How to kill Google (or take 10 points of search search share in six months)
From my private email newsletter…. you can subscribe here: http://www.bit.ly/jasonslist (right now it’s free)
[Note: This is the biggest news of the year. ]
Team Jason,
Not sure if you read Rupert Murdoch’s comments today that Newscorp will probably block the Google search spider from indexing their news sites soon. Essentially this means that you would no longer see the Wall Street Journal in Google results. Sounds crazy huh? Suspend disbelief for a moment please because it’s actually genius and it’s actually worked already (in Korea!).
In fact, a couple of weeks ago we had this *exact* discussion on This Week in Startups. Essentially, I put forth a simple strategy for Microsoft to pursue with Bing in which they would go to content providers like the New York Times or Wall Street Journal and offer them 50% more revenue then they are currently getting from Google search referrals to be exclusively indexed in Bing.
This is 100% legal and, in fact, Google encourages people who don’t like how they do business to opt out of the Google index (they can do that because they are so huge and because they don’t like to be evil).
So, for a moment, imagine a world where Bing could say in their TV commercials:
“Want to search the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today and 3,894 other newspapers and magazine?”
“Well, then don’t go to Google because they don’t have them!”
“Go to Bing, home of quality content you can trust!”
Background Videos
===============
1. Video of me describing this strategy with Lon and Tyler two weeks
ago: http://bit.ly/2nOzNo
2. Video of Rupert’s comments today: http://bit.ly/1gUBTD
Questions
===============
a) If 1,000 major publications pursued this strategy, would it work?
b) If you would only search the top 1,000 newspapers and magazines on Bing, would you use it? How often?
c) What is the percentage chance this will happen (I need a #), and why?
all the best,
Jason
http://www.twitter.com
PS: You can subscribe to This Week in Startups with iTunes at the following two URLs:
This Week in Startups audio: http://www.bit.ly/twistaudio
This Week in Startups audio: http://www.bit.ly/twistvideo
If you like the show please consider writing a review at those two links at iTunes. It really helps when you guys write a review. 
Disclaimer 1: Newscorp is an investor in Mahalo.
Disclaimer 2: I haven’t spoken to Mr. Murdoch about this strategy.
==========
47 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Very prescient of you, Jason. I’m curious about your reaction to the Mashable response
http://mashable.com/2009/11/09/rupert-murdoch-google/
Comment by Nick — November 9, 2009 @ 8:56 pm
Ofcourse, that would imply that Google will sit quietly watching for Microsoft to take their marketshare. Never gonna happen. Supply and demand? As the demand grows, the prices are bound to increase and I’m pretty sure Google will offer a competitive price in the market. The news papers have more to win by collaborating with Google and taking advantage of their existing market share than to bet on bing, especially when the chance that ALL the others won’t do the same.
Also, Murdoch just wants to save the press. He doesn’t give a rat’s ass about google or Bing. He just wants people to pay for the content that they’re getting online. (WSJ already asks you to, but with other news, like the nytimes, it’s simply not viable to keep offering them free of cost relying on revenue from the news paper sales. Murdoch just wants everyone to start charging for news.
Comment by Tejaj — November 9, 2009 @ 8:57 pm
So, how does this strategy work if the content is locked up behind a paywall?
Comment by L.A. King — November 9, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
I would probably start to use Bing all the time. I know and
trust information from the WSJ, Businessweek, Fox, Inc,
Fast Company, etc and if the only place to get it was Bing?
I would have to start using Bing, which means I would click
on more PPC ads on their sites and view more of their display
ads in turn generating more revenue for them.
Plus if they make it even easier to search their magazine /
newspaper content partners by having a filter set up already
that allows me to search only the trusted newspapers and
magazines articles and not get hit with blogs, I am in 100%.
If 1,000 of the top newspapers decided to do this, then 100% I
would use Bing daily. In fact, it might be a great strategy
for Mahalo to start using?
twitter@mcalvey
Comment by Mike — November 9, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
interesting tactic Jason.
i watched the murdoch interview and he didnt really seem
too prepped on what was going on.
lets take it that what you ae hypothesising actually occurs,
and X,000 media titles block the google bot.
how much advertising money do you think it would cost BING
to really get the word out and change peoples behaviours?
