Once again, News Corp. is threatening to hide itself from the rest of the Web. Earlier this week, Rupert Murdoch told an Australian interviewer that he might start blocking Google from the WSJ.com and his other news sites, even though Google accounts for about 25 percent of the traffic to the WSJ.com. Now his digital lieutenant Jon Miller is echoing his boss and warning that a move to block Google may come within the next few months. But he qualifies that by saying that News Corp must “lead” other media companies against Google for this to work. In other words, News Corp can’t go it alone.
I’m not sure what other media companies, other than the AP, might be willing to follow. While the WSJ actually does quite a good job getting people to pay subscriptions online, and supplements that with advertising revenue to those paid subscribers, it is not clear how many other media brands can command that kind of loyalty. If Murdoch can get any of his newspaper rivals to once again retreat behind pay walls, it most surely will hurt them more than it will hurt Google.
In fact, Murdoch is such a sly fox, it is hard to say who he is really going after here. By playing on his rival’s fears of Google becoming the new homepage for news, he might convince some of them to deny Google the ability to index their sites. He knows that the WSJ.com at least can survive on its own, and if the ploy doesn’t work out, he can always reverse himself. But you can’t help but suspect that all of this public strategizing is nothing more than a trial balloon to see if any other news companies are willing to come along on a Google boycott.
Any such boycott, which would entail nothing more than requesting that Google stop indexing their news sites and thus become invisible to most people on the Web, will only hasten the demise of most of Murdoch’s rivals. Unless, of course, part of the plan is to turn to Bing instead and sell exclusive indexing rights for gobs of cash. It’s a risky move, however, because the WSJ and Murdoch’s other news sites could get caught in the crossfire as well.
The notion of News Corp leading other media companies in this battle reminds me of the last scene of Gallipoli, the WWI movie set in Australia, when the infantry goes over trench wall, only to get slaughtered by the enemy.
Col. Robinson: Tell Major Barton that the attack must proceed.
Frank Dunne: Sir, I don’t think you’ve got the picture. They are being cut down before they can get five yards.
[hits the phone]
Col. Robinson: Bloody line! Our marker flags were seen in the Turkish trenches. The attack must continue at all costs.
Frank Dunne: But…
Col. Robinson: I repeat, the attack must proceed!
Or perhaps Blackadder is more appropriate here:
Melchett: Field Marshal Haig has formulated a brilliant new tactical plan to ensure final victory in the field.
Blackadder: Ah. Would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking very slowly towards the enemy?
Captain Darling: How could you possibly know that, Blackadder? It’s classified information!
Blackadder: It’s the same plan that we used last time and the seventeen times before that.
Melchett: Exactly! And that is what is so brilliant about it! It will catch the watchful Hun totally off guard! Doing precisely what we’ve done eighteen times before is exactly the last thing they’ll expect us to do this time! There is, however, one small problem.
Blackadder: That everyone always gets slaughtered in the first ten seconds.
Charge! Hey, where is everybody?
The only reason downloaded the WSJ iPhone is because it was free. As soon as they decided they were going to start charging for it I removed it. They should really follow the nytimes.com lead and make a real attempt at, I don’t know, changing with the times? No pun intended but it’s a nice one
+1 (removal) I did the same thing
Why would we think news articles should be free? It is a product that costs time,money and effort to produce. It is the NYTimes that is losing money not the WSJ. I personally have an annual WSJ subscription because I think it is worth it.
I worry that ad-supported online news networks might cause a downward spiral where their content gradually evolves to cater to the least common denominator news of the greatest number of people so they can attract traffic in the hope of selling ads. I for one would rather pay a subscription to maintain the journalistic standards & integrity of a publication rather than see it degrade itself in the pursuit of ad dollars.
No one is suggesting that content should necessarily be free of charge. Obviously a transaction has to take place and the people doing the real work need to be compensated so they can actually do the work. The big trouble is that the Media Industry has become bloated, over-staffed, over-compensated, over-reliant on an archaic (and dying) Business Model.
The Business Model is what we should all focus on, how to make it Economic to do real news that real people really want to read, but at the same time making Search a frictionless effort.
We need innovation, we need new blood, we need new talent and new ways of distributing important information and making it universally accessible, while at the same time preserving professionalism.
New Players are going to emerge in this Market in the coming decades, and it is useless to try and predict who will win. What is annoying though are the incessant cries of executives (http://georgede...google-nyt-huff) who — though they are very specialized, and very learned in the ways of managing people — fail to recognize just of how much a game changer the internet has become, and will further become.
The enemy is not Google, the enemy is not “Free Content”, the enemy is refusing to accept reality as it is, and trying to manipulate and morph the world into something it is not.
Face it, the news industry is going to have to cut some fat and focus on muckraking. Take the fools out of the game, and clean up the act.
Logan: Your description of a future avertising/pageview supported media industry is a current reality rather than a future scenario.
Also, it is interesting that people assume Google traffic is a wonderful thing when the reality is that it is poor quality traffic and very difficult to monetize.
Last time I looked, all news, with the exception of taxpayer-funded TV and radio news, is ad-supported. Your argument doesn’t hold water.
Murdoch and his fellow Troglodytes are a vanishing breed who can only watch helplessly as fresher, smarter people lead the way.
at the moment there is still a loyalty towards brands by the mainstream, if Murdoch could create a regulated intranet like AOL did – sort of reinvent it and charge – promise no scammy adverts and provide some exclusive content tied in with sky… then maybe, I remember when people said sky wouldn’t work in UK, I remember when they thought mobile phones wouldn’t ever be seen without a car attached – maybe they still have the might to pull off a big innovation – AOL was too slow, if newscorp can spend some time converting the leads they already have, get them channeled right… One day TV and the web will mingle properly, they are trained in a different type of sales, I can’t imagine them just giving up and dying – that’s wishful thinking by some of you
It’s not free. Most newspapers make the money off of advertisements. Besides most news is a commodity. Its time for local newspapers to stop paying writers to rewrite the same articles that have been produced all over the country. It’s a completely inefficient business model.
The movie dialogues remind me of Futurama’s General Zapp Brannigan: He takes delight in sending his men to their deaths in pointless battles, viewing this as proof of their loyalty.
Notable examples include a battle with “killbots” which Brannigan won by sending wave after wave of his own men at the killbots until they reached their pre-programmed kill limit of 999,999 and shut down.
He employed similar tactics in defending Earth during the first invasion of the aliens of Omicron Persei 8 (”When Aliens Attack”), ordering all the ships under his command to “line up and fly directly at the enemy death cannons, clogging them with wreckage!”
Why would they care about losing 25% of their traffic if they don’t make any money off it, and it is 25% of their cost to host the site.
You can find WSJ.com just fine without google getting to index all of the text of every article. No blogs or “free” business sites have the content or access the WSJ has. It would surely increase their subscription total, reduce costs and make them more money, why wouldn’t they do it?
How about supplying some factual data that shows just how “successful” the WSJ.com site is?
Sorry if you work there, I hear Murdoch’s a bit of a curmudgeon.
When the other media companies block the big bad evil Google and are hiding away there will be the ones that will break from hiding. Why?Opportunity that’s why. Once they are all hiding it will only take a handful of smaller news outlets to take advantage and offer up the content again and boy will they get the traffic. “Sure Rupert, we are right behind you. Yep till the end.” Not to mention that non profit news outlets like NPR, BBC, and CBC will not play along. So it will be short lived.
Yup! This is in fact an opportunity for smaller Media Outlets to get ahead in the online business race!
Not only that, I am sure, it would benefit bloggers around the web.
In a way, in this case, it seems, their loss is our gain!
So I say to Mr Murdoch – Go For It!!
BBC – they got problems with the pesky TV license in UK – TV and the web is comming – the closer it gets the more likely it is BBC are going to have to find a way to replace the TV licence because UK consumers will get fed up paying for TV to be broacast to all the other countries in the world for free – except for us in UK who have to pay for it.
BBC and Sky might do what the big record labels are doing and form some kind of strategic alliance – desperate times/desperate measures – they are dying – both of them (at the moment) BUT – if a bunch of giants helped each other out, by boycotting Google for example – it might be a risk worth taking – BBC might see it as a way of keeping the tax payers happy and/ or they might strike up some deal between them that rewrites the whole way TV and Internet advertising on their websites and and channels is filtered between all the channels. – imagine for example people that are subscribed to the sky TV package could yet some kind of discount on premium on-line content ? or they get people hooked on some show like the Xfactor – but in order to see the rest of the series you have to be a subscriber to their premium web channel – a ‘clever’ wifi remote control could take codes off their pc and put them in the TV to unlock the rest of the shows – a bit like pay per view but the link is the premium web channel, as in they add it to the cycle of purchase – like an OTO page or chain.
Completely fail idea to charge for media that people can find elsewhere. Everyone will just find a different source — atleast I know I would.
I guess WSJ believes that their content actually some kind of unique value and that people can’t find anywhere else. The beauty of the market, and if they do this, is we’ll find out he’s right.
So, what? One goes, another comes. And likely better suitable for 21 century. Bye Bye
Wouldn’t this make them extremely vulnerable to competition? I go to google news or one of the other news aggregates whenever I want to find something out. I avoid sites that have news only for subs. It is why I prefer si.com to espn.com. I hate it when they say you have to pay to read these articles. I suspect a lot of people are like this and so if wsj does this all it will do is push a lot of people to competitor websites.
Blocking Google would spell death for many websites — including several of my own. I certainly wouldn’t attempt such a thing — it would mean suicide for my sites.
WSJ.com might have the subscriber base to pull it off — but what for? I don’t Rupert will get much out of the whole ordeal.
it’s about perceived value if they can create some form of status for having it – people will buy it – why do you think people buy SKY packages – why pay for it when you can watch all the free channels ?
why ? – A sky package or goes with the skinny TV, the ipod – look up the ipod story – ipod was a failure – they were trying to think of ways to off load them – they had to create a reason for kids to want them – like cell phones they are status symbols – and phones still are status symbols – or people would still be walking about with brick phones – instead they go for the latest model.
“Gallipoli, the WWI movie set in Australia”
Uh. No.
Set in what is today Turkey.
Glad somebody knows which end of the planet is up.
most of it is set in Oz – it was the Ozzies that went to Turkey – I know my G grand dad died on the way there – zapped by a uboat probably.
To: Rupert Murdoch Hurry please! Take your content away from Google and the rest of the web. Its the best idea ever. You show those Googlers you won’t stand for this interwebs thing!
Jason Calacanis recently had a great post about this. He thinks it could be a huge win for Bing. If Bing is willing to pay a premium (or take a loss) to be the only search engine allowed to crawl/index all of the major news sites – it could mean a big jump in market share.
If you knew that all of the big newspapers were only available through Bing…would you go there more often? I would.
Considering most of the big newspapers only “toe the line”, I wouldn’t. In fact, if you want the real scoop on world news you have to go elsewhere for the truth.
yes for the truth, but people don’t read these papers for that – they want entertainment, while youtube is funny, people still want ‘normal’ news and shows, I’d pay for a sci-fi channel, i would if it was well put together an gave me exclusive news/maybe live streaming presenters with 24 hour sci-fi news – going to all those conventions and the alien inn etc.
Good move on their part. Google has gotten fat on the work of others. Most people dont use Google to find news and those who do are not the reader you want.
I think this is a great move. And one that will start to move the markets away from Google.
Its almost like the entire web suffers from Stockholm syndrome – they all hate but love Google.
Interesting. But wrong. Google is the first soft-AI system made available to the mass public, and this infantile attitude toward emerging platforms for information consumption is embarrassing to watch and read.
The fact of the matter is nobody has to use Google if they do not want to. Simple as that. Use Yahoo, use DogPile, program your own system, do what what you like, but do not act as if this is some localized phenomenon in the ilk of an early-day Microsoft, or brazen Standard Oil.
The uncomfortable reality is that people who trade in “Mass Interpretation”, such as what Murdoch and his associates thrive at, is decidingly coming to an end.
Murdoch doesn’t care if Google indexes his site really, it is not about that. It is not about the money, or credibility, or raw facts. What Murdoch wants is power, power over interpretation, power over who says what, when they say it, and who should be listened to. Google breaks this barrier. Google makes this paradigm of thinking irrelevant and silly.
Murdoch can try and strategize his way around ink, dried wood-pulp, and concision-based tv news reporting, but he will lose. And I suspect he is unaware of this. Which makes this drama all the more entertaining.
Excellent summary and dead on.
Awesome summary – you are right on the money.
man you have such a way with words. i’m sitting here just waiting for this all to go down so i can laugh. i am so tired of this old blowhard.
It’s funny you mention Gallipoli, Murdoch’s father was doing reporting on Gallipoli, and apparently annoyed a lot of people with his negative reporting on the British fighting.
Murdoch has always had a bit of an obsession with it – he even funded the movie about it.
Opening the doors for a real competitor who knows what the word innovation means.
As soon as they start charging for WSJ, users will go else where for their news source.
Uh, they’ve been charging for wsj.com for years. Depending on who you believe, their subscriber base is now bigger than USAToday’s. It is not a matter of free. People who understand the value the Wall Street Journal provides pay for it. Those who don’t, don’t.
What Murdoch is attempting to do is find a business model that actually makes money by breaking the current paradigm. The business side of journalism is broken, and a lot of signs indicate that it is fatally broken. Zell crushed Tribune in debt and Pinch Sulzberger is mortgaging his own building to raise capital and keep the lights on. The entire Chicago Sun-Times Group recently sold for the paltry sum of $5million! Murdoch doesn’t care about traffic (Traffic alone is so…. 1996). He cares about revenue, because that’s what will allow him to live and fight another day. And that’s the right thing to care about, your best customers, the ones willing to pay.
And don’t talk to me about NPR, BBC, CBC or any other tax-payer supported propaganda outfits. The only way they survive is through out-right theft.
+10
but why does he want more money? is it because the recession has hit him hard? how is that possible when all i hear is fox news this that and they have the most watched station or whatever. rupert murdoch (however you spell his name) is not hurting for money. he just wants power and he wants to win and he wants to the be the first to do something, obviously because then he can have the ultimate control. he is playing high stakes poker and effectively bluffing but he might come out the winner in the end. i don’t read the wsj. what i do care about in this whole negotiation scheme is how if will ultimately and undeniably effect the ecosystem of news and news consumption. i consume news. i will pay for news (used to buy newspaper) but i’ve found that i don’t have to anymore because whether i’m consuming news/information from print or online i can always see it on tv at no cost to me (pay for cable, but no extra fees for watching a particular channel or news station or entertainment station. i get a whoelsale price). i like to have choice and i don’t want this old geezer’s decision to box me in.
WSJ already charges for their content
Murdoch should start banning Google from Fox news first and as soon as possible.
Nice. I second that recomendation.
Can he then take Fox News off the air as well? It will be a net positive for the US as a whole.
Since when did WW1 take place in Australia?
That’s great news. Google got 2much power…and one day they are going to use it. Free is always more expensive!
–
Go News Corp.☺
as you guys thinking, this is not going to be sudden death to Rupert and Co. becasue newsCorp. has largest unique news resource pool compare to google’s news aggregation archives, and more than two third of world business news based on the source published on wsj and bloomberg. bloggers its not easy as you think, becasue think about situation that google has to remove news resources that related to wsj,bloomberg and newscorp. its going to be sudden death to many of us, yet, world largest companies will not think twice to choose WSJ,bloomberg or newscorp over google becasue those professional readers/subscribers (CEO’s, Investors, buyers) bring them business. Rupert is the world worst cunning fox in the sense of media, he doesn’t talk like this, if he doesn’t have plan…., so watch out!
There’s a lot of people out there who are the poorer for second guessing Murdoch. The guy is one of the few successful moguls left, and he’s gotten to where he is by being right more often than being wrong.
The problem that media companies are dealing with right now is whether or not Google adds any value for them. It’s not a question of how many visitors Google sends their way, but rather a question of how valuable those visitors are. Besides, I’m willing a bet that a fair number of those Google visitors are typing http://www.wall...reetjournal.com into Google and would easily transition to typing that into the address bar instead (as a website owner, I’m surprised how many access my site by typing the site address into Google!).
Besides, this whole Silicon Valley centric notion that Google is thy savior seems a bit hubristic and over the top. If Murdoch wants to take the WSJ off Google, what of it? No skin off my back.
Murdoch’s groaning and moaning about Google and the whole Internet thing show he’s hurting, IMO. If he could have his way — and I’m glad he can’t — he’d be charging all of us per page-view on every site on the web, and he’d find ways to monetize every last aspect of the internet. He hates the internet and all it represents. He hates taxpayer-supported news — indeed, taxpayer-supported anything — because some people might actually prefer it over his business, thus “robbing” him of a few bucks.
Oh, he’s hurting all right. Make no mistake.
All hail Blackadder.
Murdoch is a buffoon. He continues to display his ignorance regarding the web. He just can’t fathom the vastness of the space and that it is not some place he can contain or control. Buffoon!
Come on Google!! Block the WSJ.com to see how it looks, I would like to see Google helping Murdoch accomplishes his dream…. There’s not pride in Google???? Remove that junk right now.
It would be interesting if he only did this with Google and allowed Bing or Yahoo to index. Hmm. Wonder what his stock portfolio looks like, or how it will look around the time of this action?
Who the heck finds a great article on the WSJ from Google anymore? You find it because you read the feed, or you read about the article on a blog. This move makes some sense to me. Deteriorate Google’s poisition as “having everything”, and the market becomes more of a crap shoot for all. Why not?
This reminds me of the current controversy between radio stations and content providers: the radio stations are saying “we give you publicity!” and the content creators are saying “we give you content!” and back and forth it goes.
But the issue is more complex: a new, struggling artist needs the publicity that broadcasting / webcasting can provide (no one will buy your music without hearing it first, and sometimes, it requires multiple impressions before the piece “catches on” and the consumer wants to buy it.
But there are leading content providers that consumers seek out as soon as they know new product is available: music from big name artists are sought out by consumers, and the media companies benefit by selling advertising to those who come to them to hear the material.
Google is the “radio station” to the WSJ’s “artist”. The WSJ is a ‘big name artist’ in content, and people will seek it out… but Google provides valuable publicity for smaller sites etc. that need the exposure.
So for RM to take his big-brands away from Google means that smaller brands will get his exposure, and grow into bigger brands, and his brands will wane. So, it’s a double edged sword for media companies: when they are not yet hugely successful or aren’t popular brands, they need Google more than Google needs them… but that changes as consumers have brand awareness… then if Google lacks their content, Google is diminished.
Can’t we all just get along?
At a stroke we understand Murdoch’s relentless campaign against the BBC. It is one of the few global news organisations capable of filling the gap left by the major newspapers, so it cannot be allowed to provide its own website. This culd get very ugly.
Good riddance… Murdoch is THE source for right wing propaganda. You only get a subset of the truth anyway.
it’s why Murdoch’s son was talking against the bbc earlier this year, they want all media outlets to go behind pay walls so that people will have no choice but to pay. i will not pay for news specially not for the newcorp affiliate.
Wow, I have a new respect for Mike with the Blackadder reference!
Creating information is not free, so why would information be free?
Media companies will be trying multiple models as they attempt to make their web ventures more profitable.
This move seems counter-intuitive. But, then again, it’s the WSJ. WSJ is a unique publication that may have enough of a loyal customer base to make this work.
I wouldn’t advise it for most publications, however.
What i find interesting is that everyone here starts from the premise that the dominance of Google, and the way it does business, is an unassailable fact of life that will never change, and so newspapers are “dumb” if they do anything to oppose it…this is absurd. Newspapers make content that lots of people want. The cost of covering the world, in real time, through text and pictures is hugely expensive, (even if they cut costs, a lot). Google, (and aggregators like huffington post), have figured out a technical means to get paid for content they did not create. Now, the creators of that content are working on how to get that money for themselves….the only “Dumb” thing for these organizations to do would be to follow the thrust of advice here, which seems to be: ‘google is now, you are old, deal with it.’ Wrong! Content owners are dying. Their business does not work within the google/huffpo framework. They have leverage here, and they must apply it, or die. And they have options: If a lot of them worked exclusively with Bing, (not impossible), then i will use Bing more…in fact, i would only use Bing if it was the only engine that indexed NYT, newscorp, reuters and AP, but all else was equal…google effectively killed a lot of huge, new, internet-visionary businesses that were assumed to be unassailable when google killed them…i will not be surprised if someone comes along and does the same to google…
I don’t see this as a Newscorp vs. Google deal at all. I see it as a Murdoch vs. free. He cannot win.
What percentage of Google’s requests go to the News Corp’s sites? What percentage of News Corp’s traffic is derived from Google? I truly wonder who’s bottom line would be hit harder.
I’d love to see Google call their bluff and de-index a few of these sites for a month. All the way down to not pointing to their home pages when a user searches for their name. This way everyone can see what life without google would be like for the big media companies.
