To me, we don't have zebras and elephants anymore. They have mated and we're all one species.

Second, corporations are now creating their own media. Some are calling this trend content marketing. Take a look at what Intel or Wal-Mart (a client) are doing. So should Google not favor their content either? I will eat my hat if that happens.

Finally, there's no greater friend to media companies than Google and bloggers. Witness, for example how Google is partnering with Life Magazine. Google has found a way to unlock the value in old content. These media companies need Google to help it monetize in an age where digital advertising as it stands now is not working. Further, in a world where links rule, the media companies need bloggers as well for traffic, credibility and more. Take a look at this recent data from Technorati.

A neutral Google is a good Google. They should continue to deliver an algorithm that rewards the highest quality sources that have earned a following, interest and links from other sources. If the media companies don't want Google to favor bloggers, why not just stop linking to them or use no follow tag? That may over time, erode their Google Juice. However, I suspect most realize it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle.

This argument will die on the vine I suspect. That's the way it should be.

Comments

[frontier]

I cannot agree more, actually I wrote a similar post weeks ago

Edward

Frontier Blog - No one ahead, no one behindhttp://www.hwswworld.com/wp

[Sampad Swain]

I second that opinion, Steve!

[John Pospisil]

Well said Steve. It still surprises me that some "major publishers" don't grasp what's going on. The world has changed guys, so get with it. Stop complaining, and start playing by the new rules. Engage with your readership, and with your superior resources you should be able develop incredible opportunities. You'll certainly get better results that way than if you complain to Google like spoilt brats.

[João Jerónimo]

I can't agree... Google has the same rules for every competitor why should companies get better positions if they don't work hard to have them ? John Pospsisil is right, the rules have changed and they could bring incredible opportunities...

[Sheamus]

I agree. Besides I thought Google's biggest frustration was that Wikipedia.org shows up as the #1 result for almost every search you do. But rightly so, in most cases. For all its faults, it's certainly as authoratative as any other media out there, new or old.

I would propose that if you want top ranking, you need to earn, not buy it.

[Gerard McGarry]

It's all a bit frightening to be honest. Mostly because I don't trust Google anymore NOT to do something like selling out to big media companies. Although what sanctions could the media companies introduce to persuade Google to 'see things their way'?

[Norbert Mayer-Wittmann]

I was very happy when Matt Cutts admitted that Google rankings are primarily based upon th Wisdom of the Language -- something I predicted would happen several year ago ( http://gaggle.info/miscellaneous/articles/wisdom-of-the-language ).

I commend Mr. Cutts and Google for their openness and transparency -- and you can also see Matt Cutts describe how the ranking algorithm works here: http://twitter.com/nmw/statuses/1292403436

Note, however, that search engines actually have very little "say" in this matter, because if they didn't return the results that users expect to see, then users would stop using them -- and when users type in "Amazon", they expect to see amazon.com, rather than something about a river.

[Larry Dignan]

Here's the quickest way to end this idea. Have Google also show the source material that the media uses. Once you find out that most of the reportage that the so called "parasites" leach off of really comes from a press release or some statement or report then Google can cut out the middleman entirely.

[alger]

There will be huge forces underway to reign in, not just blogging, but the entire internet structure as it stands - especially as major media decline and the internet and blogging are seen as a threat to the status quo. They did it to radio and television and now they have their sites on the internet. It does not benefit the powers that be to have a populist medium. The only saving grace here is that the current President benefits greatly from the internet as is. It would be wise for the blog and internet journalism community to ban together and form it's own action committee as tough challenges are ahead. Here's a good article about the internet at risk: http://www.freepress.net/node/49008

Thanks for this article.

[Mark Ivey]

More signs of a troubled industry trying to protect their franchise rather than reinvent their business models. This is no more than publishers trying to regain an edge after losing it their monopoly power, which was based on their controlling the means of production and distribution. On the surface it appears to be a futile effort but who knows what Google's real game plan is. Need to watch it carefully. Thanks for sharing.

[Rex Hammock]

re: Second, corporations are now creating their own media. Some are calling this trend content marketing. Take a look at what Intel or Wal-Mart (a client) are doing. So should Google not favor their content either? I will eat my hat if that happens.

---------

Trend?

It's been around since the 1880s. John Deere created a customer magazine then that is still published.

Used to be called custom publishing or customer publishing. Now called custom media, content marketing, branded media, whatever. Called something new every month or so.

Your pal and custom media guy,

Rex

[Thomas Hawk]

Today I posted an article on Yahoo's new appointment of Elisa Steele to Marketing Chief at Yahoo. My blog post instantly showed up on Google and is now on the first page search results for a search of Elisa Steele's name. It also ranks higher than articles on the same appointment today made by both the Wall Street Journal and the NY Times.

I'm not complaining about this of course, but I do think that Google does give very powerful placement to bloggers. The question is should they? And that depends on whether or not the content from blogs is more likely to be what people searching might be interested in. I think frequently blogs create content that is either more compelling, more interesting or more entertaining than much of what is produced by the mainstream press. To this end I think Google keeping blogs on equal footing with mainstream media is a positive thing.

Of course even on the most basic level though I think many bloggers understand SEO better than many in the mainstream press. Using the same example above my post on Steele used her name in the headline of my post while the NY Times and the WSJ did not. Had I not used her name in the headline the post would not have placed so high in a search for her name. I'm not sure that editors at places like the WSJ or NYT are as sophisticated as they should be with how Google ranks pages in the first place.

[Adam Singer]

"Take a look at what Intel or Wal-Mart (a client) are doing. So should Google not favor their content either? I will eat my hat if that happens."

I had the exact same thought when I read that. Unreal that you have to blog on this Steve. Almost like some people woke up one day and realized this internet thing is kind of important.

[Mark Essel]

Fantastic point of view. There's growing pains in the new media world. How will media be supported when ad revenue is drying up? That's the million (trillion?) dollar question and one I posed to Dr. Clemons (http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/22/why-advertising-is-failing-on-the-internet/)

[Mike Abundo]

Blogs place well because they're conversational -- as such, linkworthy. Instead of boasting and bitching, these old media whiners should just learn to have actual conversations.

[Paul O'Brien]

A key point easily overlooked here is the relationship with Google and Life. Traditional companies (not just media but retailers, manufacturers, etc.) abandon old content, brands, and products quicker than they can spit. In many ways, this has always been one of their greatest, unrealized handicaps; deleting old web pages from their site instead of properly redirecting or retaining access. Much of this is driven by archaic resolutions that the company defines the brand and their customers have no influence.

Consider that in the context of a media company, a news organization that has long held the ideal that they define the news through truth in reporting. The analogy is no different; a brand that believes it controls how consumers perceive and interact with it. Until that changes, old media will continue to die while consumers define how and when they interact with the company.