Comment by LIAD — November 9, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
a) It would, but 1000 organizations would never do it en masse. Google sends too much traffic and there’s too much fear about losing it. But 1000 organizations don’t need to. Newscorp will launch “front-ends” to their content that Google can index and that sit outside of their (Newscorp’s) pay wall. Google can still send them (the front end) traffic, and you can still read a summary, but you’ll have to pay for the good stuff; also, you’ll only have to pay for the “information.” Very soon, news, or “facts,” will be free (and when I say “free,” I mean ad supported), and information, i.e. the interpenetration of the world’s events through the eyes of a person who you associate with or you think is intelligent, etc., will cost money. This distinction will start the sea change with traditional media and its transformation to new media.
b) Rarely; only when I missed something, or I need to send it to a friend. Frankly, I want my news delivered via a stream; I want it curated by someone I trust, and I want it delivered in real time, i.e. when it’s created or distributed.
c) Zero; see my scenario above.
Comment by Joshua Karp — November 9, 2009 @ 9:08 pm
a.) Might ruffle some feathers, but ultimately I think this is a prisoner’s dilemma. IF enough sources put their media up for sale, it could force the engines to pony up. But I think plenty of content producers will try to have it both ways — there’s a missed opportunity to not being in all engines. I think this will undo all efforts to conspire together to chip away at Google’s search share.
B) If the top 1000 new sources were solely on another engine, but even if people use Google less, that search volume may not shift to another player (i.e. Bing). I think Twitter and RSS usage would steal a lot of that traffic. I think people’s search traffic are stickier than we realize.
C.) 10%. It’s a long shot. It would require more coordination than I think exists in the news space. Some players may sign on because they’re dumb, some because they’re smart (and greedy), some may signon and then undermine it as in point A.
Comment by Javaun Moradi — November 9, 2009 @ 9:22 pm
One last point. My guess is that all this saber rattling by Murdoch is a negotiating gambit.
Fox wants a special deal with Google just like the AP is rumored to have negotiated. (Not that Murdoch probably uses search or even a PC for that matter. But he’s smart enough to know how to wrangle a deal.)
I don’t think Murdoch is as backwards thinking as everyone says he is. He’s a showman.
Comment by Javaun Moradi — November 9, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
That will only work if those magazines can afford to lose the traffic driven to them by Google.
Comment by Dan — November 9, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
Brilliant Jason. Leave it to you to make all search engines worse for the consumer.
Comment by Erik V. — November 9, 2009 @ 11:04 pm
You’re the example that actually proves this would be a waste of money for the search engine that did this!
Look at what happened when you stopped blogging! Your content (from your email newsletter) suddenly was on more blogs then ever! Reason? As soon as you weren’t 100% publicly available, people saw that they could publish your letter and make it available for everyone. And not only could they publish it, but they weren’t competing for you for Google juice!
The second part is, how often do you do a search of a search engine looking for content from somewhere you know you want to find it (man thats a horrible sentence). I mean I am into Aussie Rules Footy (The Real AFL). When I want AFL news, I goto one of the News sites and check it out. I also run my own blog on AFL and if I know that the News site isn’t going to be on Google, it gives me incentive to blog about their stories as I know that they won’t appear higher in Google Search results. Others would think the same and as long as those people are linking back to the News site, they are going to be more blogs with those links in them then there are now.
(Assuming that they don’t put up the pay wall that he often talks about) Rup could be the great Link Baiter in the World by taking his sites off Google or at least putting the story out there (I think the Paywall comments are definite link baiting. I mean how many of there sites have gone from open to pay wall since he made those comments? I believe its Zero). Jason, Rup is taking your title as the worlds greatest link baiter!
JMTC
Comment by Phillip Molly Malone — November 9, 2009 @ 11:12 pm
[...] aside – what other implications does this have? When I heard the news I immediately had the same thought as Jason Calacanis (that’s good, right?). A couple weeks ago Doug and I had a conversation about net neutrality [...]
Pingback by What Rupert Murdoch’s Decision Means | Get A New Browser — November 9, 2009 @ 11:14 pm
If Bing indexes Newscorp then Google will index Bing results or some other intermediary.
Comment by David Sanger — November 9, 2009 @ 11:20 pm
Um didn’t Mark Cuban already put this strategy forward over a year ago???
http://blogmaverick.com/2008/05/14/beating-google/
Comment by RandomDan — November 9, 2009 @ 11:24 pm
How are you going to convince a newspaper whose only hope of survival is building (and monetizing) an online user base that people who use Google won’t ever find their content?
The strategy might work for a few big national papers, but I doubt a local paper will want to gamble on that.
