The Phoenix

Enough with the mindless GateHouse bashing, already!

Recovering Journalist blogger Mark Potts today pans the NYT Co. for "wimp[ing] out" in the face of GateHouse Media's lawsuit--and, in the processes, advances the widespread notion that GateHouse's suit was unjustifiable:

[I]n waging an old-fashioned kind of newspaper war, GateHouse brought an antique blunderbuss to bear on a fight over a high-tech mosquito. Yeah, it may have gotten its way in the settlement, but it risked endangering the entire concept of Web linking. And the Times Co., by rolling over rather than fighting back with its traditional vigor, has left that issue very much open. [emph. added]

"High-tech mosquito"? I'm sorry, but this phrase suggests that Potts is willfully ignoring the stakes here. As I've previously noted, Boston.com wasn't just linking to GateHouse's content on its "Your Town" sites; it was linking to GateHouse content in a way that could have made reading GateHouse's own Wicked Local sites totally unnecessary (except through Boston.com, of course). And that could have put GateHouse out of business. It's remarkable how many people seem to miss this basic point.

From GateHouse's point of view, that's not a high-tech A-bomb. It's remarkable how many people don't seem to get this.

Perennial disclaimer on all things GateHouse: I used to work at Community Newspaper Company, which became part of GateHouse after my departure, and know some current GateHouse employees.

P.S.--The notion that the Times's "wimp[iness]" augurs poorly for the future of Web linking doesn't necessarily hold up, either, as Kennedy recently noted, Instead, as the Nieman Journalism Lab's Zachary Seward observes, it augurs poorly for the future of automated aggregation that supplants original content providers rather than complimenting them. To my mind, this is something to be cheered, not condemned.

Published Jan 28 2009, 11:29 AM by Adam Reilly

Daniel Yonts said:

The GateHouse response to the free traffic being provided by a larger site -- along with the improved search engine positioning that external links provide -- is the clearest example of the intellectual void of traditional publishers. Since they can't make their archaic revenue model work online, they'd prefer to force everyone to adopt the horse-and-buggy approach that has worked so well for their offline circulation. How is newspaper circulation looking, anyway?

Instead of focusing on ways to build relationships online -- like successful sites who are unburdened by the shackles of a dying business model -- they turn to the creative genius of lawyers. That must make their investors feel better about their prospects. Indeed, their advertisers must be pleased with this approach as well. They must be thrilled to know that their exposure rate will go down.

Next, they should sue Google's news service for daring to drive traffic to their sites. After all, Google is making money off of their content. That's a brilliant approach! Since its just too hard to focus on adding value to their audience, advertisers and shareholders -- it makes sense to stake their future on self-destructive lawsuits.

January 28, 2009 2:43 PM
Adam Reilly said:

Daniel, I think you're missing the point. Boston.com's links included, in many cases, the headline and most important information from GateHouse's stories. This doesn't drive traffic to GateHouse sites; it utilizes GateHouse content to drive traffic to Boston.com sites.

Also, tell me: how do you know GateHouse "can't make their archaic revenue model work online"? And please don't cite the lawsuit as proof. All the lawsuit tells us is that GateHouse didn't want Boston.com using GateHouse content to put GateHouse out of business.

January 28, 2009 3:15 PM
Daniel Yonts said:

I understand the point completely. The headline and the description are common features of an RSS type feed. The headline links to their pages -- and the text contained in that headline helps to drive traffic 2 ways:

1. Users click on the link to get the more detailed story. If the users just want to view headlines and descriptions, they can do so on any news aggregator (Google, Yahoo, Topix.com, etc). Does that benefit Boston.com? Yes. The assumption is that GateHouse would get those viewers anyway. That theory will be tested in the coming weeks. Visit Alexa.com to track how this works itself out in terms of their traffic.

2. Linked headlines carry more weight on the search engines than just a URL. The anchor text helps establish relevance and authority for each word, phrase, etc. Thus, a high PR site with a rich link related to the content will help with organic search.

A nickel buys their stock these days -- down from $20 a share two years ago. Its not going out of business because Boston.com is sending it traffic or using its content. Its going bankrupt because it hasn't found better ways to engage its audience and add value to advertisers. Other companies have been able to create that engagement and additional value -- while caring nothing of the issue that GateHouse feels is vital to their survival. Why is that?

Admittedly, I'm an Internet Marketer -- so I don't understand the perspective that seeks to shut down potential relationships and exposure. Now, no blog or media site will dare send them traffic. Their search rankings will be affected -- both to their article pages and their homepage. They must now rely on their publications to drive traffic.

Once they finally drive themselves out of business by focusing on a flawed view of online markets, they can take comfort in the fact that their shareholders won't be bailed out by the NY Times.

At any rate, I appreciate the chance to share my views with you. We just happen to disagree on this matter.

January 28, 2009 5:01 PM
Mark Potts said:

Thanks for the mention and the link, Adam. I think my post speaks for itself--and that Daniel Yonts underscores my points very well. If GateHouse somehow thinks its content is so valueless that it can be "stolen" through a headline and a link on another site, then maybe the company needs to find another line of work. Instead, as Daniel points out, GateHouse is turning its back on a potential firehose of content from Boston.com.

It's very difficult to see what Boston.com was doing that was significantly different than any sites on the Web do in linking to content from each other. That's why I, Daniel and so many other people were critical of GateHouse' suit. To slightly modify your words, it's remarkable how a few people don't seem to get this.

January 28, 2009 6:21 PM
Adam said:

Daniel and Mark: Thanks for both your replies. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

To answer the question posed in Mark's last paragraph: I link to the Globe all the time, and a bevy of other sites, but I don't want to put them out of business. I believe that--when it comes to GateHouse--the NYT Co. and Boston.com wouldn't mind doing do exactly that.

January 28, 2009 7:38 PM