The Times typically gets about twice the traffic the WSJ does. For simplicity’s sake (I don’t know if the WSJ gets more or less per unit of traffic than the NYT does), let’s say the Journal will get half what the Times will in online ad revenue this year, or $51 million. If all visitors were equal (and they’re not!), that would imply Google brings just $11.7 million a year in ads or $978,000 a month.
Or forty cents a month per Googler. But even that’s too high, as we’ll see in my attention-spans-are-Twittered-out-so-let’s-split-this-up next post.
ADDING: I realize Murdoch is not talking just about the Journal, but I focused on it for simplicity’s (and data’s) sake.
ALSO: Added a link to said next post.
So I'm newspaper folk, not just web folk. That's where I came from. And it is a wild guess, and I said in my post as much. I said it could be radically lower. I know you quote that -- but I think it's worth stressing again that this was a starting point for a discussion -- which you've added to well, so thanks!
Maybe they're not even getting a nickle. But the bigger point I was making was that how much would it be worth it to Bing or another search engine (say Google) if they were (and this still hurts my head) deciding it was in their interest to pay the WSJ for each person they send. Because, I guess, if the WSJ can't make a nickle per person that visits, Google/Bing somehow have magical powers!
I think the reality is that while Murdoch might think his content is what makes Google earn so much money, for Google, it might really be a loss leader at best. I really don't think Google or Bing are going to pay that much (if anything) for the right to list headlines and summaries and send that traffic on to the WSJ. But that's a case of the newspaper exec folks (Murdoch) not getting it.
The really more important thing from out of this is what are the numbers Murdoch wants. What exactly does he think Google owes him? What's his price tag -- what's that based off of -- how's he proving whatever amount he think Google gains off of him.
We so much need to get past the sound bites. Some figures, any figures, are at least getting thinking past the starting line.
#1 Posted by Danny Sullivan, CJR on Tue 10 Nov 2009 at 02:24 PM
Also, it's worth remembering that for a long time, the WSJ was NOT in Google. At some point, they decided to open up. OK, that was before Murdoch. But did someone crunch numbers and decide all those free visitors were worthwhile. And where are Murdoch's numbers? If he's getting 1 million people per day from Google, how does he figure NOT getting them makes him more money? Those people can read ONE article via Google per visit. A tiny, tiny number of them are savvy enough to keep using Google to bypass his paywall -- and the WSJ has NEVER raised that as an issue. So he cuts Google off, how's he figuring that makes him money. What % of those 1 million has he calculated depend so much on WSJ content that they'll go directly to the WSJ. And wouldn't that % already be at the WSJ?
#2 Posted by Danny Sullivan, CJR on Tue 10 Nov 2009 at 02:28 PM
"The Journal has the cleverest and most successful newspaper Web site in the world—clever because it keeps getting subscription dollars every month from more than a million users, while increasing its traffic significantly by allowing Google searches and, thus, links to come in for one story for free."
And in the same interview Murdoch denied that the Wall Street Journal does this very thing ("...if you're not a paying subscriber to WSJ.com all you get is a paragraph and a subscription form...") which means he was either dissembling about it, or ignorant of his own newspaper's (clever) strategy. One would think that deserves a mention here, as long as we're praising Rupert's acumen.
#3 Posted by Jay Rosen, CJR on Tue 10 Nov 2009 at 02:34 PM
Ryan, all those CAPS by the way, aren't directed at you. And I don't mean them with a tone of hostility, either. It's more frustration with Murdoch for having launched his anti-Google, anti-"freeloaders" campaign without really putting many actual facts out there that can be debated.
#4 Posted by Danny Sullivan, CJR on Tue 10 Nov 2009 at 04:21 PM
This analysis is effective proof that search engines don't pay off purely as a distribution channel. But they're also a marketing channel. What's the monthly benefit to the WSJ's brand and brand-awareness of showing up in Google search results?
#5 Posted by Michael Andersen, CJR on Tue 10 Nov 2009 at 05:14 PM
Danny, I'm all with you on putting some cards on the table. It's frustrating to try to back out numbers on this debate when there's very little transparency. For competitive reasons or for we're-just-plain-embarrassed reasons I'm not too optimistic about getting much data.
But, and I'm not saying it's right, what he's going after isn't replacement money. I'm betting he's trying to shake some coins out of Sergey and Larry's pockets by threatening to leave. That's also why I think Murdoch is blustering about fair use.
Much as I don't think Google would much miss the WSJ alone in its search results, Eric Schmidt has bemoaned the "cesspool" of poor information out there, and he wouldn't want to see an exodus of professional content providers to a fat-pocketed Microsoft willing to lower its margins or even lose some money in order to weaken the Google search monopoly.
Jay,
It pains me to say nice things about Rupert Murdoch, but I thought when writing this that the "bumbling" thing and linking to the video was enough re his confusion/lie/misstatement re WSJ.com and Google. Maybe not in hindsight.
#6 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Tue 10 Nov 2009 at 06:00 PM
If it's a shakedown attempt by Murdoch, Google should hit back with a pre-preemptive de-listing of all of Murdoch's properties. "He pulls a knife, you pull a gun".
#7 Posted by Josh Jasper, CJR on Wed 11 Nov 2009 at 07:27 PM