12/01/2009 8:00 am
Culture
How Google Has Changed the World: A Conversation With Ken Auletta
The author of a seminal new book about media talks with Cynthia McFadden about the future of print, the cost of information -- and whether we should trust the largest search engine in the world.
Ken Auletta/Image courtesy of The New Yorker
Editor’s Note: New Yorker media correspondent Ken Auletta is the author of Googled: The End of the World As We Know It, just published by The Penguin Press.
CYNTHIA: Ken, welcome and congratulations on your new book, which I loved. It does seem to be the end of the world as we know it, but explain a little bit to me.
KEN: It’s the end of the world as we know it, I think, in two ways. One is that Google transforms our world as consumers. I mean, we can search the Internet for anything. It used to be that the Internet made information available, but Google makes it accessible — and that’s a big difference. The impact that Google can have on the Third World is also extraordinary. Imagine students in some African country or some country in south Asia being able to do research and gather information, textbooks, from a Google search. The other reason I subtitled my book "The End of the World As We Know It" is the impact of Google on traditional media. Think about newspapers. They aggregate to Google News, or through a search, all the newspapers in the world. Newspapers claim that it makes them a commodity, and it cheapens their product. YouTube, which Google owns, provides television, which diverts eyeballs away from traditional television. As for advertising – well, Google generates $21 billion a year in advertising from those little text ads, but they only charge the advertiser when you click on the ad. A much more efficient system, but one that’s very threatening to the advertising business, which is basically saying, "Spend $3 million on a Super Bowl ad," and we don’t know who you reach.
| If you're in the digital world and you don't have an engineer at your elbow, you're a dope. |
CYNTHIA: Yes, I love the beginning of the book where [former CBS president] Mel Karmazin says, "Hold it a second. They’ll ruin my model. My model requires a certain amount of razzmatazz and magic. You’re taking all the magic."
KEN: That’s right, they’re messing with the magic. But they’re messing with the magic of traditional business, be it book publishers, or Microsoft, or telephone companies. And so their world is never going to be the same.
CYNTHIA: Here’s the question for people who care about traditional media, as you and I do, since it is the basis of our livelihood. It’s great to make the content available, and available widely, and available free. But might that ultimately drive the content away? I mean, who’s going to pay for the creation of the content?
KEN: That is a fundamental question. I tell a story in my book of a conversation I had with Sergey Brin, who’s one of the two co-founders of Google. He comes into the room on his rollerblades, and he throws his knapsack down on the conference room table – and he says, "Ken, I’ve just got a question. Before you ask your questions, let me ask you mine. Why don’t you, instead of publishing this book in book form, why don’t you publish it online, on the Internet, for free? You’ll get a much larger audience." I said, "That’s an interesting question. Let me ask you a couple of questions, Sergey." I said, "Let’s say I do publish it for free, who’s going to pay me? I mean, that’s how I make my living, writing books. I’m on a leave from The New Yorker; who’s going to pay me?" He says, "Oh." I said, "Let me ask you another question." I said, "Who’s going to pay me for all my trips out here – airfare, hotels, rent-a-car?" "Oh." I said, "Who’s going to edit my book? Who’s going to index my book? Who’s going to do my marketing campaign if I go on a book tour?" "Oh." At that point he wanted to change the subject. So what does that tell you? It told me two things. One is that he really doesn’t understand how the book publishing business works, and he has this kind of narrow constrictive view. But it also told me that he really comes from the Valley, Silicon Valley, which believes information should be allowed to be free.
- Email this Post
- login or register to post comments
15 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
Great Interview Cynthia, Kudos!
This subject is one that is important to me and one I have been agonizing over, that being the push/pull between traditional print media and the internet. The internet is a great tool and one almost every human being is using to one degree or another daily. And because of this, print media is taking a backseat. Papers and magazines are taking a serious hit. What kills me are both entities are important, print and the internet.
There are indeed people who don’t have cable but instead turn to YouTube for their update on shows and programs thereby bypassing the need to pay a subscription for cable. So as time goes by and more and more people rely on this format to receive their televised shows, even cable companies and TV networks will be affected.