Comment by Trevor Stone — November 10, 2009 @ 1:04 am
a) They may try it but it wouldn’t last for long.
b) I wouldn’t “use” it. Other’s would use it for me. Most stories and links I get are via Twitter or Blog RSS feed.
c) 25%
The Why:
What you’re talking about is search segregation. Not segregation of users but of content. It would be hard for many average users to understand why Bing can search certain content while Google can not. We all have the expectation that any web search should search the entire web. They don’t know what’s missing if they don’t know what’s missing. This is where Microsoft would have to spend major ad $$ to get everyone in the world to understand that only Bing will let you search this content. It will be very hard to re train your average user.
The But:
But what if Microsoft went full bore on this deal between news organizations and Bing? They get every major player on board. Do the largest ad campaign they’ve ever done (this will make the Windows 7 ad campaign look weak.)
“Bing is the King of News search.”
Now people WILL go to Bing when they want to search the latest stories and news. Roll in a smart Twitter search on the same page and you have the most powerful and profitable news search on the net. Google will be left with everything else on the web that isn’t as profitable.
Imagine searching for a new top story and getting a list of major news organizations, playable in-line news videos AND top Tweets about the story from high quality Twitter users.
Bam. The best news all in one place. Bing.com
Comment by Chris — November 10, 2009 @ 1:27 am
i agree this could bring 10% of search share to bing but on the same note i agree that google wouldnt sit by and watch. I dont want results from wall street journal i have to buy a subscription and i dont have one. i think the dude wants to make money off of newspapers but i point to my previous blog post that they need to figure out how to monetize their traffic and stop just blocking poeople who like and want to use their traffic
Comment by Carter Cole — November 10, 2009 @ 2:04 am
If this happened I would despise bing, and also push for an American law that any search engine has the right to crawl company and public pages and other media. Otherwise Google could go out now and lock everyone into their system, terrible suggestion Jason!
Ben
Comment by Ben — November 10, 2009 @ 2:19 am
[...] Jason Calcanis and others are out with posts talking about Ruport Murdoch’s comments suggesting he will opt out of Google (GOOG) Search. Jason amplifies the comments and talks about doing a deal offering WSJ articles for a premium. [...]
Pingback by Dethroning Google: Competition for the King | Stocks and Sectors — November 10, 2009 @ 3:19 am
People don’t use a search engine just for newspaper. This woudln’t be as drastic as you think. You think the average person would care? They just want fast, clean, easy to read results. I’m sure websites that aren’t as high in search results would be happy about this as well. A free boost!
Comment by Tobadiah — November 10, 2009 @ 3:57 am
That’s an excellent idea, Jason; and one MS/Bing should consider.
As for your questions:
a)Yes; it’d be worth at least a 10% search share gain.
b)Yes; I’d use Bing. In fact, I’d only need about the top 50-100 to do so.
And I’d use Bing daily for this purpose.
c)30% chance it’ll happen…’cause it makes $$$ sense for all the parties.
And stick what’s at MatchTo.com on their home page for (another) 10%.
Comment by Steve M — November 10, 2009 @ 4:56 am
I think it’s a ploy for some type of revenue sharing with Google. I’ll allow you to crawl my site, if you give me a percentage of revenue you make from ads when people search for something on my site. Instead of Newscorp sitting around waiting for someone to pitch what you suggested already on TWIST, they decided to force the hand. Play with us or we’ll block you. We’ve checked our traffic sources. We know exactly how much this will hurt us. We know how many unique visitors come from google and how much money we make off that traffic. We also can estimate how much adword money you’re making on Newscorp keywords. We would rather a piece of that pie, than the money we make off of Google generated traffic.
Comment by Sean Montgomery — November 10, 2009 @ 4:56 am
So, how could Microsoft give them 50% more revenue when they have around 1/20th
the market share? So they would need to pay 30x more than
google pays for ads? Is that what you are suggesting?
Does that make any sense to anyone? Sure, if they were on
par for market share, MS could do this, but they are not.
Comment by cak — November 10, 2009 @ 5:07 am
@cak: correct (I think). But if it works, and Bing becomes say 1/6
the size of Google, then they will only need to pay 9 times what
Google makes newspapers earn, and so on.
Comment by Massimo Moruzzi — November 10, 2009 @ 8:27 am
[...] inclusion is going away, and talk of potentially paying sites to be in the indices (the reverse model) is in the air (or maybe [...]
