Comments on: Publishing in the Google Ecosystem

By: Some Memorable Dishes from the Kitchen in 2009 « The Scholarly Kitchen

Some Memorable Dishes from the Kitchen in 2009 « The Scholarly Kitchen — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:16:40 +0000

[...] Publishing in the Google Ecosystem [...]

By: David Crotty

David Crotty — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:25:45 +0000

An excellent overview of how Google's "less than free" business model is brutally disruptive to other businesses can be found here:

“if a disruptive competitor can offer a product or service similar to yours for ‘free,’ and if they can make enough money to keep the lights on, then you likely have a problem.”

By: David Crotty

David Crotty — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:08:20 +0000

That’s a great metaphor, and perhaps a better one than the commonly used “Borg” Star Trek reference. I like it because the Borg were generally seen as evil, whereas the Shmoon, like Google are in some ways neutral.

On a side note, it’s interesting to see Google wresting the Borg nickname away from Microsoft these days, and it certainly says something about their places in the technology world.

By: Julieta Lionetti

Julieta Lionetti — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:11:13 +0000

David, I see Google like the Schmoon created by Al Cap in post-war America. They reproduce asexually, they are terribly gentle, they taste like oysters and are eager that you eat them. They are, though, terrible dangereous for established values and for chains of added value. But they are over here; we adventured ourselves, like Li’l Abner, in the Valley of Schmoon and we are eating them voraciously.
The Google Schmoon are not good nor evil, they are different and, although they seem so generous and oblivious of their own good, they are pitiless about the changes they are introducing in our lives and economies. Pitiless and relentless. As they tell us in the 7th commandment of their decalog, they prey on our gusto for immediate satisfaction. Amazon has nothing to do in a world of schoon.

By: Peter Ginna

Peter Ginna — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:16:48 +0000

Comment at http://www.doctorsyntax.net/2009/11/google-and-future-of-publishing.html

By: David Crotty

David Crotty — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:02:46 +0000

O'Reilly weighs in here.

By: Pour les éditeurs, c’est avec G. ou c’est fini? « pintiniblog

Pour les éditeurs, c’est avec G. ou c’est fini? « pintiniblog — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:23:49 +0000

[...] les éditeurs, c’est avec G. ou c’est fini? Publishing in the Google Ecosystem (source: The Scholarly Kitchen, [...]

By: Internet Cafe Solution » Blog Archive » Publishing in the Google Ecosystem « The Scholarly Kitchen

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:14:21 +0000

[...] post: Publishing in the Google Ecosystem « The Scholarly Kitchen This entry was posted on Friday, November 13th, 2009 at 4:31 am and is filed under Home, [...]

By: The Daily Square – Unchain My Heart Edition | Booksquare

The Daily Square – Unchain My Heart Edition | Booksquare — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:30:26 +0000

[...] Publishing in the Google EcosystemVery interesting post by Joe Esposito on living and publishing in the current world. [...]

By: David Crotty

David Crotty — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 03:53:32 +0000

There are two equations that make sense in terms of withholding a site from Google. If, like the publications where I work, you make money by charging for access, then it makes no sense, as more awareness means more customers buying access. But if you're a site like the NY Post, and you give your content away for free, what does increased traffic mean to you? If you have X number of visitors per day without Google, and Google increases that traffic to 5X, does that mean you're making more money? Most websites only sell a small percentage of their ad capacity. Adding more capacity does not mean more ad sales. Traffic does not immediately equal revenue. The other equation involves getting some other search engine to pay you for your content. I'm not the only one suggesting that this is Murdoch's plan here:

If other media companies joined Murdoch Google could actually find itself in a very difficult position, where Bing had content that Google didn’t. If you knew that Wall Street Journal and, say, New York TImes content was only in Bing search results, mainstream search users would suddenly have a big reason to go to Bing.

As for coalitions, they don't necessarily have to innovate, their point is to keep resources in-house at an affordable level for small publishers. I work for a small, not-for-profit publishing house. We can't afford a huge full-time IT staff. Relying on other companies, particularly ones whose business models may conflict with yours is a recipe for disaster. Two recent examples: The URL shortening company tr.im recently announced they were going out of business. If you relied on them for producing short versions of all of the URLs in your publication, you would be in big trouble. If instead you were part of a group that provided such solutions internally, you wouldn't have to worry about the status of tr.im's finances in order to keep your own business running. Friendfeed was recently bought by Facebook, which has upset quite a few communities that have built themselves around Friendfeed, which will soon change into something else entirely. Again, if your publications relied on this third party, you'd be hosed, but if you had your own affordable technology solution, one that wasn't innovative but provided a comparable service in-house, you'd be in better shape. And I'm not sure how much further analysis is necessary to understand that Google's business model involves giving things away for free in order to sell ads.