Coming soon: A new, smarter Google News?

Google may be working on a new, intelligent news distribution system, according to Sharon Waxman, a reporter for Hollywood newsblog TheWrap. She approached chief executive Eric Schmidt at a soiree thrown by Arianna Huffington last week, during which she says Schmidt confirmed the development of a platform “that will bring high-quality news content to users without them actively looking for it.” The news feature would launch in about six months.

The details of the feature remain vague, though Waxman says Schmidt relayed several other details: Users will be presented with high-quality news that is specifically targeted to them based on “search words, user choices, purchases [presumably via Google Checkout]” without needing to first conduct a search; and the New York Times and Washington Post will be among the first newspapers to have their content delivered through this channel. These comments fall in line with Schmidt’s address to the Newspaper Association of America earlier this month, in which he briefly mentioned Google’s “entertain me” concept — the search giant’s broad strategy to provide streaming content tailored to users based on their previous behavior.

Despite the specificity of his claims in Waxman’s article, a source close to Google has raised serious questions about the veracity of Waxman’s claims about Schmidt’s comments. The company has not confirmed any of her post’s content.

This poses quite the conundrum. On one hand, we have Waxman, a reputable author and former correspondent for both the Washington Post and the New York Times, saying that Schmidt was concrete in his explanation of the new system, which seems very consistent with expressed goals. “Eric said the new system — or whatever the correct word is — would be rolled out in six months and start with the NYT and Washpost,” Waxman wrote in an email to me.

On the other hand, we have Google, a company that is usually tight as a drum when it comes to pre-announcements about products. I should note that Schmidt is very rarely, if ever, this forthcoming, about upcoming features. So was this all a miscommunication? Schmidt has already said the company doesn’t want to get into the content business — though it does make a lot of sense for Google to move into customizing news content, as users increasingly expect Google to cater to their interests.

So, what’s really going on?

Beyond that, what shape would this sort of news platform would take, and what influence might it have on the media landscape? One of the most salient points Waxman makes — that she says Schmidt confirmed — is that Google would use this new, highly-targeted news platform to “sell premium ads against premium content,” and that the newspapers included in the system would not get a cut of the revenue. That being said, the system would also drive more traffic to newspapers’ online properties and allow them to hike their ad rates as well.

So if there is, in fact, something like this in the works, it may have been pitched as a way to quiet print media grousing that Google’s alternative news channels are eroding newspaper readerships and revenue. Some have even suggested (mostly in jest) that Google buy one of the grand old metropolitan dailies as penance for what it has done to traditional journalism. Even so, it’s unlikely that the search company would make such a clumsy (and thinly-veiled) overture when there’s no way the boost in online ad revenue from the system would stem the carnage at most major papers. If anything, this might come across looking like just a meatless bone thrown their way — one that would only exacerbate complaints once revealed how ineffective it is in reality.

Regardless, all we can do for now is stay tuned and see what Google comes up with. After all, Schmidt hasn’t always had the smoothest relationship with reporters, as evidenced by his blacklisting of all CNET reporters after the site published personal information about one of the company’s founders. So we’ll keep an ear to the ground.

[Update: In response to a comment below regarding the similarity between the news platform described in this post and Google's new "Whats Popular" gadget, the two are significant different. The goal of the latter is to aggregate content from across the web based primarily on crowd-sourced data, similar to sites like Digg and Reddit. The purpose of the former, if it even exists, would be to serve reporting from high-caliber news sources based on users' previous behavior without them needing to define preferences at all. See Google channels Digg, Reddit with "What's Popular" for more information on how they differ.]

Next Story: Bosch enters remote healthcare electronics market with Health Buddy
Previous Story: Rebel Monkey’s cooperative CampFu game world hits 100,000 users

Bookmark and Share

Tags:

Photo of Camille Ricketts

About the Author, Camille Ricketts

Camille is the lead writer for GreenBeat. She came to VentureBeat from Google where she worked on its traditional platforms team, particularly in TV. Before that, she was a reporter for the Wall Street Journal in New York and London. Follow her on Twitter at @camillericketts, and follow VentureBeat on Twitter at @venturebeat.

With GreenBeat 2009, VentureBeat's all-star conference on all things Smart Grid, coming up in November, Camille will be expanding coverage of this exciting space. Stay up to date by following @greenbeat2009 on Twitter or by becoming a fan of the event on Facebook here.

  • alex
    The Wrap failed to notice it... and then so do you...
    Try installing the VERY new iGoogle widget "What's Popular"...
    After you play with it for a while, re-write this article...

    alex
  • err. It isn't interesting at all really.

    You think google gives a crap about toy sites like Digg? It's in Googles DNA to solve these things with algorithms.

    It, however, is not in their DNA to create compelling sites to remain on. They've always been a launchpad for content elsewhere - the idea of a news aggregator is not new, but a large % of the issues they'll encounter are design issues. (which they suck at)
  • Three short remarks:

    1. Google already runs a very good recommendation engine on google reader (at least IMHO)
    2. It could use the item sharing and rating of feed item of google reader to implement diggs feauterset quite easily. Maybe it is already doing so with what's popular
    3. Scientific articels like the brand new WWW2009 article titled "Detecting the Origin of Text Segments Efficiently" written mostly by Googlers (including R & D Director Monika Henzinger) show that they are trying to solve the interesting problems like what is the original source of an article algorithmically.
  • dale_harrison
    Such a project from Google would certainly be interesting and could be well monetized by Google (for Google). However, it clearly doesn't impact the underlying dynamics that are buffeting newspapers and print media in general.

