Wall Street Journal versus Google.com

ash from has written 52 comments

I think the problem here is that Google is a search enguine. If you cut out the ability for people to search, you won't get any traffic unless you ARE the Wall Street Journal. Smalltown Indianna Press, regional news, even well known brands like New York Times... I'm never going to go to their websites to check a story unless the story is about them.

If I type in google 'oil tanker spill' or whatever, I may get taken to any news provider site on the planet. If I can't do this, I will type in 'www.wsj.com' and then search their site for the story i'm looking for, or bbc.co.uk or guardian.co.uk (with whom I have a subscription to premium content) or cnn.com or maybe economist.com (with whom I have had a subscription for years, but that I will not renew). I will think to visit the small press, or even the big press who I have never bothered to read before. The UK has over 10 big national papers, and I read one of them.

If you take away all the RSS and all the search, we go back in time. I do not want to visit 20-30 different websites per day to a) check they have updated b) find updates i'm interested in and c) wait for each site to load, including it's pictures and flashy adverts (especially if I am using my phone!). Consequence: I will not bother.

I keep reading your site because I find it indispensible. You are a Wall Street Journal of this world, a big player. However, if every site I read switched to emails instead of RSS, or came off google.com I wouldn't bother. I have enough traffic coming into my inbox everyday. I don't want to have to pay to download an email I'm not going to open, and for sure, on the mobile phone, we DO pay.

HOWEVER, I take your point about paying writers, and my worry is actually the little writers workign for small public-service news outlets who, as I say, I won't find without google.

We need a system that is as convenient for the end user (me) as RSS and google but pays the content creator (you) fairly. I'm not sure how this works, but whoever creates it will become rich.

There is a program I use at home called 'spotify' that lets me LEGALLY search for and instantly play (via streaming) music. Almost all the major record companies signed up, they get their royalties (although probably not as much as they would from CDs) per played track, and the program churns out an advert every now and then between songs, so it functions like radio. OR, like me, you can pay per month and listen ad-free. This is so easy, so convenient, so inexpensive that piracy just seems like a waste of time.

We need a spotify for news/ content.

Gadget from has written 916 comments

Ashley you are extremely sensible and a good decision maker.

This I know.

99 percent of people:
Make RSS feed connections and never use them.
99 percent lose all their RSS feed when buying new computer.
90 percent of people have a mailbox out of control.
I got zero percentage of my traffic from RSS in the past.

I have said this before...
Facebook knows it
Tweeter knows it
Gmail knows it ... Alternative email

The reason to have a web site is to collect emails.
Then have permission to send ads.

Otherwise good content is of little value.
I can get them on a bad page.
They get annoyed, click on an ad to leave.
........that last line is important.

To become the Guru is the goal.

Phil J from has written 75 comments

Good blog Andy. Sad to say, you are right. Good travel writers who travel are a rare commidity. Having been a lifelong globe trotter I agree that you have to be boots on the ground to really understand a country or a city. Keep up the good work Andy. My daughter sent you an email I think, about going to Saudi.
ttyl
Phillip
ps: thanks for all your help