france

The Google Fund for the French Press

 

At the last minute, ending three months of  tense negotiations, Google and the French Press hammered a deal. More than yet another form of subsidy, this could mark the beginning of a genuine cooperation.

Thursday night, at 11:00pm Paris time, Marc Schwartz, the mediator appointed by the French government got a call from the Elysée Palace: Google’s chairman Eric Schmidt was en route to meet President François Hollande the next day in Paris. They both intended to sign the agreement between Google and the French press the Friday at 6:15pm. Schwartz, along with Nathalie Collin, the chief representative for the French Press, were just out of a series of conference calls between Paris and Mountain view: Eric Schmidt and Google’s CEO Larry Page had green-lighted the deal. At 3 am on Friday, the final draft of the memorandum was sent to Mountain View. But at 11:00am everything had to be redone: Google had made unacceptable changes, causing Schwartz and Collin to  consider calling off the signing ceremony at the Elysée. Another set of conference calls ensued. The final-final draft, unanimously approved by the members of the IPG association (General and Political Information), was printed at 5:30pm, just in time for the gathering at the Elysée half an hour later.

The French President François Hollande was in a hurry, too: That very evening, he was bound to fly to Mali where the French troops are waging as small but uncertain war to contain Al-Qaeda’s expansion in Africa. Never shy of political calculations, François Hollande seized the occasion to be seen as the one who forced Google to back down. As for Google’s chairman, co-signing the agreement along with the French President was great PR. As a result, negotiators from the Press were kept in the dark until Eric Schmidt’s plane landed in Paris Friday afternoon and before heading to the Elysée. Both men underlined what  they called “a world premiere”, a “historical deal”…

This agreement ends — temporarily — three months of difficult negotiations. Now comes the hard part.

According to Google’s Eric Schmidt, the deal is built on two stages:

“First, Google has agreed to create a €60 million Digital Publishing Innovation Fund to help support transformative digital publishing initiatives for French readers. Second, Google will deepen our partnership with French publishers to help increase their online revenues using our advertising technology.”

As always, the devil lurks in the details, most of which will have to be ironed over the next two months.

The €60m ($82m) fund will be provided by Google over a three-year period; it will be dedicated to new-media projects. About 150 websites members of the IPG association will be eligible for submission. The fund will be managed by a board of directors that will include representatives from the Press, from Google as well as independent experts. Specific rules are designed to prevent conflicts of interest. The fund will most likely be chaired by the Marc Schwartz, the mediator, also partner at the global audit firm Mazars (all parties praised him for his mediation and wish him to take the job).

Turning to the commercial part of the pact, it is less publicized but at least as equally important as the fund itself. In a nutshell, using a wide array of tools ranging from advertising platforms to content distribution systems, Google wants to increase its business with the Press in France and elsewhere in Europe. Until now, publishers have been reluctant to use such tools because they don’t want to increase their reliance on a company they see as cold-blooded and ruthless.

Moving forward, the biggest challenge will be overcoming an extraordinarily high level distrust on both sides. Google views the Press (especially the French one) as only too eager to “milk” it, and unwilling to genuinely cooperate in order to build and share value from the internet. The engineering-dominated, data-driven culture of the search engine is light-years away from the convoluted “political” approach of legacy media that don’t understand or look down on the peculiar culture of tech companies.

Dealing with Google requires a mastery of two critical elements: technology (with the associated economics), and the legal aspect. Contractually speaking, it means transparency and enforceability. Let me explain.

Google is a black box. For good and bad reasons, it fiercely protects the algorithms that are key to squeezing money from the internet, sometimes one cent at a time — literally. If Google consents to a cut of, say, advertising revenue derived from a set of contents, the partner can’t really ascertain whether the cut truly reflects the underlying value of the asset jointly created – or not. Understandably, it bothers most of Google’s business partners: they are simply asked to be happy with the monthly payment they get from Google, no questions asked. Specialized lawyers I spoke with told me there are ways to prevent such opacity. While it’s futile to hope Google will lift the veil on its algorithms, inserting an audit clause in every contract can be effective; in practical terms, it means an independent auditor can be appointed to verify specific financial records pertaining to a business deal.

