I think you're underestimating the value of archived news content. Search driven traffic to those thousands, if not millions, of pages may not generate regular readers, and the traffic may not be relevant to local advertisers, but if you can't figure out a way to make money off that traffic, you're not thinking hard enough.

For example, why not serve different ads to visitors arriving through search engines than bookmarks?

Great blog! I've added you to my blogroll.
Several thoughts:
-- I think newspapers overestimate the amount of original content that they have.
-- Many have come to rely on the AP, which was fine when readers could not get these stories from places other than the local paper. So where as before, local papers could provide local readers with what seemed like "original content" on national, international, and local stories, it's down to local stories. Actually, not even that for those localities where the AP shares local newspapers' local stories with local broadcast outlets as soon as the papers close.
-- Also, a lot of "original content" is now available directly from the news sources who had one time could only communicate with journalists, not the public.
-- Personally, I believe that newspapers created a monster with the AP that they are increasingly unable to control. In the end, it may put a lot of local papers out of business. On the other hand, I'm the only one I know of who thinks this way, so maybe I'm missing something.

You're right, Ed. Newspapers could try harder to monetize these one-off page views. But the point isn't that the empty page views don't make money, it's that when pages are found via Google it is often more harmful to the newspaper brand than it is beneficial to the bottomline. The risks are greater than the rewards.

This is about who gets to be readers’ first stop to find local information. And there’s a lot of money at stake in the answer.

Newspapers are supposed to be the No. 1 source for local information. Without that title, they might as well close up shop.

If a reader hears about something happening in his or her community and first goes to Google to find out more, then the newspaper’s brand is eroded. And, it’s Google then who can capitalize on being considered a reliable source for local news. They’re already trying to capitalize by providing business directory listings, etc.

Newspapers need to protect their brand more than they need to harvest or monetize empty page views from Google. When someone searches on Google, then finds a link to a newspaper, it’s Google who gets credit for being the reliable source of information, not the newspaper. The person is more likely to use Google, not the newspaper. Aren’t we trying to increase usage of our sites, not Google?

So these links do drive up page views. But they’re worthless page views that do more damage than anything else.

The original content issue is worth thinking about more. Every publisher I've talked to froth over "content" as some sort of tradeable commodity that has to be exported to as many titles as possible within their empires.

That's just not going to work anymore, as readers can easily find the original sources. One of our local papers picks up material from Reuters, AP, AFP, the Observer and Independent in the UK, and the NZPA. It doesn't even sub out the spelling and grammatical errors in many stories.

Google News is quite useful for spotting excessive wire copy usage, I've found...

Juha, if you're taking off on Steve's point that most newspapers think they have more original content than they actually do, then I think you're both right.

Local newspapers don't originate much content that is considered valuable to anyone outside their geographical market. The AP and others provide content with more mass appeal.

Local newspapers should leverage what they have by sorting their content by topic, similar to the Time Topics sections, and then concentrate on marketing these sections via the search engine. Individual stories aren't worth much, as I've said.

Lucas, when a story that interests me breaks, I'm going to read the opinions of more than one source on that story. In the case of the story we're discussing here, I believe I heard about it first through my Google Reader's RSS feed of Techmeme and ended up at a blogger's commentary on the story and tracked back to newspaper's account of the story, and eventually ended up here.

Newspapers are no longer in the business of deciding what's important. That's being outsourced to sites that aggregate buzz, like Techmeme. The newspapers creating the best content are rewarded by sites like Techmeme and Google News. By not participating in sites like those, newspapers are simply opting out of the conversation.

I think you're off base on several levels:

1. The *vast* majority of people who are finding news via Google and visiting your paper's site aren't going to be *in* your local market. I click on articles via Google News I would never see anyplace else. That is creating an expanded ad revenue base that simply wouldn't exist without Google.

Additionally, nothing about the referral through Google news hurts the paper's brand. Clicks on the headlines are directed to the paper's own website, complete with the paper's own content, design, branding, etc. If anything, it strengthens the brand by bringing in more eyeballs.

Finally, Google already pays a "licensing fee" in the form of shared ad revenue from the Google Ads papers place on the stories. When those people who were referred from Google click on an ad on your paper's page, you get a cut. You could argue that you deserve a bigger cut--but it's disingenuous to say Google is getting a free ride. They essentially already pay a license fee, just as they do when you put Google Ads on a blog.

Page views from the search engine traffic aren't empty--if they were, Google wouldn't want papers to put ads on them. As you've mentioned, Google does it to make money, and the paper makes money in the process, too. What is the alternative? Try to sell that ad space on your own to local advertisers?? When the majority of those views are coming from all over the world via the search engines?? I think the papers are giving up practically nothing, and gaining both exposure and national (or even global) advertising revenue.

