November 24th, 2009 // comments (0)

RE: GODIN GETS IT WRONG

A quick follow-up to this item… after the cut.

I maintain that Murdoch’s push to de-list from Google and sign a (presumably) big money exclusive listing deal with Microsoft’s search engine, Bing!, is a good idea. Those who think the bottom will fall out and traffic will dry up to sites that take up this posture are confused as to how all of this works. Fresh details below…

As of last week, WSJ.com’s referred and non-referred traffic from Google and Google News amounted to 15.3% and 11.0% respectively. Analyzing Google search terms driving traffic to the Journal, the top 100 terms accounted for over 21.6% of all Google search traffic to WSJ.com. Of that 21.6%, 13.4% were navigational or brand searches (e.g. “Wall Street Journal,” “WSJ,” “WSJ.com” etc…). Even if Murdoch decides to block Google, these navigational search queries will most likely remain intact.

So, you see, the WSJ would still keep a majority of visits originating from Google. These visits are the most valuable type — navigational or brand searches — and the lost visits generally don’t lead to much new income or user base buildup. WSJ would lose some significant traffic from Google News queries but I’m sure Bing! could make up the difference somehow. The idea that the Internet and any business model therein is so reliant on Google along is silly.

Much of the Twitter crowd is in disagreement here.

Related:

• November 23, 2009 -- GODIN GETS IT WRONG