Another key element: From a European perspective, a contract with Google is virtually impossible to enforce. The main reason: Google won’t give up on the Governing Law of a contract that is to be “Litigated exclusively in the Federal or States Courts of Santa Clara County, California”. In other words: Forget about suing Google if things go sour. Your expensive law firm based in Paris, Madrid, or Milan will try to find a correspondent in Silicon Valley, only to be confronted with polite rebuttals: For years now, Google has been parceling out multiples pieces of litigation among local law firms simply to make them unable to litigate against it. Your brave European lawyer will end up finding someone that will ask several hundreds thousands dollars only to prepare but not litigate the case. The only way to prevent this is to put an arbitration clause in every contract. Instead of going before a court of law, the parties agrees to mediate the matter through a private tribunal. Attorneys say it offers multiples advantages: It’s faster, much cheaper, the terms of the settlement are confidential, and it carries the same enforceability as a Court order.

Google (and all the internet giants for that matter) usually refuses an arbitration clause as well as the audit provision mentioned earlier. Which brings us to a critical element: In order to develop commercial relations with the Press, Google will have to find ways to accept collective bargaining instead of segmenting negotiations one company at a time. Ideally, the next round of discussions should come up with a general framework for all commercial dealings. That would be key to restoring some trust between the parties. For Google, it means giving up some amount of tactical as well as strategic advantage… that is part of its long-term vision. As stated by Eric Schmidt in its upcoming book “The New Digital Age” (the Wall Street Journal had access to the galleys) :

“[Tech companies] will also have to hire more lawyers. Litigation will always outpace genuine legal reform, as any of the technology giants fighting perpetual legal battles over intellectual property, patents, privacy and other issues would attest.”

European media are warned: they must seriously raise their legal game if they want to partner with Google — and the agreement signed last Friday in Paris could help.

Having said that, I personally believe it could be immensely beneficial for digital media to partner with Google as much as possible. This company spends roughly two billion dollars a year refining its algorithms and improving its infrastructure. Thousands of engineers work on it. Contrast this with digital media: Small audiences, insufficient stickiness, low monetization plague both web sites and mobile apps; the advertising model for digital information is mostly a failure — and that’s not Google’s fault. The Press should find a way to capture some of Google’s technical firepower and concentrate on what it does best: producing original, high quality contents, a business that Google is unwilling (and probably culturally unable) to engage in. Unlike Apple or Amazon, Google is relatively easy to work with (once the legal hurdles are cleared).

Overall, this deal is a good one. First of all, both sides are relieved to avoid a law (see last Monday Note Google vs. the press: avoiding the lose-lose scenario). A law declaring that snippets and links are to be paid-for would have been a serious step backward.

Second, it’s a departure from the notion of “blind subsidies” that have been plaguing the French Press for decades. Three months ago, the discussion started with irreconcilable positions: publishers were seeking absurd amounts of money (€70m per year, the equivalent of IPG’s members total ads revenue) and Google was focused on a conversion into business solutions. Now, all the people I talked to this weekend seem genuinely supportive of building projects, boosting innovation and also taking advantage of Google’s extraordinary engineering capabilities. The level of cynicism often displayed by the Press is receding.

Third, Google is changing. The fact that Eric Schmidt and Larry Page jumped in at the last minute to untangle the deal shows a shift of perception towards media. This agreement could be seen as a template for future negotiations between two worlds that still barely understand each other.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

The press, Google, its algorithm, their scale

 

In their fight against Google, traditional media firmly believe the search engine needs them to refine (and monetize) its algorithm. Let’s explore the facts.