I believe this should be done sooner rather than later. That way the full brunt of the pain can be felt through the holiday season.
The point isn’t to hurt google, it is to protect their bottom line business by forcing a change in user behavior. If Google news and expanded results didn’t exist, it wouldn’t be as much of an issue.
This might be suicidal for a small publisher but not for the WSJ.
The customer base of the WSJ is not going to stop reading the journal because of the effort involved in typing:
W – S – J Dot Com
and is bright enough on the whole to figure out how to use the browser bar.
As someone said earlier in the thread, the average reader of the WSJ is not discovering it via Google.
It is required daily reading for large chunks of the business community.
And even if it costs Murdoch some usage which it will, it costs Google too, in a soft way, relating to perception relating to their overall search awesomeness, to not have the one of the premier sources of global business information indexed.
And even threat of that is an attempt to shift the balance of power slightly from Google’s standard taunt of “you don’t like us, then leave”
And it hurts them more if it is well-known that they no longer have the WSJ. Ergo, if this is done, it will be done loudly and publicly, not via simple change of robots.txt
It is interesting that I have a Java program that can stream other news web sites, but when I try it on Google’s news site, I get a 403 Forbidden error!
I might have to read it without stream, but if that doesn’t work I find it funny that it is ok for Google to get everyones news, but you can’s scrape Google’s!
Who needs newspapers when there is Twitter?
Google’s given me a lot — a /lot/ — in exchange for something I barely value (eyeballs, pageviews + CPM for advertising).
What has Newscorp given me?
I mean, if they think I’m going to suddenly frolic to Bing and abandon Google because they’re hiding behind a walled garden, well… they must be fooling themselves. I don’t get my news from major websites anymore, anyway.
i’m so tired of all this talking. this is not surprising. it’s rupert murdoch. no one should put any investment into this at all. they’ve even started discussing it on the radio. the best thin i heard last week was some guy on the radio saying that they should get it over already, google should do what murdoch wants and murdoch should do what he wants because then we could truly analyze the scenario. right now we’re being hypothetical and it just seems like such a waste of investment to put any effort into this whole posturing mostly from murdoch to google. i don’t care anymore. old models inherently have to change. everything has to change/be modified at one point or another. it has to happen.
WTF? We have news coming out of our arses here in downtown Melbourne, Australia. There’s the public, taxpayer funded TV news and their 24/7 radio news station; there is all the other local free-to-air TV and radio news; and as we have premium cable, we have the best of international and local TV news 24/7 on Sky, CNN, Fox, and the venerable BBC World news, plus all the “free” news on the web, from professional and nonprofessional sources.
Murdoch’s showing his age.
I think it does not make a difference for Google since there are so many other news content from other sources they can use.
I must be slow. After reading this thread, I remembered I had downloaded the WSJ App onto my iPhone and my iPod Touch. I don’t use it usually because I’m full up reading the news from other sources. I pulled it up and found they had changed the App where you have to register to read. Or subscribe….
ZZZZtttttttttt…… Now I don’t have the App…..
Ha ha those money hungry idiots at News Corp can just keep bashing their head against the wall for all I care.
They’ve grown so used to having their own way that they can’t recognize this is a losing battle. Great!
Murdoch has been a blight on good honest journalism.
After reading this post and all the comments I have constant references to the music industry popping up in my head. They too have problems adapting to an ever changing landscape that demands new business models.
People stopped buying CDs and the industry saw a shift from Push to Pull. People saw the value in downloading individual MP3s, which allowed them to customize their music experience exactly they way they wanted to. For free. This mindset is now deeply rooted with consumers and buying a physical CD today offers to value what so ever to a majority of consumer. Yet, the music industry is is still to some extent grasping for straws, even though they have done a faily good job coming to terms with this new climate and tried to come up with new creative business models. At least in comparison to News Corp.
A lot of musicians today have realized that their music as such is merely a promotional vehicle. They have embraced the Internet, the democratization of tools and leverage it in their favour. They see that the tools available allows for them to reach more people than ever before for a cost lower than ever before. Their music gains greater reach and finds new fans. Fans that will purchase their merchadize, buy their iPhone app and pay money for gigs.
Some artists still complain that the production value of their work will deminish over time if people wont pay for it. You have to look above and beyond that and see where you can make money elsewhere.