DISQUS

Too bad the entire lead of the column is wrong. I've called for a correction to be issued.

I saw the Times article, as well. Seems like it could be a harbinger of things to come, which might include the loss of standalone local sports sections altogether.

If you've read the posts about this Sam Zell flare up, then you know I'm the minority report on the subject. Most people have reacted like Jason, flying off the handle about how Zell is a moron who doesn't know anything about the Internet.

I just ask that people take a moment to consider the billionaire might have some experience and insight. I have. And I think he's got a point, which I explain at my blog.

You're absolutely right. If Google becomes known as a content provider (meaning people can find the content they want there, via links or otherwise) then newspapers are to blame. That's why I'm advocating they stop providing content to Google.

Google undestands branding. One of the big reasons it launched Google News is to protect it own brand as your source to find anything and everything.

If a person hears about something going on in their community and begins searching for more information about it, Google wants to be their first stop. They want to be the first stop for finding anything. They don't necessarily care about providing news, just answers.

If you can't understand branding, you won't understand my argument.

I agree with Rob. 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.

If a reader hears about something happening in his or her community and goes to Google to find more about it, 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 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, 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's?

Those one-off pages linked from Google aren't of any value to advertisers. They'd rather not be on those pages at all.

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

Since you've mentioned the IHT story about the Norwegian newspaper, I want to point out that the figure in the story that says 20 percent of the company's revenues is incorrect. The correct word to use there would have been profits, not revenues. Big difference. I've contacted the media relations folks at Schibsted, who have sent the correct numbers, which I've posted in the comments at my blog about the story.