The European press got itself in a bitter battle against Google. In a nutshell, legacy media want money from the search engine: first, for the snippets of news it grabs and feeds into its Google News service; second, on a broader basis, for all the referencing Google builds with news media material. In Germany, the Bundestag is working on a bill to force all news aggregators to pay their toll; in France, the executive is pushing for a negotiated solution before year-end. Italy is more or less following the same path. (For a detailed and balanced background, see this Eric Pfanner story in the International Herald Tribune.)

In the controversy, an argument keeps rearing its head. According to the proponents of a “Google Tax”, media contents greatly improve the contextualization of advertising. Therefore, the search engine giant ought to pay for such value. Financially speaking, without media articles Google would not perform as well it does, hence the European media hunt for a piece of the pie.

Last week, rooting for facts, I spoke with several people possessing deep knowledge of Google’s inner mechanics; they ranged from Search Engine Marketing specialists to a Stanford Computer Science professor who taught Larry Page and Sergey Brin back in the mid-90′s.

First of all, pretending to know Google is indeed… pretentious. In order to outwit both competitors and manipulators (a.k.a, Search Engine Optimization gurus), the search engine keeps tweaking its secret sauce. Just for the August-September period, Google made no less than 65 alterations to its algorithm (list here.) And that’s only for the known part of the changes; in fact, Google allocates large resources to counter people who try too game its algorithm with an endless stream of tricks.

Maintaining such a moving target also preserves Google’s lead: along with its distributed computing capabilities (called MapReduce), its proprietary data storage system BigTable, its immense infrastructure, Google’s PageRank algorithm is at the core of the search engine’s competitive edge. Allowing anyone to catch up, even a little, is strategically inconceivable.

Coming back to the Press issues, let’s consider both quantitative and qualitative approaches. In the Google universe — currently about 40 billion indexed pages –, contents coming from media amount to a small fraction. It is said to be a low single-digit percentage. To put things in perspective, on average, an online newspaper adds between 20,000 and 100,000 new URLs per year. Collectively, the scale roughly looks like millions of news articles versus a web growing by billions of pages each year.

Now, let’s consider the nature of searches. Using Google Trends for the last three months, the charts below ranks the most searched terms in the United States, France and Germany (click to enlarge):


Do the test yourself by going to the actual page: you’ll notice that, except for large dominant American news topics (“Hurricane Sandy” or “presidential debate”), very few search results bring back contents coming from mainstream media. As Google rewards freshness of contents — as well as sharp SEO tactics — “web native” media and specialized web sites perform much better than their elder “migrants”, that is web versions of traditional media.

What about monetization ?  How do media contents contribute to Google’s bottom line? Again let’s look at the independent rankings of the most expensive keywords, those that can bring $50 per click to Google — through its opaque pay-per-click bidding system. For instance, here is a recent Wordstream ranking (example keywords in parenthesis):

Insurance (“buy car insurance online” and “auto insurance price quotes”)
Loans (“consolidate graduate student loans” and “cheapest homeowner loans”)
Mortgage (“refinanced second mortgages” and “remortgage with bad credit”)
Attorney (“personal injury attorney” and “dui defense attorney”)
Credit (“home equity line of credit” and “bad credit home buyer”)
Lawyer (“personal  injury lawyer”, “criminal defense lawyer)
Donate (“car donation centers”, “donating a used car”)
Degree (“criminal justice degrees online”, “psychology bachelors degree online”)
Hosting (“hosting ms exchange”, “managed web hosting solution”)
Claim (“personal injury claim”, “accident claims no win no fee”)
Conference Call (“best conference call service”, “conference calls toll free”)
Trading (“cheap online trading”, “stock trades online”)
Software (“crm software programs”, “help desk software cheap”)
Recovery (“raid server data recovery”, “hard drive recovery laptop”)
Transfer (“zero apr balance transfer”, “credit card balance transfer zero interest”)
Gas/Electricity (“business electricity price comparison”, “switch gas and electricity suppliers”)
Classes (“criminal justice online classes”, “online classes business administration”)
Rehab (“alcohol rehab centers”, “crack rehab centers”)
Treatment (“mesothelioma treatment options”, “drug treatment centers”)
Cord Blood (“cordblood bank”, “store umbilical cord blood”)

(In my research, several Search Engine Marketing specialists came up with similar results.)

