Rolling Stone's 'Print First' Mindset Shows How They Lost The Community
from the they've-gone-elsewhere dept
Last week, my brief remarks at the Techdirt Saves* Journalism event focused on the fact that the news business has always really been the "community" business. The point was that the way the journalism business used to work was that they built up a community of folks around the local news, and then sold their attention to advertisers. The problem that many in the industry are facing is that there were many competing ways to build community, and most of the "business model" ideas coming out of certain publications seemed to work against community building. Doing things like making it difficult to view or read stories, and even more difficult to comment -- such as putting up paywalls -- do exactly the opposite of what you need to do if you want to build community.To some extent, part of this discussion is recognizing whether a publication is taking a digital-first strategy or a paper-first strategy. We've seen some publications really working hard to embrace a digital mindset, but others still appear to think that their entire purpose is to sell more paper copies, even if that hurts the digital community. A great example of this appears to be Rolling Stone magazine, which has the "big story" of the week, in doing a profile on General Stanley McChrystal, which resulted in him getting fired.
Whatever your opinion is of the story itself, an interesting sidenote is how Rolling Stone promoted the story. It apparently hoped this story would sell a lot more copies of the magazine, so it held off posting the digital copy, but instead, sent it around to other publications, allowing all those other publications to get the "scoop" and the traffic:
Rolling Stone didn't even bother putting it online before they rolled it out [to other publications]. In fact, despite the fact that everyone else's website led the profile, Rolling Stone's site led with Lady Gaga's (admittedly impressive) machine gun jumblies all day and didn't even put the story online until 11:00 ET.On top of that, when Rolling Stone finally got around to putting up the story, it didn't actually get much community action. Nieman Labs notes that a day later, the story that kicked off this whole thing only had 16 comments. Stories on other sites had thousands of comments. Partly this was because RS was late. But, as Nieman points out, RS makes it incredibly difficult to comment on the site. Numbers of comments are certainly not the only factor in judging the popularity of a story (and, in our experience comment numbers and traffic numbers do not correlate well), but you would think that the biggest story of the week, from the publication that supposedly "broke" the story, could get a few more comments.
Basically, in an attempt to push people to the paper edition, it looks like Rolling Stone missed out on a huge internet opportunity.
On a separate note, since we were just talking about the Associated Press vigorously defending the whole "hot news" doctrine, it is worth noting that the AP was one of the first publications to run a story about the whole McChrystal situation -- well before Rolling Stone put the article online. Under the AP's interpretation of hot news, it certainly sounds like it it "freeloaded" off of Rolling Stone, making it more difficult for Rolling Stone to make money... doesn't it?
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: community, journalism, rolling stone
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"community" is website owner masturbation at its finest, but it does not truly measure impact or importance. the average post on perez hiltons celeb dump gets hundreds of comments. does that make him more relevant than techdirt, or more important? do tell mike!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As well as people who post asinine comments. Regardless, this statement isn't in lieu of the article's intent.
Read it again, if you can. It stated by blocking the users ability to comment, they're only hurting themselves.
Imagine you read a byline at another site and were interested in reading the actual article. You'd be boned, because it didn't exist on their website until well after the "news" broke.
"'community' is website owner masturbation at its finest"
Do you really think people buy websites? They don't. They buy communities, just as Google did when buying YouTube for $1B. They could have easily built their own video hosting site, so what do you supposed the money was spent on? Drinks?
I'll grant you the remark comments don't measure impact of a site, but they most certainly do measure importance. People love to express their opinions, and when they're told they have to pay or can't do it, they'll go elsewhere to do so.
Pretty risky thing to do if a site's relying on ad revenues to help offset the costs of producing the content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The "But we didn't post our article to our own website, so you can't comment" option, silly.
Of course, you can now (without paying). Little good that does once everyone's read the article somewhere else.
Oh, and for the record, advertisers most certainly look at both traffic data and comments before investing in a site. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They did. It was called Google Video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mike said: "Numbers of comments are certainly not the only factor in judging the popularity of a story . . ."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorant
The are cultural fascists, haven't been hip or relevant since 1968, and are stooopidly ignorant to boot (just like TAM).
They can't crash, burn and fade away fast enough, IMO.
Just like TAM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baby I'm Amazed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummmm...
Yeah. They quite literally decided, "Okay what we'll do is let the story get out on the net first, then publish it on our site and wait for the hits to come."
Phase 1 - Wait for story to get out across the net.
Phase 2 - Release the story on paper.
Phase 3 - ???
Phase 4 - ??Profit??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a sad day on techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Rolling Stone" isn't journalism; it's entertainment.
"The point was that the way the journalism business used to work was that they built up a community of folks around the local news, and then sold their attention to advertisers." -- Mmm, sure, but that's a by-gone era of *local* news, long irrelevant to *mass* media, where the goal is to amuse the largest audience with lowest-common-denominator fare, exact content hardly matters.
Now to magazines in the entertainment field: the targets -- I wouldn't use "community" here -- are fairly well defined by their psychological *needs* and *income*. For "Rolling Stone", off top of my head, that'd be: musicians, other kinds of performers, their fans, and all having drug culture in common. I think it fair to say that "Rolling Stone" looms large with those who style themselves as hip, revolutionary, anti-establishment, and so on, and *particularly* -- perhaps therefore -- is regarded by journalists as more important than it really is to Joe Six-Pack, even though Joe reads it. Easy riches from mere entertaining is one of its underlying premises, and lures; it plays up an abnormal sub-culture, and thereby promotes parasites upon the rest of society. I can't recall hearing of "Rolling Stone" other than from journalists or media types; it's one of the few sources that cue lesser lights to "cultural" trends, at least among those of *that* culture, who fancy themselves among the elite.
So perhaps you misunderstand their views of their web-site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Rolling Stone" isn't journalism; it's entertainment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your claim about AP and Rolling Stone article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your claim about AP and Rolling Stone article
Yes, I said in the post that they sent it around. Doesn't change the fact that you published something based on their reporting, and did so before they published, effectively taking away some of their ability to profit -- at least according to your own argument in recent briefing. Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your claim about AP and Rolling Stone article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]