[discuss] [governance] Springer vs. Google

Mon May 5 10:36:43 UTC 2014

Hi Seun,

I will take time to revert to other points/comments of your message. For now, let me address your request for a reference for Google.

Best 
Jean-Christophe

Here the reference to the report - FT has a paywall, so I screen-captured the quote. Google's average prices for its ads slipped a little more than expected  down 9 percent. 

The constant expansion of the Internet 'clickers' reduced constantly what you have to  pay for advertising on the Net by using the click count. (per 1'000, the kilo click)
- One issue is that the new audience is not as bankable (i.e. with high revenue) making the additional audience less valuable per click. Most of the high-end audience (from developed countries) is already 'in'
- The previous model (classic media) had a limited and more or less stable audience/market keeping price per 1'000 readers to a relatively constant value. Today you count clicks, not readers.
- The media buyers are buying media space for ads more or less as per the kilo, having little if no interest at least in the quality or relevance of the content. This quantitative approach will end. Have you ever sold a media space to any of these young kiddos telling you "I have 2'000 bucks for your audience. Take it or I'll give these 2'000 bucks to another media." They have no idea of the engagement of the audience. It is a become a vulgar market.
- Google is a strong driver of the cost for the kilo click. As an over dominant ad seller, if its cost per kilo goes down, all the digital advertising industry goes down.

Google shares dip 5% as earnings disappoint
Google failed to bring any respite to Wall Street's tech stock sell-off on Wednesday, as it reported disappointing first-quarter earnings...
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ba8cc860-c58f-11e3-a7d4-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz30pqUVpIe

Google creates panic for fund managers
Facebook's push into financial services has sparked fears among asset managers that major technology groups have the potential to destroy...

Google invests in former NSA analysts' start-up
Google's venture capital arm and Silicon Valley's Kleiner Perkins have invested in a start-up run by two former National Security Agency...

Le 5 mai 2014 à 11:07, Seun Ojedeji a écrit :

> Hello Jean,
> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
> Dear Wolfgang,
> 
> We should all regret that the media didn't come together against Google on this. 
> 
> The battle is not between Döpfner and Schmidt: it is between the media at large and Google. All over Europe, and beyond, the same battle is raging. It is unseen in History that one single media uses other media contents for its own benefit, and is hardly sharing a tiny part, for those media strong enough to complain and sometimes obtain a bit more. Google considers that it 'gives back' by linking the aggregated content to their original source. In many case this bring petty money. With a model that would find a balance with 60% advertising and 40% content revenues, Google has now taken by 15 to 30% of these advertising revenues away from the media. And we know that Google model is even not secure, as the per-click is losing its value everyday. Over the last quarter, Google click value has lost 9%, meaning that its model might not be sustainable. 
> 
> Any reference to this report and to whom was the 9% lost to? 
> 
> Concentration is killing media, diversity of media, diversity of opinion, reduction of debate within our societies. Concentration, and dominatio are bad to democracy, endangering the fragile balance any society is trying to keep aloft. 
> 
> Okay
>  
> In its annual financial report, Google shows in a very un-detailed fashion, a gross revenue that do not count what it gives back to other media. That is the normal standard accounting. Any revenue generated by a media, and given back as a commission to partners, should be included in its books. There is some obvious reason for Google to make it so.
> 
>  It means:
> - Google makes much more revenues than what it declares (getting it closer to 100 B USD
> 
> Okay which is not a bad thing for a focused organisation
>  
> - Still what is paid back by Google to each media does not match the economical requirement to be even for these media. Even with that pocket money the majority of media are either starving or dying. Great job. And still no public regulation, as we have had for the press, the radio or television. And it is not just the story of big fishes eating small fishes.
> 
> Okay i presume you are saying this from experience. My question though is, how exactly is google making those folks lose their job? isn't it more like a win-win situation in that if i need an information, i "google it" and google directs me to a media page where i remain to view all necessary information. So google wins by helping me know they are available to guide me to the media location and the media wins by me getting to their post.
> 
> I am happy with Google making profits. One cannot be happy with the desertification of media, and should look into all of that money that Google pushes around to secure its position all over the planet. 
> 
> Journalists might be to blame for losing some of their wit to explore, investigate the political and economical powers, becoming servants to the dominants. Still, the economical reading is clear. Google is destroying many jobs in that field. 
> 
> Indeed, i have a short story; Once upon a time the current richest man in Africa (as announced by forbes) did something that made some loose their job - One of his company that sells rice got an hint that another foreign company is springing up to compete with their product. He then slashed the market price of his rice by almost half so the new comer looses its competitive ability and in no time packed up! Would you say that Dangote was being unfair by doing that OR that he was being smart by loosing some money to gain many more.
> Google spends some money across the world and just like any other business conscious organisation, they are in to make profit. There is just no room for democracy in that!
> 
> Kind Regards
>  
> Dominatio is not welcome to preserve social balance and justice.
> 
> Jean-Christophe
> 
> 
> 
> Le 5 mai 2014 à 10:00, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit :
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> just FYI: The  battle between Mr. Döpfner (Springer is, inter alia, the publisher of the German tabloid BILD Zeitung) and Mr. Schmidt (Google) in Germany is not new, it is a very old one. It goes back to 2009 when Springer tried to convince the FDP-CDU government to establish a "Leistungsschutzrecht". With this law Springer wanted to have money for the snippets Google News (and other news aggregators) do publish from the newspapers owned by Springer.  With other words: A (German) one million dollar business wanted to have some money from another (American) million dollar business with the help of the government.  A delicate aspect of this is, that there was - in the background - a family linkage. There were two brothers: one worked in the establishment of Springer, the other one in the Chancellory. The guy from the government has now left the governmental office and works for BMW. 
>> 
>> I have my doubts whether Springer has any idea to strengthen the democratic multistakeholder Internet Governance model and to include civil society into Internet policy development and decision making. Users/readers were not asked when the parliament discussed the "Leistungsschutzrecht". 
>> 
>> Wolfgang   
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> 
>> Von: discuss-bounces at 1net.org im Auftrag von Milton L Mueller
>> Gesendet: Mo 05.05.2014 01:54
>> An: michael gurstein
>> Cc: '1Net List'
>> Betreff: Re: [discuss] [bestbits] Shoshanna Zuboff: Dark Google
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Yes, the copyright interests and other threatened old media have been at war with Google for some time. Odd to see Mr. Gurstein siding with the MPAA and the book publishers, but when you have no consistent principles I guess the enemy of your enemy is your friend, etc. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein
>> Yes, that well known left wing conspiracy hack err the head of Axel Springer Corp (the largest publishing group in Europe) effectively calling for global regulation of Google (the monopoly provider of an increasing range of 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Seun Ojedeji,
> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
> web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
> Mobile: +2348035233535
> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
> 
> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140505/9638203e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Capture d'?cran 2014-05-05 12.20.42.png
Type: image/png
Size: 43262 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140505/9638203e/Capturedcran2014-05-0512.20.42-0001.png>