You see where I’m heading to. By construction, traditional media do not bring money to the classification above. In addition, as an insider said to me this week, no one is putting ads against keywords such as “war in Syria” or against the 3.2 billion results of a “Hurricane Sandy” query. Indeed, in the curve of ad words value, news slides to the long tail.

Then, why is Google so interested in news contents? Why has it has been maintaining  Google News for the past ten years, in so many languages, without making a dime from it (there are no ads on the service)?

The answer pertains to the notion of Google’s general internet “footprint”. Being number one in search is fine, but not sufficient. In its goal to own the semantic universe, taking over “territories” is critical. In that context, a “territory” could be a semantic environment that is seen as critical to everyone’s daily life, or one with high monetization potential.

Here are two recent examples of monetization potential as viewed by Google: Flights and Insurance. Having (easily) determined flight schedules were among the most sought after informations on the web, Google dipped into its deep cash reserve and, for $700m, acquired ITA software in July 2010. ITA was the world largest airline search company, powering sites such as Expedia or TripAdvisor. Unsurprisingly, the search giant launched Goolge Flight Search in Sept 2011.

In passing, Google showed its ability to kill any price comparator of its choosing. As for Insurance, the most expensive keyword, Google recently launched its own insurance comparison service in the United Kingdom… just after launching a similar system for credit cards and bank services.

Over the last ten years, Google has become the search tool of choice for Patents, and for scientific papers with Google Scholar. This came after shopping, books, Hotel Finder, etc.

Aside of this strategy of making Google the main — if only — entry point to the web, the search engine is working hard on its next transition: going from a search engine to a knowledge engine.

Early this year, Google created Knowledge Graph, a system that connects search terms to what is known as entities (names, places, events, things) — millions of them. This is Google’s next quantum leap. Again, you might think news related corpuses could constitute the most abundant trove of information to be fed into the Knowledge Graph. Unfortunately, this is not the case. At the core of the Knowledge Graph resides Metaweb, acquired by Google in July 2010. One of its key assets was a database of 12 million entities (now 23m) called Freebase. This database is fed by sources (listed here), ranging from the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) to the Library of Congress, Eurostat or the India Times. (The only French source of the list is the movie database AlloCine.)

Out of about 230 sources, there are less than 10 medias outlets. Why? Again, volume and, perhaps even more important, ability to properly structure data. When the New York Times has about 14,000 topics, most newspapers only have hundreds of those, and a similar number of named entities in their database. (As a comparison, web native medias are much more skilled at indexation: the Huffington Post assigns between 12 and 20 keywords to each story.) By building upon acquisitions such as Metaweb’s Freebase, Google now has about half billion entries of all kinds.

Legacy media must deal with a harsh reality: despite their role in promoting and defending democracy, in lifting the veil on things that mean much for society, or in propagating new ideas, when it come to data, news media compete in the junior leagues. And for Google, the most data-driven company in the world, having newspapers articles in its search system is no more than small cool stuff.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

French Entrepreneurs Revolt

 

Not against their VC overlords, mind you. No, calling themselves “Pigeons” (The Fleeced) they staged a highly visible protest  (Google translation) against their government’s latest stroke of the money pump. In a nutshell, the new Socialist administration proposed to tax an entrepreneur’s capital gains as ordinary income. In very rough numbers, the tax rate would go from 19% to 60% or, some say, 80% in extreme cases.

