Thread by @FloRoberts93

I’ve been doing some digging in the report from the ACCC inquiry that is the basis for the proposed media code.

“Where users of Google Search or Google News click on a given article, they are referred to that media business’s website...

Media businesses are paid according to the advertising on their own news websites.”

So, where is the idea that Google is taking advertising revenue that rightly belongs to the media org coming from?

They also note: “... while media businesses have a significant online presence, their value as platforms for advertising is likely to be lower than that of search and social media platforms, due to the relative amount of contact time they have with consumers.”

So, news media orgs are making less advertising revenue, because users spend less time on news sites, and more time on Google & Facebook.

(Not because Google or FB are somehow ‘stealing’ that revenue.)

So key points are:

Google/FB drive traffic to media sites, where the media sites get ad revenue.

Media doesn’t get enough ad revenue because people don’t spend enough time on their websites.

How is the solution to that not simply switching to a non-ad revenue model (paywall) OR creating a news media site that more people want to stay on for longer?

Why is the solution Google/FB must pay the gap?

I haven’t read the full 623 page report. But so far I see nothing solid in the report that solidly supports the #mediacode other than: news media isn’t making as much money as they did 20 years ago—unfair!

You too can waste your nights reading the full ACCC report here: accc.gov.au/system/files/D…

#auspol #mediacode #nmbc

Another interesting quote:

“Depending on the length of the snippet and the nature of news content the subject of the snippet, consumers may be more or less inclined to click on the hyperlink.”

Solid data there. Snippets have an impact that might be good or bad for news media.

Followed up on the next page by this one: “consumers were more likely to click on the links where there was additional context, meaning that media businesses that opted out lost significant referral traffic to rivals who opted in by offering a free licence to Google.”

Right. So in two pages (231-232)

The effect of snippets could be good or bad.

And more context (via snippets) increases clicks.

Hmm 🤔

Something doesn’t add up between those statements.

But whose recommendation is it that snippets deserve payment (despite *increasing* traffic to media orgs websites?

“A number of media businesses submit that they should be compensated by digital platforms for the use of their news content to produce snippets”

Oh. Right.

News Corp, Free TV and the Copyright Agency

Because *none* of those have a vested interest in getting paid for snippets 🤔

Yet there is no opposing view offered or considered in the report.

Also interesting when comparing print/digital subscriptions, print subscriptions have declined. But:

“On balance, there has been a net increase in total paid subscriptions for the three major print publishers in the past four years,”

(Page 302)

So overall, news outlets now have *more* paying subscribers than they did before they were online.

Again, this doesn’t mesh with the idea that Google/FB are stopping users from accessing news.