Twitter was so abuzz with discussion about Google and fair use of AP content that I couldn’t resist riffing off yesterday’s post by BurrellesLuce Executive Vice President Steve Shannon regarding AP copyright discussions.
The graphic below shows tweet results for the terms “Google,” “AP,” “Copyright,” “NAA” (Newspaper Association of America) and “ACAP” (Automated Content Access Protocol). If one were to review quantitative share of conversation yielded by this graph you would think Google “owns” the conversation; however a qualitative look into these conversations shows if Google were to engage in a “pay-per-click” micro-payment system for copyrighted content, the search giant risks being abandoned by some searchers.
If public relations teaches us anything it’s that huge fires can be started by a small spark. This graphic also demonstrates that the metrics produced the fastest and easiest often tell only part of the story.
Google has already found it’s difficult to monetize social media (e.g. purchase of YouTube) and may experience some bumps in their upward trajectory if micro-payment of copyrighted content takes hold. This situation will continue to evolve and Internet users will be watching closely to protect the free search.
I’m left thinking this is one more reason to protect the free press and investigative journalism that could provide in-depth reporting on this very important issue. Is this the tipping point showing the importance of getting the estimated 15K-20K trained reporters back to work? While micro-blogging grows increasingly popular, my guess is micro-payments won’t be embraced with quite the same fervor. I want a good investigative journalist to take the reins on this and let us know the real ramifications and the likely future of copyrighted material.
Questions specifically for public relation pros:
Will micro-payments change how some of you currently use the free alert system?
How will you be affected if Google alerts are forced to change its source list?
Are you prepared to modify your benchmarks to accommodate this change?