The outcry, obligingly amplified by the media, forced the Minister of Finance to meet with a delegation of the aggrieved and to beat a hasty, muddy, non-retreat retreat with the customary weasel words of caring for entrepreneurship, competitiveness, social justice and the country’s much-needed financial sanity.

This isn’t the first time the French government makes moves that hurt both the facts and the perception of its economy. It is, I believe, yet another manifestation of its perverted, ambivalent relationship with money.

Allow me to explain.

I’m at the Café de Flore, my Parisian neighborhood, what I call the World Centre for the Caviar Left. There, my café-crème drinking companions sometimes question my having left France to go live in the epitome of materialism, Silicon Valley. I point to the double-parked Porsches, the Louis Vuitton, Dior, Armani, Berlutti and Ralph Loren stores nearby. The answer, uttered in utmost sincerity, never varies: ‘It’s not the same…’

In a way, they’re right. Considering sex and money, Americans and French cultures exhibit truly polar opposite behaviors. The French see nothing wrong with a President having a wife, a mistress and a love child, they revel in sexual and often sexist jokes. But, if you ask someone how much they paid for their apartment, they’ll react as if you’d touched them in boundary-breaking ways. Conversely, they perceive us Americans as demonizing sex — think a past President and his “oral” office — while being obscene with money.

If, as I believe, the most honest statement of country’s values is its tax code, the French government has time and again clearly stated where it stands.

One such declaration is the ISF, the Wealth Tax. It’s not a gains tax (on income or capital), or a transaction tax (sales tax or VAT), this is a levy on your assets after you’ve paid all taxes on the path to your owning said assets. I can be seen as  a cultural indictment of the “haves”. The ISF comes with bizarre (or revealing) exclusions: You own a business, that asset is not taxed; the same goes for your expensive art collection; 75% of the forest you own is ISF-free. (I’ll stop there and warn readers the Wikipedia ISF article is woefully out of date on details, but right on the concept.)

The ISF keeps exerting a perverse influence on the country.
First, too many people with substantial assets fled the country, often to nearby Belgium and UK where they were welcomed as they were going to enrich the local economies. I personally know high-tech executives who, after paying good-size income tax bills for decades, decided to protect their savings and moved out. A loss for the French, from grocers to cab drivers and teachers.

Second, companies with European HQs in France moved out, their execs paying income tax on their wages didn’t want to pay additional levies on their assets. Apple is but one such example. Its Euro HQ is now in London. And, of course, no other company will now expose its execs to the ISF by locating a headquarter in France. Another loss in money and, just as important, in reputation, in making France look business-hostile.

Last May, France elected a new President, François Hollande, a leader of the Socialist Party who successfully presented himself as an alternative to the somewhat conservative and definitely abrasive Nicolas Sarkozy. On the stump, Hollande promised more fiscal justice and went for a new low in demagoguery, saying: ‘I hate rich people’.

Once he got in office, needing more revenue in a sinking economy, he announced he’d raise the ISF percentage, and tax incomes above 1M€ at a new 75% rate. Plus the new tax rate for capital gains discussed at the beginning.

Interestingly, besides the Pigeons’ protest (an example here, so-so translation by Google here), high functionaries in the Ministry of Finance indict their administration’s latest moves. In Le Monde (the semi-official daily) these well-informed technocrats publish a damning opinion piece (translation here) under a nom de plume, Les Arvernes. In it, they remind us that, with the rarest of exceptions, their government bosses never held real jobs. These apparatchiks have no intellectual and, most important, no emotional connection to what building a business is, to putting money and reputation at risk. When you get a wage, you don’t put money at risk. When you build a company, you do. Taxing two different risks at the same rate shows dangerous ignorance of what building a business is — and of the consequences of making France less attractive to business builders.

