Catchy Title

A comment on the BBC News article ‘Yahoo chief Carol Bartz sees trouble for Google’ - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10090449.stm

Rupert Murdoch says he will remove stories from Google‘s search index as a way to encourage people to pay for content online.

In an interview with Sky News Australia, the mogul said that newspapers in his media empire – including the Sun, the Times and the Wall Street Journal – would consider blocking Google entirely once they had enacted plans to charge people for reading their stories on the web.

At least someone in the audience likes him....maybe a little too much.

I know the story is a couple of days old now, but it is such a good’n’ I feel the need to commit something to writing so that I to may basque in the glory of I-WAS-RIGHT-AND-HE-WAS-SO-VERY-WRONG that will inevitably come in the near future.

This glorious day has a 80% chance of arriving in one of two ways:

1. Because his advisors (who MUST be better at running a company than Rupert, otherwise News Corp would no longer be trading) have managed to convince the old crone that he may as well start giving away free anthrax samples with every newspaper for all the good blocking his sites from search engines will do.

or

2. The guy would have stamped his feet enough that News Corp actually go through with his ‘evil’ plan (no, I don’t ACTUALLY think his plan is evil….it just sounded good), that traffic to his sites drops dramatically, he fails to reach existing visit targets for advertisers and loses gazillions of dollars, and the lack of traffic/negative press deter future advertisers from his sites.

So why only 80% chance you ask?  Well…..he’s not a spring chicken any more.  I’m just sayin’!  Even I won’t gloat over the body of a dead man.  I wish him many more happy years,  cause I REALLY, REALLY want to gloat.

So, I must tell you now that I am actually a large customer of Mr Murdoch (no, I’m not fat, I meant financially).  That is, not a small sum of money leaves my account each month in exchange for a Sky+ HD Multiroom subscription.  I also pay for all the TV packages, the Movies and the Sports, the telephone line, telephone calls, and broadband.  I also work away from home a lot, so having access to SKY Player to watch movies and current TV is a real bonus.

I find that technically, the service is sound.  It very rarely goes wrong.  Financially, it is a good deal.  If I were to piece together the same package from separate providers it would cost much more.  Other than Virgin of course, but cable isn’t available in the area for that apartment.   However, the customer service, the engineers, the call centres, and the billing system sucks.  It is a close 2nd for suckiness behind BT.  But, if the technology itself never goes wrong, then I should never have to speak with them.  I will continue to keep my fingers crossed, but if it was to start breaking down and I actually had to start dealing with these people (the people that took 4 hours and 6 phone conversations to understand that I wanted to upgrade to HD), then I would most certainly go elsewhere.  I’m lucky enough to be in a position where my time is more valuable than money, and if Sky start stealing that, then I really would get mad (with steam out of the ears and everything).

My point being that I and I’m sure most other consumers are savvy.  We weigh up what we want, we estimate what we think something is worth.  We will sometimes pay a little more than something is worth, but we will weigh up the benefits of having that item or service against how much it will dent our pockets (the only exception to this general rule of thumb is drugs;  drugs put a whole new spin on ‘reasoned’ analysis, so we’ll quietly ignore THOSE purchases for now). Oh, and by the way, DON’T DO DRUGS!!   So, back to my point; if I get a better, more comprehensive, FREE news/tabloid service from many other companies, there is no way in heck that I’ll be paying any extra for it.

I downloaded a new Sky Mobile App on the iPhone yesterday.  Wow! Does this mean I get the same functionality of SKY Player on my iPhone??  No. Does it mean I get the SKY news channel coupled with a few Sports Channels? Yes; I feel I’m starting to lose you. So I get this free because I’m a SKY customer, already paying for this content with a full SKY subscription? No. What the F%*k?  So how much is it? £6 per month. £6 a month to access something I can already access on my laptop, PC, or at home at no extra cost? Yes. That blows! Yes, yes Mr Stakounis, it does indeed…blow.

The app will most certainly be useful for all those Premierball, ship thing match fans who don’t have a Sky subscription, and I’m sure it’ll make Murdoch a few more quids to line his coffin with, however I resent being asked to pay for the same thing twice.  Just like I resent being asked for money to access something which others are providing for free.

Even before the internet I got all my news from Reuters. I ‘browse’ Reuters for news, if I overhear a snipet or want to lookup a news story, I will Google it, and I will usually pick a selection of sites to read about the subject.  Once on those sites, I almost always start clicking links in the sidebar to other potentially interesting content, whether it be commercial or not.  I have asked a few friends and colleagues whether this is normal surfing behavior (because lets face it, I’m not to know what is normal), and shock of all shocks, a unanimous “yeah, we’re with you Rich, that’s exactly how we ‘do’ the internet too”.  So, I believe that when Mr M said that “readers who randomly reach a page via an internet search hold little value to advertisers.”, he was talking from a point of very little understanding of his readership, the internet, or the modern e-marketplace.  Thank goodness for News Corp that they employ intelligent people to, you know, actually RUN the company.  But as far as pretty-boy, air-headed, company poster-boys go; I don’t rate him.  He doesn’t turn me on to the company, doesn’t turn me on (perish the thought), and doesn’t make me want to buy anything.  In fact every time he speaks in public I feel kinda dirty.

I used to buy the Times on an occasional Sunday morning and spend the day reading at a street cafe in London, just to pass the time, but I have never bought a tabloid, I don’t care for gutter journalism, I like to keep my ‘news’ completely separate from my ‘editorials, opinions, and commentaries’, and I certainly will not be paying anymore money the Sky/News Corp or Mr M in any guise unless absolutely necessary.  My Sky subscription has increased by 25% in 2 years as it is.

The plain truth is, that Murdoch has too much influence on the social and political leanings of his press, his opinions and ideals are separated by a whole world’s worth of space from mine, and I simply won’t pay to be fed it, unless it is done with reason, education, information, and intelligence.

Related articles.

[polldaddy poll=2245361]