Pingback by Link Building Has Changed « Man in the net :: Ontology :: Semantic :: Knowledge — November 10, 2009 @ 8:58 am
[...] probably remove our sites from Google’s index”, mumBrella, November 9, 2009; Jason Calacanis, “How to kill Google (or take 10 points of search search share in six months)&… Share and [...]
Pingback by News Corp To Block Google Search Engine Spider? (You Heard It From Jason Calacanis First...) | Kikabink News - Internet Marketing News — November 10, 2009 @ 10:08 am
[...] led to Jason Calacanis yesterday suggesting that Bing should go to the top news sites and offer them a sweet deal to be their exclusive search [...]
Pingback by Finance Geek » I can’t see many newspapers blocking Google — November 10, 2009 @ 11:09 am
a) Not sure. Depends if there were free sources of news that
meet the needs of people. The truth is: it’s hard to
compete with a price tag of zero; and there isn’t that much
exclusive information in these kind of publications.
b) In that circumstance, I’d probably use Bing when I wanted
to search those major publications. I wouldn’t use it for
anything else though. Why? Because I’ve already evaluated
Bing; and I found it to be a poor search engine compared
to Google. No idea why it was so bad – this stuff is no
longer rocket science; and, in any case, MS can afford to
employ rocket scientists. If they don’t get it by now,
you have to wonder if ever will. It’s the same
story with Windows Mobile. Which part of “Windows Mobile
isn’t very good”, don’t the Windows Mobile team get? This
should not be difficult stuff.
c)I’ll give a 50% chance of something along these lines
happening. Why 50%? Because although it’s a good idea,
I suspect the price tag of “exclusive” might be too high
for MS to pay. So, I think there’s an equal chance that
if these “pay to index” deals start to become the norm,
they might well end up being non-exclusive. Of course,
exclusive is the right kind of deal for MS to do here; but
like I say – if they don’t “get” this stuff already…
Comment by Simon Brocklehurst — November 10, 2009 @ 11:53 am
Are you people stupid? Why even use a search engine if you
already know and trust news information from WSJ, NYTimes, Fox,
Businessweek, etc. Just go to the news site DIRECTLY! Bookmark
the site and then simply go to it, instead of using a search
engine and THEN going to the site. It seems to me most people
have no clue how to use a computer or the internet. There’s
really no reason to use a search engine for news if you already
know and trust specific news source.
Comment by Chad — November 10, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
[...] inclusion is going away, and talk of potentially paying sites to be in the indices (the reverse model) is in the air (or maybe [...]
Pingback by vaultis.com » Blog Archive » Link Building Has Changed — November 10, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
[...] not seem to playing in this game for some reason. Jason Calcannis had an interesting blog post on how Bing can take 10 points of market share from Google in 6 [...]
Pingback by Making Sense of Google’s AdMob Acquisition | Reaction Radio — November 10, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
[...] How to kill Google (or take 10 points of search search share in six months) (calacanis.com) [...]
Pingback by There is no way the NewsCorp announcement will have more than a minimal impact on Google. — November 10, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
I don’t think this would work, simply because I don’t see a good way to offer “exclusive” access to a popular site on a search engine.
Sure, you can tell Google to stop indexing your pages directly, but that doesn’t mean they become invisible on Google. How would you stop Google from indexing pages that link to the “exclusive” site? From indexing news aggregators? Social media mentions? As real-time search becomes more important, such a business model becomes less and less feasible, in my opinion.
Comment by Jeffrey Tang — November 10, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
[...] not seem to playing in this game for some reason. Jason Calcannis had an interesting blog post on how Bing can take 10 points of market share from Google in 6 [...]
Pingback by Making Sense of Google’s AdMob Acquisition | Stocks and Sectors — November 10, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
a) If 1,000 major publications pursued this strategy, would it work?
I doubt it, there is a a reason google is a verb.
b) If you would only search the top 1,000 newspapers and magazines on Bing, would you use it? How often?
Rarely, if ever. I think this would only ever affect researchers and journalists tbh, the half-life of news is short.
c) What is the percentage chance this will happen (I need a #), and why?
2-5% (if that) There is a reason the publishing industry has gone into decline, and it’s not just the dearth of advertising. The internet and the rise of the aggregator has cut the model to ribbons, the problem is that people now consume stories as opposed to reading papers. Those that are actually interested will already have news delivered via RSS, and then there are things like twitter & the blogosphere. The idea that anyone would actually search for news seems positively old-fashioned. All that would happen would be that the papers themselves would slowly fade from view and from conciousness, if their stories are not agregated & blogged, then they would be read a lot less. Their voice, however distinctive, would eventually be lost to the breeze.
