They keep mentioning Google ad monopoly and how it "unfairly sucks revenue from publishers, killing journalism and the news media, while forcing consumers to pay more through an “adtech tax” to industry middlemen.".
Those publishers don't have to be listed by Google, they can opt out, right?
Let's assume Google disappears, how are publishers getting more money that they are getting now? Do they envision some publishers' owned search engine more efficient than Google which people flock to once other options are removed?
Can someone convince me that Google is actually bad for traditional publishers/journalists?
To start with, Google is now a mandatory expense for many companies. Because 90% of users have Google as their default search engine, either through Chrome or Safari. And Google pays a lot of money for that. You can say goodbye to Google, but that also means goodbye to 90% of users.
Second, the lack of proper competition in the ad market cannot be healthy for the cost of advertising. It's impossible to become a competitor to Google without sinking billions in costs. There is no pressure on the price so traditional publishers pay way too much for the ads. That ad may never be served, because Google renders a summary of your content next to the search results; and if a user would visit the site regardless, there is AMP - Google sells you ads and then deploys middleware to prevent you from serving them.
If the Google and their ad + search monopoly went away tomorrow all the publishers would start on equal footing. Opting out while Google still runs its monopoly just kills your medium.
Ok, so they start on equal footing but how is that good for them? People will just watch their favorite influencers on Youtube/Insta/TikTok. They know how to find those already.
I mean, how do you envision those businesses (traditional publishers) getting money in a world without Google? I mean specific steps. Are they going to code their own search engine? Advertise on radio and tv so people can find them? I just don't see a scenario that is better for them than the current situation materializing.
Yeah but they are the best at it.
If other players take the market it will be less profitable to advertise with them and thus there will be less money for publishers unless you believe somehow someone makes more efficient search/ad combination than Google is able to right now.
It's not about profit but efficiency. Publishers are arguing that "Google steals their money". My point is that if Google disappears things will be worse for them. You don't need to support anything.
Those publishers don't have to be listed by Google, they can opt out, right? Let's assume Google disappears, how are publishers getting more money that they are getting now? Do they envision some publishers' owned search engine more efficient than Google which people flock to once other options are removed? Can someone convince me that Google is actually bad for traditional publishers/journalists?