Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

November 05 2010

16:00

The six-figure fan club: How Global Post got 100,000 fans on Facebook

GlobalPost, the online-only foreign news outlet, has over 100,000 fans on Facebook. (As of this writing: 104,180.) While, sure, that’s far fewer fans than some of the bigger, more established publications out there — The New York Times has, at the moment, nearly 900,000 fans; The New Yorker, more than 162,000 — it’s also far more than, say, The New Republic (under 7,000) or, for that matter, the Washington Post (nearly 90,000.) And within GlobalPost’s more direct peer group, both Foreign Policy and Foreign Affairs fall in the 20,000-follower range.

Which is all to say: For a startup that, given its age (young), its size (small), and its ambition (huge), can fairly be called “scrappy”…a six-figure fan club is a pretty big deal.

So, then: How’d they do it? The size of the young outlet’s Facebook fan base is to some extent a matter of simple serendipity — it’s “more than we’d ever imagined,” notes Phil Balboni, GlobalPost’s CEO and president — but it’s also one of strategy. “It goes without saying: Facebook is a tremendously important part of the web and people’s consumption of information,” Balboni told me. “And we really wanted to grow our Facebook engagement as much as we could.”

“Some kind of magic”

The growth came, in the end, from a concerted effort to take GlobalPost’s content and turn it into a campaign. In late May, the outlet began an overhaul of its website — giving GlobalPost.com not only an image-heavy aesthetic that reflects web design’s current trend toward timeless magazine-iness, but also baked-in social plug-ins from Facebook. Now, Balboni notes, in addition to the outlet’s brand-building efforts on Facebook.com, “we’ve completely integrated GlobalPost with Facebook for commenting, liking, and sharing stories.”

Starting in early July, Balboni and GlobalPost’s marketing director, Rick Byrne, built on the site’s social integration with an aggressive, Facebook-based marketing campaign, creating ads to capture the interest of the site’s members. When they began those efforts, GlobalPost had 5,000 or so followers, Balboni estimates; by late October, they’d reached the six-figure mark. (For the statisticians out there, that’s about a 2,000-percent increase.) The ads that fueled all the liking focused on some of the broad narratives that are, for better or for worse, evergreens in the sphere of foreign reporting — among them human rights issues, green technology, and the war in Afghanistan. (The latter of those, “the Forever War,” has drawn particular engagement and interest on Facebook, Balboni notes.) The how’d they do that here, then, comes down not to a strict formula so much as a loose recipe. As Balboni puts it: “There’s some kind of magic between the content, the brand, and the types of issues we cover.”

You might think that the explosion of followers would be tied to particular events that occurred between July and now — I think there was something going on in Chile at one point? — but, no: The fan-base increase “was a pretty steady rise,” Byrne told me. You could argue, in fact, that the evergreen nature of the stories the site’s ads focused on — the environment, the war — allowed for the kind of steady, month-over-month engagement that builds name recognition iteratively…rather than via the momentary surges that come from event-based traffic, which spike suddenly and tend to plummet just as quickly.

You could also add that the narrative- and context-heavy journalism GlobalPost specializes in — “a look at the world that is quite different and richer and varied than you’d get from any other news organization,” Balboni puts it — is precisely the type of journalism that people like to, well, like: It’s political in the kind of broad way that allows users to demonstrate engagement with foreign news without having to act on that engagement. (It’s also often supra-partisan in a way that much of our national journalism is not.) There’s also the more hopeful view that people actually want more foreign coverage than most of us assume. And liking, of course, is an extremely low-barrier form of brand affiliation: see the invite, click the button, and move on. The transaction cost involved is basically zero.

The halo effect

Which begs, then, another question: For a site that has bills to pay and investors to please, does a Facebook-based marketing campaign offer enough in the way of return? Does GlobalPost’s fan base on the closed world of Facebook translate to traffic for a site that lives in the the open web?

Yes and no. While the direct correlation between GlobalPost’s Facebook likes and its site’s traffic is impossible to measure in concrete terms, “we’ve seen a significant increase in direct traffic since we started the Facebook campaign,” Balboni notes. Even if direct causation can’t be determined, the correlation is clear: The Facebook fan base helps GlobalPost build its brand, and brand recognition, in turn, creates a halo effect — the kind of broad recognition that radiates back to the site itself. “It’s important to not only maintain, but also to increase the number of direct visits,” Balboni notes, “because those are arguably the people who are most committed to your brand: your loyalists, your most enthusiastic readers.”

