2 Comments

Summary:

*Google* Labs flipped the switch today on *Google* Fast Flip, an experiment certain to be blown out of proportion by some people because it…

Google Flip Fast

*Google* Labs flipped the switch today on *Google* Fast Flip, an experiment certain to be blown out of proportion by some people because it involves publishers, shared revenue and Google (NSDQ: GOOG). Roughly three dozen publishers, including the New York Times, the Washington Post and sibling Newsweek, Salon and The Daily Beast have agreed to let Google use their logos and graphical images of their web content, sort of screenshots plus, for a finite time in exchange for the chance to take part in a new user interface being offered on the web and on mobile, usage research and a share of revenue from contextual advertising. (Screenshots.) Fast Flip promises to provide access to content fast and in a way that will encourage people to read more than snippets.

But Martin Nisenholtz, the NYT‘s SVP of digital operations, cautions against reading too much into the revenue sharing — or the licensing relationship. “There’s no grand plan here, nothing more to this other than learning,” he told paidContent. “This is not about any kind of large strategic relationship issue.” He admits the rev share is an unusual step, especially for Google winch has never shared revenue for news content: “They’re sharing revenue in a way they

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

  1. The first impression I got was what will the USDOJ Antitrust Division think of this service and arrangement – will they blow it out of porpotion? USDOJ is not sleep at the wheel this time unlike the last administrative, especially towards Google, Inc. and the specific publishers you mention who run Google AdWords.

    The second impression was the creative cost of these publishers developing the front page image and text layout and photo licenses which is now being zero-sum to a thumb screenshot competing in a sea of competing content the user can just flip though, looking at everything as a "choice" instead of a differentiating publication?

    So we already know that people under 30 don't want to pay for content they can get online for free, now they can just "flip" through expense generated content and someone in the industry expect these same users to pay for something? SMH….

Comments have been disabled for this post