Old Media vs. the Google

This week, I stumbled across two great remarks from two bright heads concerning the „Google earns gazillions while Big Media’s Murdochs & Burdas are left with lousy pennies“ (pseudo-) controversy.

The first one comes from Seth Godin, who thinks Rupert Murdoch has it backwards:
You don't charge the search engines to send people to articles on your site, you pay them. If you can't make money from attention, you should do something else for a living. Charging money for attention gets you neither money nor attention.

The other one from Umair Haque. For him "blocking Google is about as smart as eating a pound of plutonium":
The problem isn't that Google's being an evil monopolist. It's that you used to be evil monopolists, and failed to invest in the quality of production.

Today, you're faced with the same dilemma every fading monopolist is. What do we do now that we suck? The answer's really, really, really simple. Stop sucking. But you're trying to create artificial scarcity instead. That might have worked in the 20th century - but it's a suicide bomb in the 21st. (...)

More from Umair Haque on why Big Media's Anti-Google counter-revolution will fail. Also interesting: an article from Markus Beckedahl on Carta.info: Warum die Verleger zum Internet einfach schweigen sollten (German only)