(Slate, it’s worth noting — along with Gawker and several other online brands — employs a similar logic based on branded traffic: A small group of loyal readers, the thinking goes, is worth more to publishers than a large group of casual ones.)

And that logic applies to site subscriptions, as well — aided by the fact that the outlet, which has partnered with Journalism Online to help facilitate its e-commerce activities, reduced its fees this summer. (Membership now costs $2.95 a month, or $29.95 a year.) “I think you can make a logical connection between people who are very interested in what GlobalPost does and those who are becoming members,” Balboni says. “The more people who care about what we do, the greater the chances that they’re going to click on that big red arrow at the top of our site and consider becoming a GlobalPost member.”

Strategy, on Facebook as everywhere else, is key. “You have to take deliberative steps,” Balboni says. “It doesn’t happen just by putting up a Facebook icon on your site. It takes more than that. You have to get people’s attention, in the Facebook community and everywhere else.”

October 26 2010

14:00

Getting beyond just pageviews: Philly.com’s seven-part equation for measuring online engagement

As web analytics reports become a mainstay of news meetings, there’s a lot of nervousness about how attention to clicks will affect news coverage, and about the perceived incentives to produce high-trafficking junk news. Earlier this week, a web research company released a good-news study arguing that stories about substantive issues like unemployment and mortgage rates can actually bring in more revenue per pageview than celebrity crotch shots.

But two months ago, philly.com, home of the Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News, began analyzing their web traffic with an “engagement index” — an equation that goes beyond pageviews and into the factors that differentiate a loyal, dedicated reader from a fly-by. It sums up seven different ways that users can show “engagement” with the site, and it looks like this: Σ(Ci + Di + Ri + Li + Bi + Ii + Pi)

I spoke with Chris Meares, senior data analyst at Philly.com, about how the equation works, and what it’s revealed so far about the newspaper’s users on the web. The first step in measuring engagement, Meares explained, is identifying which web behaviors show that users are “engaged.”

Working off a white paper called “Measuring the Unmeasurable: Visitor Engagement” by Eric T. Peterson and Joseph Carrabis, Meares sat down with Ryan Davis, the president of Philly.com, and Wendy Warren, the vice president for content, to hash out the meaning of engagement.

One possibility they considered was measuring engagement simply through how many visitors left comments or shared philly.com content on a social media platform. But that method “would lose a lot of people,” Meares said. “A lot of our users don’t comment or share stories, but we have people — 45 percent — [who] come back more than once a day, and those people are very engaged.”

They ultimately decided on seven categories, each with a particular cutoff:

Ci — Click Index: visits must have at least 6 pageviews, not counting photo galleries

Di — Duration Index: visits must have spend a minimum of 5 minutes on the site

Ri — Recency Index: visits that return daily

Li — Loyalty Index: visits that either are registered at the site or visit it at least three times a week

Bi — Brand Index: visits that come directly to the site by either bookmark or directly typing www.philly.com or come through search engines with keywords like “philly.com” or “inquirer”

Ii — Interaction Index: visits that interact with the site via commenting, forums, etc.

Pi — Participation Index: visits that participate on the site via sharing, uploading pics, stories, videos, etc.

Those are largely the same as in the Peterson/Carrabis white paper, although they use a Feedback Index (“captures qualitative information including propensity to solicit additional information or supply direct feedback”) in place of Philly.com’s Participation Index.

The next step was to track the percentage of overall visits that satisfy each of these categories. What percent of visits to the site lasted at least five minutes? What percent included a comment or other interaction? For instance, in a recent measure of the Click Index, out of 3.9 million total visits, 698,000 were visits where a user clicked through at least six pages — which comes out to a 17.9 percent engagement rate.

As well as paying attention to the engagement rates for each category, Meares also averages the seven individual percentages to create an overall engagement score — the average percent of visits to the site that broadly qualify as “engaged.”

Because the engagement percentage typically goes down as total site pageviews go up (new visitors are, by definition, not loyal ones), Meares multiples the overall engagement percentage by the total number of pageviews to get a estimate of the total number of engaged visits.

Last week, the overall engagement was 31 percent, which translates into an estimated 1.221 million engaged visits.