You Jason, more than most must understand the disruptive nature of technology, you even ask for people to write reviews on itunes, knowing that the more comments something gets the more likley it will to be listened too. Simply getting people to read and/or listen is 80% of the effort. The barrier to entry here is low, if you place barriers in the path of people who want your content, they’ll get the same news and content elsewhere, it’s not like there is a shortage of news & opinion, regardless of your politics. Any attempt to create scarcity where none exists will simply be bypassed or ignored, be that via a pay wall or by a google death sentance.
Comment by praxis22 — November 10, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
There’s nothing all that unique about WSJ content. They have very few stories that are not available from many other sources. If their content disappears from Google, no one is going to miss it.
If I’m really loyal to WSJ content, I’ll subscribe and ensure I get it.
Comment by Mark — November 11, 2009 @ 12:25 am
I would love it if the big news organizations tried this. Because it would only pave the way for smaller news organizations, to flourish.
Have you ever heard of Knight Ridder? Let’s get real, these big boys hardly have any journalists anyways.
They get all their content from news services, and their only true contribution is their editorials, which in my opinion are quite lacking to say the least. This kind of a move will kill them, we’ll still get our news and they will be competing with free. Good riddance.
Comment by James Perly — November 11, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
[...] Digital commentator, Jason Calacanis suggested that de-listing from Google creates opportunities for other search engines such as Bing to gain a competitive advantage, offering News Corp 50% more revenue then they are currently getting from Google search referrals in order to be exclusively indexed on Bing. [...]
Pingback by » The Great Debate: Murdoch Vs. Google Melbourne - Marketing and PR news and opinions — November 13, 2009 @ 6:00 am
Danny Sullivan (someone who actually knows about the topic of Search Engines) explains why this is a stupid idea:
http://searchengineland.com/why-an-exclusive-wall-street-journal-deal-wouldnt-help-bing-29458ogle+Reader
Comment by Brian — November 13, 2009 @ 4:22 pm
[...] and refuse to be indexed. This created a flurry of analysis in the blogosphere as Jason Calacanis hinted at the possible genius of the move while Search Engine Land’s Danny Sullivan was quick to challenge Jason’s [...]
Pingback by The Next Web’s Weekly Recap for Friday, November 13th — November 13, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
[...] Maybe Microsoft has offered News Corp. a middle ground between charging for content and leaving search engines entirely. Bing might offer a cut of ad revenue to News Corp. and other content providers in return for exclusively appearing in the Microsoft search engine, former weblog entrepreneur Jason Calacanis recently suggested. [...]
Pingback by Why News Corp. Keeps Threatening To Leave Google | Defamer Australia — November 14, 2009 @ 12:17 am
[...] the possibility that NewsCorp properties might be exclusively indexed by one search engine (discussed by Jason Calcanis) and it’s likely that even if surrounded by incompetent Yes-men, Murdoch won’t just [...]
Pingback by More From Murdoch | Distilled blog — November 16, 2009 @ 11:11 am
GO BING! I support Bing in every move.
Comment by Olgiert — November 16, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
According to the WSJ article below, search engine market share
is about 60% Google / 20% Yahoo / 15% Bing / 5% Misc.
In what universe does it make sense to take 75% less traffic
for 50% more money? And if I’m a top 1000 website, that
million-dollar incentive will evaporate in no time.
I vote no deal.
I also agree with some of the people above in that people go
to search engines because they don’t know where to look.
If I want to read the WSJ specifically, I’ll go to wsj.com.
If I need to search for how much market share each search engine
has, I’ll go to Google. (because if it’s on the internet,
it’s true)
(WSJ Article found via Google: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124456442666598355.html)
Comment by Jason Green — November 16, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
[...] or not Google indexing their news sites. Then Jason Calacanis backed it up with his vision and try to blink an eye to Microsoft’s Bing. So, there’s Michael [...]
Pingback by Google or not to Google… that’s the question! « Rui Nunes Blog — November 17, 2009 @ 9:44 pm
[...] Jason Calacanis imagines Microsoft making a pitch that goes something like this: Want to search the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today and 3,894 other newspapers and magazine? [...]
Pingback by Media Nation » Rupe to Google: Bing this, pal — November 18, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
[...] inclusion is going away, and talk of potentially paying sites to be in the indices (the reverse model) is in the air (or maybe [...]
Pingback by Link Building Has Changed | 248creative Blog — November 19, 2009 @ 6:06 am