Here in the Valley, once we’re done slapping our foreheads, we look forward to seeing more talent flow in, looking for a friendlier ecosystem. Paradoxically perhaps, entrepreneurs moving to the Valley shouldn’t worry the money pump operators back in France. As the Israel and India examples uncontrovertibly establish, emigrating entrepreneurs end up doing a lot of good for their country. They send back money, jobs, savoir-faire, technology, culture and optimism. To them, Silicon Valley is a new Villa Medici. This is much better than the Maginot Line French politicians sometime fantasize about in order to prevent individuals to move to better business climates.

JLG@mondaynote.com

 

A New Gallic Idea: Taxing Google

The French cultural elite has come up with a bunch of ideas to stimulate the legal consumption of digital goods. The basic principles are stunningly original: subsidize and tax. These creations are detailed in a report ordered by the Président de la République to the Ministry of Culture. This is the way it works here: when a problem plagues the private sector, the executive branch tasks clever, carefully picked-up fellows with writing a report. It involves hearings —about a hundred in that case — held behind closed-door, off-the-record; no one can figure out who is standing for what.

This time, the selected authors of the report titled “Création et Internet(available here) are: Patrick Zelnik, a music producer, Jacques Toubon, a 69 years-old former all-purpose minister (including Culture in1993-1995) and Guillaume Cerutti, the CEO of Sotheby’s France. Not exactly digital front-runners. As a music producer, Zelnik has brilliantly missed the digital train; Toubon has seen more mice in government offices than on his desk and Cerutti is running an auction house where sales are concluded with a hammer blow, not a touchpad click.

One of the most spectacular strokes of inspiration involves the creation of a taxpayer-subsidized “Online Music Card”. It could work like this: a young internet user, compulsive music downloader, buys a card for €20-€25. But the card carries a face value of €50. Then, after a while — expect a few years for roughly a million of young people above 24 — the magic happens: this crowd mutates into legal download addicts and forgets the appeal of illegal Net music (which, in France, is 20 times more important than the legal variety). That’s a hell of a good news for Apple, its iTunes cards could be bought by the bulk using French taxpayers’ money. Bear with me: that’s Christopher Columbus’ Egg. How come we didn’t think of it earlier? Flooding the young addicted-to-free generation with subsidies to reverse the anything goes, culture-copyright-looting tsunami! You know what? Sometimes, I’m proud of my country.

Second idea, my favorite: taxing Google. The concept, so to speak, is the following. More

The Other French Paradox (2) – Jobs

Two weeks ago, I discussed what I called The Other French Paradox, that is how French taxpayers and French companies are at a (curable) disadvantage in Silicon Valley. Last week, I “shared” (we’re in California) my own plans to deal with the twin problems: a venture fund whose profits reverse the flow of money back to France and whose role is to help French high-tech start-ups achieve their full potential by becoming real members of the Silicon Valley ecosystem and, from there, by gaining access to Asian markets.

This week, as promised, I’ll deal with “mere matters of implementation”, questions and objections.

Sadly, I’ll explain the adjective in a moment, the first objection my compadres and I get is one of jobs outsourcing, or délocalisation: “When you transplant these companies to the Valley, French jobs disappear in the process.”
Understandably, if the company’s management team pulls up stakes and move to Mountain View or Palo Alto, there is a sense of loss, they’re gone, their salaries used to feed the local economy.
But, that’s where the “sadly” comes in, there seems to be little faith in the company’s success and in the resulting job creations back in France. Sometimes, I wonder if this lack of faith can’t be summarized thus, using a metaphoric pizza slice: to get a  bigger share, one can worry about its angle, is it 12 degrees or 15 degrees, or one can work to increase the pizza’s radius. Do we prefer a healthy but smaller company, all located in Brittany, or do we want an even healthier, larger enterprise, creating more jobs, both in France and in the US? Posed like this, the rhetorical question fails the “can you disagree” test, it’s framing.
For a way out of the frame, let’s turn to economic interest; in plainer English: making money.
The way we structure our investments in “transplanted” French startups keeps at least 50% of the engineering work, jobs, in France. We don’t do this because we’re nice guys, we want this because it makes economic sense. Let’s review. More

Resolving The French Other Paradox

Last week, we looked at the two components of the “other” French Paradox.