    What's historically given content value is the scarcity of distribution vs readers. Newspapers have had natural localized economic monopolies coupled with a only a finite number of column inches to distribute news and ads. And that natural monopoly meant that each paper had total control over the amount of content they allow into their local marketplace.

    Monopoly constraint of distribution will always lead to prices (and profits) significantly above open market rates. And these papers have built bloated inefficient organizations around these monopoly profits (think AT&T in the 70's).

    The Internet destroys this artificial constraint of distribution and re-aligns prices back down to competitive open market rates. So the discussion of Internet ad revenue being "too small" is a bit inverted...the real issue is that traditional ad rates have been artificially boosted for enough decades now for everyone in the business to think that's the long-term norm. It's not, it's a reflection of the monopoly position that's existed for 2-3 generations now. This monopoly pricing is the SOLE reason that investors such as Buffet and Murdoch found newspapers to be investment opportunities with above-market value.

    Unfortunately the Internet came along and changed all the rules! However, there's still significant untapped value that media organizations could take advantage of...but only if their mindsets and organizational structure would allow it.

    The problem is that any individual reader now has access to what's essentially an infinite amount of content on any given topic or story. This breaks the back of old media's monopoly control of distribution. Basically, in a world of infinite supply, the value of data (even news content) will be driven to zero. This is Micro Economics 101. That news article is just another piece of data with no intrinsic value...

    Furthermore, feeble attempts to return to monopoly distribution through restraint-of-access (i.e. paywalls) won't change the underlying economic forces at work. We could lose 90% of all paper-based content production and there'd still be vast amounts of news left in the environment. Just look at Google News and you'll find hundreds or even thousands of separate articles listed under each headline. Old media no longer has the market muscle to choke off distribution in the age of the Internet.

    So what has value? The only remaining resource that remains tightly constrained is each individual reader's amount of time and attention span they're willing to invest in news discovery and filtering and consumption. This store of new market value is manifest not in the data (i.e. the news content) but in the meta-data...the data associated with finding and organizing all that infinite supply of underlying content "data".

    In a world of infinite supply, only meta-data will have value! And the value of meta-data can be found in:

    1) Finding the content, which is why Google is so powerful, and

    2) Assembling just the news I want to see (just for me) in one place without me having to exert effort (think Google News...although they've barely scratched the surface of what's REALLY possible in terms of customized news)


    Both of these meta-data activities will have long-term persistent value to the consumer and neither have been well exploited. Furthermore, the 3-way value-chain between content-producers, readers and advertisers is what really makes the "news business" economically viable. The Internet allows this to be exploited a new and truly creative ways...ways that are yet to be fully explored and put into action!

    Just imagine an online news delivery platform that's able to serve up highly targeted articles. That is, a platform that delivers exactly the stories that I personally want to read, in order of importance to ME (rather than some editor at the NYT)...all those stories that I could probably find with sufficient investment of time and energy, but delivered to me with zero marginal investment on my part.

    Over time, such a platform would development deep knowledge about what I'm interested in as well as the relative marginal value that I associate with each of those topics and categories...essentially a multi-dimensional "interest map". This then becomes the ultimate delivery platform for highly targeted advertising...advertising far more targeted than what's now available through search-engine ads because those ads represent point-in-time targeting and lacks the ability to "see through time" at what my full spectrum on interests are...at what their marginal-relative value to me is and how this "interest map" is evolving over time (and the technology is available to accomplish this).

    Such a platform would permit ad-rates significantly above current market online rates because the high-targeting would carry real economic value for the advertisers. The existence of such a persistent "targeting spread" has been well proven by Google AdWord rates over time. Also, since the platform would be focused internally on a single site, it eliminates many of the current issues raised by multi-site behavioral tracking by ad-networks.

    Google certainly has the resources and technical reach to do this...though their actions to date seem to indicate that they've become quite risk adverse to platform features that might raise privacy concerns. However, they're certainly the sleeping dragon here...

    --------------
    I'm in the early stages of a startup designed to exploit such a targeting and ad-delivery platform in the controlled-circulation publication (trade magazine) business...specifically in the biotech niche. Here the behavioral-targeting algorithms could be more easily developed because of the highly constrained range of categories within the audience of a traditional trade magazine. Also, most trade magazines have online rates in the $40-$80 CPM rate, so the bar to early profitability is easier to surmount.

    dale.harrison@inforda.com
  • Techbuzz
    look like another bigger thing will happen soon
    Can’t wait to see what it’ll be
  • Whatever the reason, Google News certainly seems to be changing.

    Our website, www.newsknife.com, rates news sites based on their appearances at Google News.

    Based on the news site appearances we have found on the home page of Google News, the share held by Associated Press and the other top 20 news sites seems to be growing year by year.

    By contrast, the share held by smaller news sites appears to be falling.

    You can see our "Google News Trend Watch, 2008-09" now (published October) at www.newsknife.com