Monday, November 10, 2008

"Unfair" follows "rotten timing" and "bad luck"

Websites themselves are still failing to make money. Media institutions nationally are only taking 20 per cent of advertising compared with Google, which alone takes 40 per cent. Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger said: "There is something intrinsically unfair about the advantage that Google has by taking the lion's share of the advertising, but I think at the moment Google by and large are helping us all."

Ms. McCall [chief executive of the Guardian Media Group] said: "We are partners with Google. We do make some money from them."

Reporting from the Society of Editors, on the "big issue".

How does this work, the intrinsically unfair? Classified Jobs Advertising, anyone? Now who has a monopoly on that?


Martin Belam said...

Isn't the 'intrinsically unfair' referred to here the way that web media ownership has unfolded?

A bad advert in the press, billboards or on TV has to answer to the ASA. The printed press self-regulates with the PCC. TV stations have Ofcom. The BBC has the BBC Trust.

And Google's acquisition of a major, and increasingly dominant share of the online advertising market, and possession of the main gateway to Internet content has been overseen and regulated by whom?

Robin Hunt said...

"Media companies can only think about their own properties, their own content. They can’t let go of the monopoly control business which the web has already destroyed."

That's from an amazing piece by Scott Karp - The market and the internet don’t care if you make money - posted yesterday.

I can't add anything more to it right now