You're also off on your legal analysis. It wouldn't be "grand theft" and I don't think it would be copyright infringement. The fact that they are NOT placing ads on the page where they run the headlines and the blurbs, coupled with the fact that they only use a few sentences, and that the give proper attribution and link back to the original site would all weigh in favor of fair use.

2. Even the AP is a shadow of it's former self. In the days of 24 hour TV news, the APs relevance has wained considerably. Fine, Zell could pull his papers from AP. So what? The AP could get the same news from their stringers (or other papers in the market) and in the end, I don't think it would have a profound effect on the AP--but it might have a profound effect on Zell's papers. Modern papers are suffering from increased costs... is having to open up local bureaus around the world really a cost effective solution? Not likely. Of course, he could just sign up with another service, like Reuters, etc. But then it's a wash. His papers, like the Trib, get the same news they were getting before--but from a slightly different source--and the AP doesn't get stuff from the Trib, but they get stuff from the Sun Times. Big deal. (I know there are more papers in his empire, I'm just using those two as examples).

I'm not saying Zell won't learn the business and isn't capable of turning it around. But if biting the hand that feeds you advertising revenue you wouldn't be getting otherwise and threatening to cut yourself off from an organization you need more than it needs you are his primary ideas for reform, then I have to say: newspapers are dead.

Oh, one other thing... You assert "Newspapers are supposed to be the No. 1 source for local information. Without that title, they might as well close up shop."

If that were true, the local section of the paper would be the biggest--if not the only section in it. That's certainly not the case for the Tribune or the LA Times. I can't speak about the other papers in the portfolio, but the Trib and the Times are papers that pride themselves on national prominence. Well, you can't have it both ways. Either they are laser focused on local news (which would be a value) or they are trying to be national icons, and losing that battle fast to television and the internet. The evidence is still out, but it seems to be mounting toward the later.

Personally, I think news papers should be run as non-profits. Nearly all the problems facing newspapers stem from advertising, not editorial, issues: they can't compete with Craigslist and eBay for classified ads; they can't compete with the search engines for national ads; they have issues with impartiality of news coverage when accepting ads from large corporations. What's the common denominator: an ad revenue model. You want to change that model? Eliminate advertising entirely... go non-profit. I'd wager that newspapers would service the local communities much better, were that the case.

Dave,

Thanks for the thoughtful comments, but I have to clear up some misconceptions.

You say: “Page views from the search engine traffic aren't empty--if they were, Google wouldn't want papers to put (its) ads on them.”

And in the next breath, you illustrate my point about why these actually are empty page views by saying: “The *vast* majority of people who are finding news via Google and visiting your paper's site aren't going to be *in* your local market.”

Exactly. These people have nothing to do with our market, or our advertisers. And they have no loyalty to our brand. They’re loyal to Google. So why should I care whether I get that page view? Do I need so desperately to inflate my page view numbers that I don’t care how it happens or at what cost?

---------------------------------------

You say: “Fine, Zell could pull his papers from AP. So what? The AP could get the same news from their stringers (or other papers in the market) and in the end, I don't think it would have a profound effect on the AP--but it might have a profound effect on Zell's papers.”

Again: Exactly. This isn’t about affecting the AP; it’s about the effect of letting someone else sell your news. The issue with the AP isn't whether to pull out. It's whether to demand they stop providing your news to competitors such as Yahoo.

Anyone can subscribe to the AP without contributing to it. That's an option for Yahoo, and it's an option for newspapers. If anything, that's what I'm recommending. Stop contributing to the AP. Just buy their content.

This argument boils down to branding. Who is going to own your content in the eyes of the reader? Google users thank Google for the content, not you. And when the Associated Press sells your content to Yahoo, readers thank Yahoo for it, not you. Don’t let this happen. Otherwise, one day, you’ll look back and wonder how Google and Yahoo (who originate zero content) became the No. 1 brand for local information in your market.

---------------------------------------

Lastly, you took issue with my claim that newspapers have to be local. And you’re right, there are some national newspapers. Those are a lucky few. For the hundreds of other newspapers in the country, be local or be nothing at all.

You say: “If that were true, the local section of the paper would be the biggest--if not the only section in it.”

And it is. Local papers dedicate the most space to local information, across all of their sections, from metro to business to sports to entertainment – it’s local.

Lucas, thanks for the comment at Blog P.I., and I replied. Your post does seem to be the mirror opposite of my own...

Lucas, I liked your comments on Jason Calacanis' blog.

I don't know much about the newspaper business but let me just throw this out there to think about:
Lots of newspaper content is from AP sources, for which they pay a fee. The original content they attach to the AP source is the title. Google comes along and takes the title and a snippet of the article without paying anything. So the newspaper is out the money they invested in the article and they've lost the little bit of original content they've added to that material.