First, the Valley aura helps a tiny Palo Alto start-up sell its technology in France. But it doesn’t work the other way around: a Lyons high-tech company will get a polite reception but no orders from the likes of HP, Google or Oracle. While the Valley does sell in France, to sell in the Valley you need to be of the Valley.
Second, French taxpayers unwittingly subsidize VC-backed Valley startups. Graduates from public universities or grandes écoles such as Polytechnique, Centrale and many others come to the Valley and contribute their skills and energy to the companies we, American venture capitalists, invest in. (In passing, thanks to a reader who reminded me HEC, one of the leading French business schools is a private institution.)

The French speak of “refaire le monde au Café du Commerce”, the phrase refers to a suitably lubricated theorizing of the World As It Ought To Be. In moderation, a healthy way to pass the time with friends and to keep one’s debating skills sharp. With little risk of dealing with the “mere matter of implementation” – the one I’ve decided to address today.

After a quarter century in the Valley, after meeting countless French entrepreneurs, students, executives, elected officials and high-level civil servants; after indulging in more than a few of the Café du Commerce sessions mentioned above, in the Valley and in Paris; after more than seven years inside a Palo Alto venture firm, I finally had an idea, one of those that come with the pleasant sensation of the retroactively obvious.

Here goes: Resolve the paradox, build a venture firm exclusively focused on helping French high-tech companies become full members of the Valley ecosystem. And open the firm, its first venture fund, solely to French investors.
This isn’t theory, I’m doing it. As we speak, my co-founder and I have assembled a team, we’re polishing our pitch and prepare to go “on the road”. In early 2010, we’ll be meeting with potential Limited Partners, LPs, the accepted term for investors in a fund like ours, called ArèsVentures. More

Young readers: already hooked on subsidies

I love my country. Among many things, I enjoy its business attitude. In the media sector, it is an unabashed mixture of entrepreneurship, bold risk-taking and fearless independence. You can’t spend a week here without someone telling you : “Hey, you know what? We’re about to send some of our journalists, paid by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to train bloggers in Middle East. Isn’t that great ?” (Yeah, indeed — you just received a €14,000 invoice from the state health insurance administration, they recalculated the cost of your health coverage for the past year).
Another one: “We are going to launch a new version of our mega-site, built on CMS x.” (The guy mentions an horrendously expensive proprietary Content Management System)”. You ask : “… Huh, why not using free tools, instead? You hire a couple of engineers, create your own specs, schedule a year of successive upgrades, and you’ll get great results, no?”. The answer is ironclad: “Bah, it’s all government money, you know…  It is part of the Press Modernization Fund… And we’ll even be able to finance the iPhone App from the same moneybag…”

As we speak, there is a big debate at the newly created Syndicat de la Presse Indépendante en Ligne (Spiil). This professional body of online news publishers, is pondering whether to accept subsidies. Pragmatists say big medias have been taking subsidies for decades. Now, the big guys spend huge sums of public money to upgrade their sites and they compete with us. Purists disagree: No way, we are not going to replicate the old MSM (Main Stream Media) behavior. Well, most of those pure players are struggling to balance their P&L while doing good journalism. Now way, I’ll lecture them one way or the other.

Yep, I love France’s profligate attempts to keep its press alive. No country spends more money to preserve the freedom and the plurality of its press: €1.2bn in 2008 (taking into account all forms of aid); that is 12% of the sector’s total revenue. (Just picture the US government coughing up about $8-10bn a year to help its newspapers and magazines industry!). And the percentage is likely to go up: new programs were announced this year (see Media acquisition, the French way) and press revenues are eroding. Between 2003 and 2007, French subsidies rose by 71% versus +21% in Sweden. For added perspective, Swedish readership is three times higher than in France and, as a result, proportionally five times less subsidized. More