http://www.normpompa.com.tr

Sounds simple enough..($$$)

I’m not sure how the Fox deal is structured, but I imagine it includes both a flat fee and a variable component. Fox knows how much traffic Google directs and how much Msft directs to them. Fox also knows the trends from each search engine and can thus estimate future cumulative traffic from the two SE’s. If Msft pays a a variable cost, it will likely be some metric per cum traffic lost.

One way Msft can mitigate these variable costs is if they advertise like crazy that they own Fox (or AP, Reuters, etc.). But this of course will cost a ton. I personally didn’t even know about Msft position for shopping (as commented by another reader) – it won’t work if the consumer isn’t even aware!

You might say China is a good example of where there is segmented searching. By segmented I mean for some searches, users prefer Google and for others users prefer Baidu (such as Music). But these SE’s are able to occupy their niches because of the way they started out and evolved together as the market grew, not because they were able to carve it out later. It would just be too costly!

Another way Msft can mitigate the costs (likely the flat fee) would be if they provided preferential treatment for Fox (or AP, Reuters, etc.) on search results. Of course, this would completely kill the integrity of the search. Another idea may be to put Fox, etc. in the advertise section, free of charge, at the expense of losing a different advertiser, of course.

But I disagree that “for a small business, its not a valid discussion. For a multibillion dollar business , it is.”

NOONE – small or large – is profiting from selling performance based (click thru) advertising, because there are an almost infinite number of variables, OUT OF YOUR CONTROL, which must line up perfectly.

Google is profiting because they have created a way to establish the market value for words. Murdoch is saying that if the words have a market value, then there is a related value for the content/search results for those words. When Murdoch makes a syndication licensing fee deal with Google, then all content has a market value.

Both big and small business would benefit by establishing a market value for content.

For Search Optimizers, like Danny, if search results determined how much a content creator is paid in syndication licensing fees, the ROI on his tactics go up exponentially.

If content creators – large or small – were paid a syndication licensing fee every time content appears in search results in Google, how much faster would credits appear then waiting for visitors to, an advertiser to place an ad, and a viewer to click on it?

Will “do no evil” Google deny that everyone’s content has value? Their investors may try that. But, the one thing “independent” content creators have proven is that there are needs that Mass media does not fill.

Murdoch’s content is already available on over-the-air radio and television for free or other sources people have paid for already, like cable or newspapers. It is limited to “topline” coverage because of the by life cycle of news and the scarcity of time. (Which is why morning newspapers and magazines survived the introduction of radio and tv)

Search requests for “topline” content are different from search requests for deeper analysis or opinions that fit an individual’s bias, raising the value of non-mass media content to search engines. Additionally, when mass media listens to consumers to understand what they will pay for, they will find out that they want all the information, regardless of bias, to be organized in one place so they don’t have to go look for it. Then, mass media will also value (read:pay) to curate links to deeper analyses or the range of opinions around a topic.

Small independents who have worked hard tell a story from an original perspective and build trust will enjoy a rising tide in the market value of content.

The only “independents” who should worry are those who add nothing original to mass media content, except to “diss” it or predict its annihilation.

Katherine Warman Kern
@comradity

Great thoughts regarding the Bing, Google battle. In your opinion is the actions taken by Bing at all driven by the fact that Microsoft has been the “giant target” by so many over the years that now they finally get the opportunity to take on a giant themselves? Obviously, business wise it makes sense to challenge Google, especially since Microsoft has the capital to be able to do so, but there is a large part of me that says Microsoft wants to know what it’s like to be on the “attack” rather than the defense! Am I a huge Microsoft fan, no, but I am also not a huge Google fan either, I appreciate the fact that Microsoft is going to push the envelope and compete with Google. Taking websites over a period of time will certainly drive users to Bing, people said Nike signing Michael Jordan and paying him what they paid him was a risk that wasn’t worth taking. Nike used Jordan to attract every major sports athlete across the board. So I think if Bing gets a few “major” websites early, their ability to manage and market those accounts are going to attract more and more. I would venture to guess the first few websites that de-list from Google and go to Bing are going to be heavily compensated…money drives change!