Sometimes we wonder if the press publishers, live on the same planet as the rest of the world. Or in any case, if they have only acquired the basic principles of the Internet. Press Publishers, (usually always the same Battalion grouping a handle of media of the former time to the past glory but always plied to grants of the State, a guarantee of their survival) have fought hard and deployed all their talents in lobbying to move to a European directive, binding Google and other platforms to pay for the Extracts of articles they publish on their sites. Concretely, it was a little Facebook, but especially Google, via its search engine and Google News, who was referred. The idea behind all of these (widely supported by a minister certainly anxious to do well see of the powerful – HUM – media in question): Since the platforms managed by the Gafa “bite” or plunder their content, they must pay! It is simple, basic, and so obvious.
Google is a link to your site and the place in the top of the search results and news, providing tens of thousands of visitors?
He must pay. Unfortunately, this that does not seem to have understood the famous Publishers, is that it does not really in this manner. Google has never paid to do links and will probably never. This is not the way we operate, that we love or that we do not like. Some have tried before the French, and they bitterly regretted. In 2014, the Axl Springer, the German media group had attempted unwisely to dispense with the services of Google, in not allowing him more to reference the free links to its articles. Well, hurt him in took: the group, which had directed all its strategy toward the digital, lives his hearing collapse by almost half as a result of the deindexation of her content in Google.
Needless to say that in a few weeks a request for reinstatement was made. Same story in 2015 with the Spanish press, which in the force of harassment, eventually lead Google to close Google News, triggering a real earthquake in the country. Google has therefore announced last week, that as a result of the implementation of the directive on neighboring rights (this name…), it would not pay, and he could do disappear of its index sites requiring compensation in exchange of content referenced on the platforms, namely the “snippets” containing the title of an article, extract of introduction and a thumbnail image of illustration.
Google offers two alternatives: either that the site applicants send a commitment of cessation to claim a mite, either that they do not appear in the search engine and in Google News that in the form of a raw link, without extract, and without an image. Be of good courage, guys.
A recent study showed that 50% of the results on a SERP only resulted in a click. Google is more an engine of answers, the zero position and the featured snippets “pumping” the content of publishers without their return the lesser traffic. The traffic to Wikipedia is also collapsed since the generalization of the engine of responses and the voice search). The problem is that Google is passed a search engine to a motor response if they had done it at the beginning person would not have allowed being indexed. Today they have a dominant position, it is the door of entry to the Web for 90% of the people. It has become impossible to refuse the indexing otherwise one dies, and being indexed we book our content to an engine that makes everything for that the user can find the answer without having to click on a link. The only solution would be to prohibit the search engines to give the answer to the request of the surfer otherwise than by a link.
It is indisputable, but the directive desired by publishers is a poor response to a good question and shows to what point they ignore the workings of search engines. Or in any case, they are mine not to know, because on the other hand when it comes to fighting to arrive at the head of the results or well Ranker in Google actus, they know very well invest in SEO techniques. And they also know very well Blinder their articles – including that underpaid subscription – advertising. This Directive is therefore in the figure as a boomerang, and these are not the imprecations of a minister caught in the trap of its own emptiness that will change anything. Google brings masses of traffic to news sites, such as a travel agency that brings customers to airlines and hotels. In your opinion, is this that they ask the agencies to pay for each customer brought in? Not really. It even seems that the reverse is the case. That news publishers feel happy…