It’s frustrating to me because I wish we would see the internet as just one tool for gaining information but to not go so far in that direction that we turn our backs on books, papers, magazines and television. They are each of value. It scares me that we are becoming a world to reliant on electronics and losing our connection to more tangible things in life.
Like the joy of laying in bed on a lazy Sunday morning with a cup of cocoa and a big heavy newspaper. Unfortunately far too many men and women cuddle up instead with their laptops on their laps.
There is no doubt that Google and other search engines have opened the door to information we couldn’t have touched before. Like all good things it has limits. As Ken pointed out there is no in depth reporting. People skim what they want and form an opinion. That can lead to false conclusions if the site you are on is not accurate. There are time constraints when posting news or information that may hinder the accuracy of what is presented.
There is a large segment of our population who do not have a computer and do not have computer skills. One of our Presidential candidates didn’t know about " a google" ,and his daughter took care of all emails while on the campaign trail. He is a smart man but from another era reluctant to embrace technology. Three summers ago I taught a basic computer class to 23 seniors… the youngest was 64 and the eldest was 88. Most were in the class because of their children’s persistence. What a hoot. We had so much fun. But, they were so afraid of "that machine". They were most delighted with email. Only one said he would consider online banking. Old comfy habits die hard.
The need for magazines, newspapers, land lines, and bank tellers will be with us for quite a while. Also, I rarely notice an internet ad but do often cut ads from newspapers and magazines.
Another great interview, Cynthia. Thanks!
Long interview - but a good one.
A thread that moves through most stories regarding the Internet and, in this case Google, is how long will the Internet be free? Should Google be a subscription based website? Will there soon be a user fee the moment we click onto the Net; the fee being paid to our Internet Provider whom in turn will be taxed by the Fed on their number of users
Someday, an engineer and a CPA, will figure out a way to provide a revenue stream into the Treasury by Internet users. However, as Ken Auletta writes the creators of Google and other major websites speak engineer language (how to make it work) and have not concentrated on methods which will efficiently provide the Treasury the means to tax not only them but all the rest of us, too.
No worries yet. However, our halcyon days of free Internet use are probably numbered.
Mr. Auletta’s very bright. But I disagree with the assertion that newspapers have been made a "commodity" by the Google search engine. Daily print publications are simply making the difficult transition into the 21st century, just as the American economy is undergoing a massive, painful transformation akin to the Industrial Revolution.
Newspapers used to be the main source for detailed daily news. Television and radio, in particular, could break news faster, but did not carry the quantity and depth of the newspaper. Now, newspapers have expanded daily-news competition from online magazines, cable-TV networks, satellite feeds, cell-phone messaging, etcetera. And, as a result, the consumer’s desire for breaking news has grown amazingly.
The importance of something like Tiger Woods driving his car into a tree has transmogrified from what would’ve been a minor story 20 years ago to a monster story today, as the competing media scramble to feed the public’s insatiable appetite for breaking news.
Newspapers are simply being forced to deliver news faster and through a new vehicle (the Internet), in order to compete.
The wisest publishers should already be thinking about transitioning to the next frontiers: interactive TV and voice technology. With large-screen TV’s becoming more and more the norm, it won’t be long before people are sitting in their living room chairs and seeing the Internet come up on their TV screens. Instead of typing, they’ll be talking and the words will automatically type onto the screen. Soon after that, everyone will be teleconferencing with each other. Newspapers will be read on TV screens, and voice commands will direct the pages up or down.
Already, newspapers have essentially become radio stations. They deliver breaking news - and audio - along with other programming. Soon, they will essentially become TV stations, as well.
Fascinating interview. I’m a pretty big fan of Google, AND I’m a big fan of reading printed books. We need authors of all kinds (fiction, nonfiction, investigative, etc.) and they need to be able to earn a living. Wonder what the future will bring? The national newspaper I read has gone to a once-a-week magazine format! It’s good, and it really takes me almost a week to get through it.
Anne
www.authentic-alternatives.com