It is the same story around the world. Faced with an avalanche of misinformation and disinformation online, declining trust in media and government, and the proliferation of “news deserts,” governments, philanthropists and publishers are desperately looking for ways to fund quality journalism.
In 2021, Australia broke new ground by passing the News Media Bargaining Code, compelling Alphabet (Google) and Meta (Facebook) to pay media outlets for news content shared on their platforms. This model has since gained traction worldwide, with Canada adopting its own version of the Australian law (C-18) in June and South Africa launching an investigation into the digital advertising market. Countries like Indonesia, Japan, New Zealand and Switzerland have all considered similar bills, and Brazil’s ambitious Fake News Law, which was thwarted in May, has recently been revived.
Meanwhile, in the US, the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, aimed at allowing news publishers to engage in collective bargaining, was introduced in March by US Senator Amy Klobuchar and has since stalled. In June, California’s State Assembly passed the California Journalism Preservation Act, which would require large tech companies to share their advertising revenues with news outlets. However, the bill has been put on hold until next year.
Illustration: Tania Chou
In opposing these laws, tech giants like Google and Facebook have downplayed the importance of news content on their platforms, asserting that it can be dropped easily since audiences do not really need it. Google has also resorted to paying publishers directly, hoping that a modest sum will discourage media companies from supporting platform remuneration laws.
Our recent working paper shows that such deals do not capture the full value of the news content produced by US publishers. Our conservative estimate is that Facebook and Google should pay US news outlets about US$14 billion annually to use their content. Our study shows that Facebook owes publishers US$1.9 billion a year while Google owes US$10 billion to US$12 billion. We also include a detailed explanation of our methodology and invite others to build on and refine it.
Over the past 20 years, Google and Facebook’s advertising revenues have soared while the advertising income that traditional media rely on to fund public-interest news and investigative journalism has declined. That is not an accident. Advertising revenue shifted to platforms as individuals started consuming news on US$ platforms directly, giving advertisers a large and stable user base in the process. While Google and Facebook argue that news outlets should be grateful that platforms drive traffic to their sites, our findings suggest otherwise.
Our study builds on a large body of economic research that shows that when two parties come together, they create value. Large digital platforms and news-content creators provide complementary services that generate more economic value when used together than separately. News media supply tech companies with high-quality content that keeps their users engaged and encourages them to return to their platforms. Similarly, the platforms provide news publishers with popular, easy-to-use channels through which to disseminate news content to a larger audience.
At present, Google and Facebook dominate US digital advertising markets, allowing the two major platforms to siphon virtually all of the economic value created by online news content. Moreover, as the US Department of Justice and 38 states’ attorneys-general argue in their ongoing antitrust lawsuit against Google, the company was able to maintain its dominant position in digital advertising markets by monopolizing key technologies.
Our findings underscore the glaring disparity between what Google and Facebook pay news publishers and what they would pay if they were not powerful monopolies. Our approach to determining fairer compensation is simple, transparent and compelling. Government officials are already incorporating it into policy discussions, and publishers worldwide can use our work in their own negotiations with Google and Facebook.
Our methodology can also be useful to publishers who wish to learn how their content is being used by large language models like ChatGPT-4. However, regardless of how technology evolves, the basic principle underpinning the media system should remain the same: If you reap massive profits by using news content, you should pay for it.
Haaris Mateen is assistant professor of finance at the University of Houston. Haris Tabakovic and Patrick Holder are senior associates at The Brattle Group. Anya Schiffrin, director of the technology, media and communications program at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, contributed to this commentary.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS