Murdoch On Blocking Search Engines: “I Think We Will”

There’s a chance that the content produced by the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and a number of other important organizations will soon become impossible to find using Google. Rupert Murdoch indicated in a recent interview that News Corp. may block search engines.

News Corp. is the world’s second largest media group. It owns enough stuff that even hitting the highlights would take far too much time. (Wikipedia has an 861-word entry titled "List of assets owned by News Corporation" if you’re feeling adventurous.)

Murdoch’s interview with Sky News editor David Speers could be of huge significance, then. In it (the relevant part of the conversation starts around the 3:10 mark), Murdoch said, "We’d rather have fewer people coming to our website, but paying." In reference to "search people," he next added, "They don’t suddenly become loyal readers of our content."

Finally, in response to a question regarding why News Corp. doesn’t just block search engines, Murdoch said, "Well, I think we will . . ."

But here’s the tricky part: Murdoch cited the Wall Street Journal’s current approach to pay walls and subscriptions as an example of what he’d like to implement on a larger scale, and it’s actually possible to access WSJ stories using Google. It’s only when clicking around within the WSJ that you run into truncated articles.

So we – and a lot of industry decision-makers – will see what happens. Whichever way Murdoch leans, he definitely has the power to start a trend.

UPDATE: Danny Sullivan has pointed out a sort of middle ground at which Murdoch might arrive: "Publishers can have Google News index the entire text of their articles but NOT show the full story to visitors who come from Google (for Google’s web search, that’s not an option – but you can provide summary pages). They can also, if they choose, have only a small summary of their content indexed."

That would allow News Corp.’s properties to by and large stick to the WSJ model without sacrificing loads of search traffic and becoming less visible to potential ad-clickers and paying customers. A smart compromise, perhaps.

As for when a change might go through, Jon Miller, News Corp.’s Chief Digital Officer, gave a rough deadline by talking about "months and quarters – not weeks" at a conference yesterday. But according to Emma Barnett, he also indicated that News Corp. wouldn’t do anything drastic on its own, which may either be a polite way of contradicting Murdoch’s statements or a hint that the industry really is about to change.

Related Articles:

> MySpace To Miss $100 Million From Google Search Deal

> Murdoch Says Newspapers Must Charge For Online Content

> News Corp. Posts Disappointing Financial Results

There are 152 Comments. Add Yours.

Kain
November 18, 2009 at 9:40 am

“By Guest (WPN reader) – Mon, 11/09/2009 – 10:52
Great, Everybody line up and

Great, Everybody line up and pay to get lied to and brainwashed from a narrow single point of view.
”

If you use Google as your search engine you already are so whats the problem
Rod
November 18, 2009 at 12:41 pm

HAHAHA!!!
Talk about lining your pockets with self-serving lies! Hey Gore! How much money have YOU made off your snake-oil sales pitch? Honestly dude, wake up and smell the scam! You cant rant about one source of propaganda and half-truths while supporting another source of propaganda and half-truths!
Guest
November 23, 2009 at 12:54 pm

I don’t think there are too many stupid people. He might get some business from the south though.
Ty Buchanan
November 25, 2009 at 7:03 am

This guy actually brought down an Australian Government by printing bad stuff about the party, in all his media. He is a very dangerous person.
Ty Buchanan
November 25, 2009 at 7:10 am

Everybidy wants to get on the pay bandwagon.

Even Rapidshare who used to distribute “cracks” for free are now charging.

What a cheek they have when they are alredy breaking the law.
Guest
December 11, 2009 at 12:41 am

What a spineless, sniveling POS – PLEASE, WSJ, HIDE BEHIND YOUR PAYWALL SO WE DON”T HAVE TO BE BLINDED BY PRO-CORPORATIST DRIVEL!!!!!! WSJ is a sleazy, politically motivated,
robber-baron enterprise that has no business even being in the same sector classification as a product of the “Fifth Estate”. Why don’t you bend over some more for your hot beef injection from your shareholder pimp clientele. And as for the poster who stated the fact that he always sides with Israel (fascist bastard nuke-owners), “DUH?!?!?” – HE’S JEWISH – WHY WOULDN’T HE TAKE THEIR SIDE CONSISTENTLY?!?!?!?!? AAAAAARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I’ll use this spot to say that the next planned 9/11 (and we all KNOW it was an inside job) happens there – and you won’t have to worry about the pay wall interrupting biased coverage of this. And for those ready to scream “Anti-Semite” – GO RIGHT AHEAD. My personal analysis over the last 20 years leads me to not give a crap about any of that and stick to the “Facts” – and not the ones given off by that
piss-poor excuse for a journalism rag. Go ahead, Rupert, put ALL your crap coverage behind the paywall so we can get an objective view point of the deadly geo-political mess that’s going to come back to the US when everyone gets tired of it and the “Big Stick” policies that’ve dominated for the last century almost. Screw ‘em – save your money – no use after 2012 anyway…..
Carole
December 24, 2009 at 8:07 pm

How many of the commenters have links to websites? Are you hoping to make money from your content? Why? Why don’t you just give it away?

Could it be -

it costs you time and money to produce?
you’re hoping to feed your family?
you wouldn’t be doing it at all if there wasn’t a hope of making money?

Regardless of whether you like his views or his products, the fact remains that he is a shrewd businessman. You could have learned a lot from this interview. I suggest you listen to it again and put your bias aside.
FreeXboxLiveFast
May 4, 2011 at 4:16 pm

Great Article Hope to see more.