The person who started the Poynter discussion on increasing frequency of visits to newspaper websites, Steve Yelvington, asked what needs to be done to get more readership. One of his posits:
“Maybe we need to cut news staffs and hire marketers so we can get people to read the news?”
In today’s world (indeed, also in the tabloid world), journalist and marketer are not necessarily two different skills. Someone who writes a front-page or teaser headline must be a marketer. Today’s journalism requires the flexibility to not only conceive the story from multiple story-telling techniques, but also in multiple displays -- headline-only link, RSS feed, and so on, whatever is needed to entice someone.
Newspapers and 'Frequency'
There’s been a discussion on a Poynter Institute journalism discussion group about how to increase pageviews, bring in new traffic to newspaper websites, to increase ad impressions. My friend and mentor Vin Crosbie points out how numbers from the Newspaper Association of America show that even for the best of the best newspaper, users are coming only an average of once per week, and spending only five minutes per session on the site.
Meanwhile, another colleague (and a recent client), Amy Gahran, has asked why newspaper execs are limiting their vision to commoditized pageviews on websites. Shouldn’t they be thinking more about how to add ad revenues to feeds, mobile distribution, RSS, widgets and the like? She’s right: destination is dead.
And I’ll add a third thought: Newspapers aren’t really a single general-interest publication, but rather -- in a digital age -- an amalgam of targeted niches. Sure, in print, it’s one branded publication that you hold in your hands. But on the Web, it’s a local sports “vertical,” a local business “vertical” and so on. While the general interest local news areas of the site will probably remain commoditized, the more targeted areas with a high interest and usership should be sold separately and at a higher CPM. If the frequency is as low as Vin says, that can be made a strength, by asking advertisers to understand they’re buying engaged readership. David Verklin, the CEO of Aegis Americas, a major ad buying firm, argued to me recently (for a research report being released soon by JackMyers Media Business Report that someone who spends time with an ad, say, clicks through to a website or plays with an application, is “engaged,” and that means they’re worth a lot more than a the old measures of reach and frequency.
Meanwhile, another colleague (and a recent client), Amy Gahran, has asked why newspaper execs are limiting their vision to commoditized pageviews on websites. Shouldn’t they be thinking more about how to add ad revenues to feeds, mobile distribution, RSS, widgets and the like? She’s right: destination is dead.
And I’ll add a third thought: Newspapers aren’t really a single general-interest publication, but rather -- in a digital age -- an amalgam of targeted niches. Sure, in print, it’s one branded publication that you hold in your hands. But on the Web, it’s a local sports “vertical,” a local business “vertical” and so on. While the general interest local news areas of the site will probably remain commoditized, the more targeted areas with a high interest and usership should be sold separately and at a higher CPM. If the frequency is as low as Vin says, that can be made a strength, by asking advertisers to understand they’re buying engaged readership. David Verklin, the CEO of Aegis Americas, a major ad buying firm, argued to me recently (for a research report being released soon by JackMyers Media Business Report that someone who spends time with an ad, say, clicks through to a website or plays with an application, is “engaged,” and that means they’re worth a lot more than a the old measures of reach and frequency.
Off the Media: Ethics, Anyone?
Last post, I wrote about journalistic ethics -- and how the noted journalist Brian Storm thinks that having ethics doesn’t equate objectivity and that journalists should take sides.
Now, comes On the Media, raising the question of whether a journalist “above all else” is supposed to be a neutral observer. No, says Storm, while OTM co-host Bob Garfield seems to take it for granted. Meaning, make the “objective” more important than the human.
I’ve already said there’s no such thing as being objective -- we’re all culture- and situation- and perspective-bound. Should be an good discussion.
Now, comes On the Media, raising the question of whether a journalist “above all else” is supposed to be a neutral observer. No, says Storm, while OTM co-host Bob Garfield seems to take it for granted. Meaning, make the “objective” more important than the human.
