After all is said and done Rupert Murdoch may still be seen as the sly old fox that really knew best. Many bloggers and journalists have pounded the insanity of Murdoch's suggestion that News Corp publications might strike an exclusive indexing deal with Bing and delist itself from Google's search engine.
However, what if Murdoch was really only talking about the Wall Street Journal and not all News Corp publications? Then the idea might actually make a lot of sense.
According to Compete.com WSJ.com already receives the largest percentage of its traffic from Microsoft' (18.74%). This is contrary to many sites which typically receive the majority of their referrals from Google, often many times more than what Microsoft delivers. Yahoo provides another 6.3% and since Bing will likely be owning Yahoo's search business that means Microsoft is actually delivering 25% of the Wall Street Journals current traffic.
If Rupert Murdoch can get Microsoft to pay possibly as much as $50 million or more a year to lose just 11.5% of his Google traffic sent to WSJ.com the deal makes a lot of sense.
According to Hitwise Google and Google News combined deliver approximately 26% of WSJ.com visitors. However, even with this larger percentage (vs. Compete's) Hitwise notes in a blog post why this might not be as much of a traffic loss as it appears:
Analyzing Google search terms driving traffic to the Journal, the top 100 terms accounted for over 21.6% of all Google search traffic to WSJ.com. Of that 21.6%, 13.4% were navigational or brand searches (e.g. "Wall Street Journal," "WSJ," "WSJ.com" etc...). Even if Murdoch decides to block Google, these navigational search queries will most likely remain intact.
Of the remaining 8.2%, the majority of searches were for stock quotes, and general business related searches. Most specific news related searches fill-out the long tail of search queries. While the Journal may lose traffic if it ceases to cooperate with Google the loss may be less then anticipated.
From Bing's perspective Wall Street Journal exclusivity not only differentiates Bing from Google but it could also help change its image as a more consumer focused search engine. The Wall Street Journal is the most read business publication in the World and this deal could go a long way toward modifying Bing's consumer image in the minds of business executives.
After all, a click resulting from a B2B oriented search term usually demands a premium price, which could help offset Bing's cost of paying Murdoch for exclusive inclusion.
Update: Two more publishers have come out with statements indicating their possible desire to de-index from Google as well. Read more here ...
About the author:
Rich Ord is the CEO and founder of
iEntry, Inc. which includes WebProNews, Twellow, WebProWorld and numerous other B2B blogs and Internet communities.
Submit Your Article
WSJ Print & Digital
Excellent points. I've been amused over the knee jerk response that followed instantly after Murdoch's statements. Now after the emotionally charged reaction that included some very valid arguments , another perspective is being brought forth. I'd like to add a few more related points related to this that may/may not have been brought up about WSJ (print and online):
WSJ is a B2B publication. It has a built-in brand of "go to first" business and investor news/content. It is not USA Today. It is not broad interest even though WSJ print has a larger week day subscription base than USA Today which is incredibly profound. WSJ captures a niche audience that focuses on building wealth. The audience has found that WSJ provides them, better than anyone else, with the most critical tool...effective information. And with speed of information very valuable, WSJ's online presence is increasingly critical to them. WSJ competitors can provide the same speedy information for free and, of course, they will continue to do so. WSJ feels that their information is the most effective for their niche industry. It goes beyond stock tickers, splits, public offerings, DOW fluctuation and GDP gains. That information is a commodity. It's the editorial and content wrapped around the free information that WSJ feels makes them the most effective to their wealth building community. WSJ's capital investment into this distinct content is substantial and valuable. Murdoch and WSJ have quantified this investment. They have carefully reviewed the real value of their content and how to maximize the revenue from that asset.
This leads to the value WSJ's niche advertisers receive. You can speculate that a WSJ ad click is more valuable than other direct/indirect publishers. But the numbers are there. Murdoch knows those numbers. I think he and WSJ have looked at that 21.6% share from Google and given it a value based not exclusively on traffic numbers or intent, but on what it provides for WSJ advertisers.
So, comparing that Google value to the value of their content, WSJ feels they can close the revenue gap more effectively with the Bing revenue source. They will potentially end up pulling off a few remarkable things including: 1) Sell that "less valuable" Google traffic share to Bing for a very substantial return 2) maximize their content asset 3) be a test for other niche publishers considering building their own payment wall that doesn't reach the ceiling.
Though there is risk for WSJ (as with every single business transaction by every single business), WSJ can simply flip an indexing switch and go back to status quo. There won't be enough bad blood from their audience because it's not about building principles, it's about building principle.