BBC pays
Google to improve search ranking
Wow! Big
Mouth Media has reported that BBC is paying Google to improve its search
rankings. BBC has a cool 3.97 Billion Euros of guaranteed revenue from the TV
liscense fees, and can spend good amount to promote its online service.
According to the news report, BBC spends Euros 114 Million for online
marketing. And majority part goes to Google,where
BBC targets and bids certain keywords and topics such as the Mercury Music
Prize winner.
By paying to achieve top search results, BBC is capitalising on its success,
causing further consternation among other media organisation who have long been
wary of the Corporation’s impressive online presence. The gap is sure to widen
as new or smaller players with BBC as they cannot compete with the might of BBC
irrespective of quality service.
Analysis
I see no wrong in BBC doing this. Everyone plays his best to get maximum
marketing returns, and BBC seems to be highly dependent on Google rankings.
and has been a early entrant in the Micro-blogging World. CNN promoted Twitter
and Twitter referred CNN for follow. It was a mutual gain.
In India, IndiaTimes.com is owned by ‘Times of India’ group and they promote
the online service from all their channels including best selling NewsPaper
‘Time of India” and best selling Economic News Paper “Economic Times”. When
Times Group launched ‘ET NOW’, a Business News Channel, the promotion was seen
in online channels (including Google) too.
Phenomena is simple and fair. And as long as Google does not apply a
internal business rule to promote BBC and punish its competitors, its all fine.
I see no wrong. Insead I appreciate the BBC’s belief in Search Engines.
BBC is already active in Youtube after signing a deal with Google. Under the
deal, BBC videos are hosted on Youtube.
BBC ruled the Online News Market by partnering Google for Search Engine
Ranking and Youtube Video Promotion. It guaranteed them good lead over
competitors such as CNN. But the lead is diminishing and Micro-Blogging Lover
CNN has closed the gap quite well. Figure below.
No comments:
Post a Comment