Looking More Deeply At The Impact On Websites Of Newspapers Going Web Only
from the still-looks-good-to-me dept
When the Seattle Post-Intelligencer went online only last month, traffic to its website dropped 20%. Some described this as a sign that the concept was a failure, but we found that hard to believe. The company had laid off 80% of its staff, massively cut its costs... and still retained 80% of its traffic? That's fantastic. Yet, people still seem to miss that point. The Wall Street Journal recently looked at a similar story, involving a newspaper in Finland that had gone online only a while back, and saw its traffic decline between 11 and 22% (depending on how you measure traffic) over a period of about five months. But, the WSJ article buries some of the important details: such as the fact that the paper also significantly cut its newsroom when it made the switch and publishes fewer articles. It also brushes over the fact that when the news became more relevant (focusing on the financial crisis) traffic came right back up to old levels.Yet, the article still frames this as a "surprising" failure?
It's as if people were pulling just the bad news out of incredibly positive news. Both of these stories show that you can massively cut costs without a corresponding drop in readership. And, on top of that, if you actually provide real value to people, then you can grow the traffic as well. That all seems like good news -- except for folks who seemed to think that you could magically keep all the same traffic while doing a tiny percentage of the work.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: journalism, newspapers, web only
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Just the bad news
I thought that's what "news" was. Or, to paraphrase an old Hee Haw song, "If it weren't for bad news I'd have no news at all."
NB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fantastic!
Well its fantastic for the privately owned Hearst Corporation. Not so fantastic for the 80% of the original workers now out of a job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fantastic!
We should pay local workers $50/hr to make things that can be done equivalently (and safely) by someone elsewhere for $10/hr?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fantastic!
Here's hoping that the poor souls who are out of work find more meaningful, more lucrative positions somewhere else, where their talents will be put to use in ways that are more productive and more valuable to society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Less traffic from former subscribers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Less traffic from former subscribers?
Like me, I bet you would actually start to get news from a variety of sources instead of the one on your doorstep. (I canceled my paper 5 years ago).
I actually find myself getting news from a HUGE array of sources (news sites, blogs, twitter, facebook (yes), IM). My social network filters out the crap, highlights the important, points out the ridiculous, often finds me multiple sources for an event so that I have different angles to the story, multiple point-of-views in commentaries, etc.
If my paper had been progressive enough, I would likely have had them as my homepage. But they weren't (and still aren't...heck they have put up a pay-wall twice in 5 years), so they aren't even on my list of regular sources anymore.
Since I've moved to social-networking-news, I feel WAY MORE INFORMED than ever before. I do miss the local stories about the 98 year old lady who takes care of homeless kittens....er....no I don't. Now I see truly important news from around the world, not just what my local paper pulled off the AP and the filler crap added to justify all those ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Less traffic from former subscribers?
However ...
When I move, I typically subscribe to the local paper. In part this is to get the local news, and in part to participate and support the local community. It's nice to pull my head out of the computer (yes, I've been using them for several decades too) and enjoy a non-wired reading experience. Nothing beats a Sunday morning with the paper and a pot of coffee, sitting on the back deck listening to the birds and reading the paper. There is more time to reflect on what I'm reading than there is when I'm drinking from the firehose, and the information I'm getting is more likely to be directly relevant to me since it's about the community I'm living in rather than events happening on the other side of the globe.
How relevant is the "important news from around the world" to you really? I submit that it's a delusion that makes people feel informed while cutting them off from nearby events that actually do have more relevance to your actual life. Being widely read and well informed can help how one approaches local issues - that's one reason to take news from abroad seriously. But I think it's easy to confuse high tech voyeurism with being informed in a relevant way.
The more I think about it, the more I think that the demise of local papers has little to do with the internet and much more to do with their inability to adapt their business models as times change. The internet and a viable local paper are not mutually exclusive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Less traffic from former subscribers?
The nice thing about the interwebs is that I have control over the firehose. I can trickle it or shut it off completely.
Cannot do the same with the local paper that goes straight to the recycle bin or the hamster cage two days after it is printed.
Yes, many communities have not yet had people seize the opportunities for local web portals. I get that local newspapers will continue to exist for quite sometime. But what I am commenting about above is not "community" papers. It is "newspapers" in general, most of which comprise huge amounts of regurgitated AP feeds, that I have abandoned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh mannnn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Less traffic/Less offline brand exposure
The question is: can the online version continue to do real reporting while making enough money via advertising to support that real reporting--with the added cost of now having to advertise (geo-basd which aint cheap) to get people in the site. Will they do enough user-contributed reporting (which is much less reliable in accuracy and objectivity) to have enogh content.
The jury is still out on this. It should be an interesting ride. Pretty clear that bloggers don't create news they only comment on primary reporting so who will fill the gap?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Less traffic/Less offline brand exposure
That's one of the more ridiculous things said on this site.
"Blogging" is a platform. It can be used for journalism or it can be used for something entirely different. Many journalists do use blogging software. To claim that "bloggers don't create news" is simply wrong. Yes, many only comment, but there are plenty of bloggers who do real reporting. Claiming otherwise is flat out wrong.
The fact that the majority of bloggers don't do reporting doesn't change the fact that there is reporting done online (whether it uses blogging software is pretty meaningless).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Less traffic/Less offline brand exposure
In my opinion, the problem is that the "newspapers" are in the business of "creating news".
I am a reasonably intelligent individual. I don't want someone masking opinion as facts and pushing it to the masses (or me) in soundbites.
The web gives me the ability to search out multiple sources and multiple commentaries on a given story: thousands not tens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Going online with news
It also shows the power of FUD - you want people to believe , so you proclaim it as fact, while ignoring the real facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bannas on truck and fire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]