![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I don't think I like this...
Apr. 6th, 2009 09:34 amGoogle now a 'web parasite'. As far as I can tell from what the article says and my workmates have tried to explain, the Very Important Person who is the editor of the Wall Street Journal has decided to come out and bitch about Google's attack on 'traditional brand loyalty' and the mistaken conception that content should be free.
According to my workmates this Thomson bloke is Very Influential and when he comes out and declares something it's a Sign of the Times or whatever.
I don't really understand his complaint here, but I don't think I like the conclusions.
Thomson, a former editor of The Times who was appointed editor-in-chief of Dow Jones and managing editor of The Wall Street Journal last May, said consumers must understand why they were paying a premium for content.
"It's certainly true that readers have been socialised -- wrongly I believe -- that much content should be free," he said.
"And there is no doubt that's in the interest of aggregators like Google who have profited from that mistaken perception. And they have little incentive to recognise the value they are trading on that's created by others."
Thomson said Google benefited from aggregating content from The Wall Street Journal and other newspapers.
"Google argues they drive traffic to sites, but the whole Google sensibility is inimical to traditional brand loyalty," he said.
"Google encourages promiscuity -- and shamelessly so -- and therefore a significant proportion of their users don't necessarily associate that content with the creator.
"Therefore revenue that should be associated with the creator is not garnered."
According to my workmates this Thomson bloke is Very Influential and when he comes out and declares something it's a Sign of the Times or whatever.
I don't really understand his complaint here, but I don't think I like the conclusions.