I’ve already said there’s no such thing as being objective -- we’re all culture- and situation- and perspective-bound. Should be an good discussion.
The Price of Objectivity
At the Brian Storm (of MediaStorm.org) Hearst Foundation New Media Lecture at Columbia J. school. Brian talks about the fallacy of objectivity, or at leas the fallacy of being unwilling to be an advocate, pointing to Darfur, and that it was extremely hard to produce a piece for the non-advocacy Council on Foreign Relations about what’s happening there. “I think Bashir is a bad person,” and should go, he says of the Sudanese leader.
“If you’re a journalist and you don’t have an agenda, you don’t have a pulse,” Brian says much later. Sometimes you have to push hard to get [an audience] to give a shit on the things they should care about,” whether its the Sudan, Rwanda, post-Katrina New Orleans or danger to elephants.
Fascinating to hear him toe this line, which must be anathema to many in these hallowed journalistic halls. Brian notes how when working at MSNBC he was not allowed, for example, to put music in documentary work -- something he does regularly now (and a question about which sparked the discussion).
“Ethics, I do have them,” he says, implicitly arguing that advocacy is actually a more ethical position.
Objectivity, I would argue, is damn near impossible. Where you point the camera, even how you frame the shot, let alone the quotes you choose or the point you make when writing, or what-not, are all choices. With a genuflection to Nanda Kumar of Baruch College (where I just guest lectured in his class) I ask: Is Google an objective search engine? No. Choices are made in how to write its algorithm.
Fairness is possible, and disclosure of ones’ biases helps achieve that aim. But objectivity? Ever seen Rashomon?
“If you’re a journalist and you don’t have an agenda, you don’t have a pulse,” Brian says much later. Sometimes you have to push hard to get [an audience] to give a shit on the things they should care about,” whether its the Sudan, Rwanda, post-Katrina New Orleans or danger to elephants.
Fascinating to hear him toe this line, which must be anathema to many in these hallowed journalistic halls. Brian notes how when working at MSNBC he was not allowed, for example, to put music in documentary work -- something he does regularly now (and a question about which sparked the discussion).
“Ethics, I do have them,” he says, implicitly arguing that advocacy is actually a more ethical position.
Objectivity, I would argue, is damn near impossible. Where you point the camera, even how you frame the shot, let alone the quotes you choose or the point you make when writing, or what-not, are all choices. With a genuflection to Nanda Kumar of Baruch College (where I just guest lectured in his class) I ask: Is Google an objective search engine? No. Choices are made in how to write its algorithm.
Fairness is possible, and disclosure of ones’ biases helps achieve that aim. But objectivity? Ever seen Rashomon?
Something Odd at YouTube
Not sure what's going on but right now I've clicked on three videos from the YouTube homepage, and they all click through to a video of Rick Astley singing "Never Gonna Give You Up." (I'd rather be watching the banana-eating bunny, but that's not working.)
Google Humor (For April Fools)
New Gmail Custom Time: ... go back in time and send that crucial email that could have changed everything ... (click image to see it larger)
ABC Wins? Or CBS?
Silicon Alley Insider's Michael Learmonth is now saying ABC looks like it's the top TV network on the Web, based on unique viewers to its video in February. But in average time spent per viewer, CBS knocks it out of the park. According to SAI, quoting Nielsen Online's VideoCensus it's:
ABC: 4.6m uniques / 48.6 minutes
CBS: 2.9m uniques / 69.1 minutes
If I were a CBS exec, I'd be trumpeting the time spent figure. That, they can argue, is true "engagement." Once folks are on, they stay on (and not only view a lot but also can be served a lot of ads).
ABC: 4.6m uniques / 48.6 minutes
CBS: 2.9m uniques / 69.1 minutes
If I were a CBS exec, I'd be trumpeting the time spent figure. That, they can argue, is true "engagement." Once folks are on, they stay on (and not only view a lot but also can be served a lot of ads).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)