Moreover, I'm sure newspaper readers don't read entire newspapers, they scan the headlines to see what's going on. Often they only read the introductory paragraph because that's the overview. Google is taking ALL of that. And they're taking it without paying a cent to any of the content creators.

Seems to me that newspapers are correct to feel their rights have been violated.

It also explains why so many bloggers fall into certain categories: tech blogs, political blogs, activist blogs, marketing blogs... but real, true journalistic blogs are a rarity. Why? Probably because journalists want their work to be valued. They want to be compensated. There's a reason people like Ana Marie Cox now works for Time and not Gawker.

Refusing to share news will be a retrograde option for newspapers. You have to give up the silo mentality. As someone has said, News is Search too.

Exactly. These people have nothing to do with our market, or our advertisers. And they have no loyalty to our brand. They’re loyal to Google. So why should I care whether I get that page view? Do I need so desperately to inflate my page view numbers that I don’t care how it happens or at what cost?

Yes. You should care. Here's why: without Google *no one* is viewing those pages. They are sitting on your server, costing you money (in storage space) and not doing any good. With Google, *someone* is viewing the pages--and each time they do, you make money from the ad views. Now, they may not be "loyal to your brand" but they are putting money in your bank account.

Anyone can subscribe to the AP without contributing to it. That's an option for Yahoo, and it's an option for newspapers. If anything, that's what I'm recommending. Stop contributing to the AP. Just buy their content.

Okay, now you have me very confused. If anyone can by the APs content--including Yahoo/Google without contributing, then how does Zell have any leverage to stop the practice? Again, I don't see how that hurts AP in any way. Okay, then other AP subscribers (including Yahoo and Google) wouldn't get access to Tribune content via AP. That's a big "so what". I really don't see how a Tribune pull-out from being an AP member would have any effect at all, either way.

This argument boils down to branding. Who is going to own your content in the eyes of the reader? Google users thank Google for the content, not you.

If that's the argument, then once again it's the Newspapers who are failing. Yes, users find the information via Google, but the articles are presented on the newspaper's own site, with their own branding. Consumers know the difference. If they search for electronics and end up (via Google) going to the Circuit City website, do you think they confuse that with Google? It sounds to me like you're upset because newspapers aren't getting enough return on their brand when readers are referred to the newspaper sites via a Google search. Well, guess what? That's not Google's fault. Who is doing the branding? Not Google...

And when the Associated Press sells your content to Yahoo, readers thank Yahoo for it, not you. Don’t let this happen.

I disagree. They thank the AP. Or do you presume readers are too stupid to see "Associated Press" on the article? You're all over the road on this one...

What happens if the Tribune contributes and article to the AP, and it's re-run in the Des Moines Daily? They see the *same* AP by-line people see on Yahoo. Is that "diluting the brand"? You can't have it both ways. Either *all* participation in the AP is "stealing" content and diluting the brand, or it isn't. Singling out Yahoo and Google because they happen to be *popular* isn't addressing the issue: it's picking on the big guys because they are playing the game better than you.

Lastly, you took issue with my claim that newspapers have to be local.

No, I didn't take issue with the claim that they have to be, or even should be. I take issue with the reality that they *aren't* local. If they were, they would be content with a smaller existence in a smaller market, and the effect of the national market, via things like Yahoo and Google wouldn't matter as much. I actually agree with you that newspapers *should* be local. I just don't think they are. And that's why they are losing readership.

Dave,

Your points are well argued but the facts (meaning actual research) doesn't back you up.

You said the pages Google links to aren't being viewed by anyone else: "Without Google *no one* is viewing those pages."

Says who? Obviously, Google search drives traffic further into your archived content, thus expanding the long tail of your site's content. But the point of Google News is to be up to the moment. Not archived material. People wouldn't be checking Google News if it was renamed Google (Yesterday's) News.

-------------------

Then you said: "Yes, users find the information via Google, but the articles are presented on the newspaper's own site, with their own branding. Consumers know the difference."

Not according to every study ever conducted in any American market. The latest information I found at journalism.org quotes a study from the Pew Internet & American Life Project, which says people say they get their news from Google and Yahoo.

When they asked people where they went to get their news yesterday, 16 percent went to a national TV news site, 14 percent went to Google or Yahoo, and 9 percent to the local newspaper.

Under your theory, no one should have even mentioned Google as a source for news since you think everyone using it recognizes they're not the real source.

I'm not suggesting people are blind. They know Google linked them to another site. But they obviously give Google the credit for providing that news.

Just the facts, man.

One of the interesting elements in this discussion is the quality question. An important consequence of online exposure is the "walk the talk" reality.
If newspapers claim to have unique, valuable local content then they sure as hell had better deliver it.
Surely, having done so, it is hardly surprising that a successful publisher would want to share the benefits with people who contribute zip to the school fees?
And, of course, publishers who have been kidding their customers about the real value of their news are suddently nude.