So Microsoft’s Bing search engine is going to pay Twitter and Facebook to have their users’ posts show up in Bing’s search results, reports All Things Digital.
It’s unclear if that means Twitter will remove tweets from Google unless it pays up. But that’s what it looks like:
Twitter has been talking to Google (GOOG) about a similar arrangement, and, according to sources, so has Facebook.
But the deal is a definite blow to the dominant search engine, since–for the first time–data will be available on Bing that is not on Google.
So we have now a precedent that the ability of search engines to index and link to content is worth some money. Where this goes from here no one knows. But it’s possible , as C.W. Anderson says, that this could have implications for the press and its relationship with the search engines.
It also may fill in some of the blanks on what Associated Press Tom Curley was talking about recently when he mentioned the looming benefits of Microsoft bringing what hopefully will be renewed competition in the search-engine space.
Would the AP yank its news off Google if Bing paid and Google didn’t? Would it be worth it in the lost revenue from not showing up in as many search results? That’s too early to tell. It’s unclear, too, how much money we’re talking about changing hands with Facebook and Twitter.
And it’s worth noting that Bing is an also-ran compared to Google. But if it’s able to differentiate itself with strategies like these and gain market share, it could force Google to come off those fat profit margins a bit and share some money with content creators.
For people, including me, who’ve been wondering how Twitter will make money, here comes part of the answer.
More importantly, if tweets are worth money to a search engine, why isn’t the news? This will be worth watching.
Tweets are not now searchable on Google -- Twitter has held back from giving them access. So yes, a commodity has value when supply is restricted. If a news organization wants to hold its content back from Google, they can easily do so through the robots.txt file. But no news organization has a monopoly on information that can be easily found elsewhere, so they would just lose search referrals.
#1 Posted by Burt Herman, CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 03:14 PM
Burt, I see Twitter stuff all the time on Google. I just Googled "NYT 100 job cuts save $20M/yr", part of the text of a tweet I wrote yesterday and got several results.
#2 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 03:29 PM
Ah, true indeed. Then perhaps it's just that they are delayed now, not in real-time because they aren't fed directly from Twitter?
#3 Posted by Burt Herman, CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 03:43 PM
I think you're right, Bert. It's about the real-time feed. I just Googled a recent tweet of mine and it didn't show up.
#4 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 03:54 PM
So then what is the news here?
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/rt-google-tweets-and-updates-and-search.html
#5 Posted by Burt Herman, CJR on Wed 21 Oct 2009 at 07:46 PM
The greatest benefit of Facebook is that it has many groups on the site that you can join. So if you are interested in Chicago Cubs you can research Chicago Cubs in the groups section and you will be able to find friends on there that like the Cubs. This is just one example, I know that you can join groups of your favorite football team, television show, or whatever you want for the most part! If you can't find a group for your interest, you can simply create one!
James
Email Marketing Software
#6 Posted by Mass Email, CJR on Thu 22 Oct 2009 at 04:51 AM