Month to month, the overall engagement score for philly.com has hovered around 35 percent, Meares said. He also tracks the levels of engagement for different areas of the site, including news, sports, and living. While he said the sports score isn’t actually as high as the 73-percent figure a Philly.com exec gave us last week, it is higher than the average engagement level across the site. In September, sports page visits were 46.6 percent engaged, while news page visits were only 34.4 percent engaged.

Tracking site visits with this level of specificity is time-consuming — Meares says he devotes about a third of his full-time job to analysis of the engagement equation — but it has produced some interesting information. For instance: “We’re definitely seeing the impact of social media and how it provides engaged visitors.” While Google and Yahoo provide a lot of traffic, the visits that they send to Philly.com don’t tend to be engaged. Only 20.34 percent of visits that come through Google are engaged visits. In comparison, 33.64 percent of visits that come via Facebook are engaged.

More broadly, Meares said, tracking engagement allows Philly.com to put traffic data in perspective. If overall traffic for the site is down, but the number of engaged users are up, that still means the site is doing well, Meares said.

Newspapers in other markets have come to Philly.com for advice about measuring engagement on news sites. “It’s a really big challenge,” said Sonia Meisenheimer, digital marketing strategist for the St. Petersburg Times’ tampabay.com. “There’s not an expressed moment of loyalty. You have to basically be a diviner with a divining rod and go around and tap on all these different things.”

Meisenheimer said she found philly.com’s engagement equation “fascinating” but impractical for her requirements. “They can do this because they have a web analytics person full time looking at ‘how do we measure success?’” she said. “We could never sustain the reporting and tracking.”

While the equation might provide interesting feedback to editors, Meisenheimer said she thought the results it produced were too complicated. In a competitive market, businesses want to compare different web outlets on apples-to-apples factors like total audience and local audiences. She said tampabay.com would measure engagement in a much simpler way, focusing on registration numbers and their brand index, or how many people come to the site through a bookmark or by searching for terms like “St. Pete Times” or “tampabay.com.”

Internally, she said the most important number for tampabay.com is simply revenue per unique visitor. “My question to philly.com is: how does this help you make more money? Because I don’t see that in the equation.”

October 18 2010

16:00

Move over, LiLo! Public-interest news can be more valuable to publishers than traffic bait

Conventional wisdom: What people really want from their journalism is some combination of celebrity gossip, naked celebrities, and gossip about naked celebrities. That may be a slight exaggeration, but it’s more than an assumption: Through the magic of web analytics, news publishers have access as never before to the collective Id of the people they serve…and again and again, such lowbrow fare as LiLo’s legal troubles and Favre’s photographic adventures rack up the pageviews, while their less sensational counterparts are rewarded for their dignity by being left alone. The more high-minded journalism — the public-interest investigations, the news about the economy and public policy — is still valuable, of course. But it’s also, we’ve assumed, a loss leader.

A study released today provides a hopeful counterpoint to all that (hopeful, that is, if you’re not Lindsay Lohan): For publishers, hard-news-focused, public-interest-oriented reporting might actually be more valuable than celebrity gossip and similarly LiLotastic fare. And not just in a good-for-democracy sense, but in a bottom-line sense. Perfect Market, a firm aimed at helping publishers maximize online revenue from their content, tracked more than 15 million news articles from 21 of its client news sites — including those of the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and Chicago Tribune — from June 22 to September 21 of this year. And it found that, while the Lohan sentencing and other celebrity coverage drove significant online traffic, articles about public-interest topics — unemployment benefits, the Gulf oil spill, mortgage rates, etc. — were the top-earning news topics of the summer. The latter stories offered their publishers, overall, more advertising revenue per page view (which is to say: more bang for their advertising buck) than their fluffy counterparts.

The caveat: Perfect Market has a vested interest in the financial viability of quality content. (“At Perfect Market we believe that content matters,” the firm says in its press release. “By delivering the right content in the right format to the right user with the right relevancy, Perfect Market has increased the revenue for partners in our program by at least 20-fold.”) That said, though, the study’s holistic scope — moving beyond pageviews to focus on revenue — is an instructive approach. Traffic is notoriously fuzzy as a metric; it’s also notoriously stingy when it comes to return-on-investment. (Take The Huffington Post, which, for all its skill — PHOTOS! VIDEO! SLIDESHOW! — at leveraging our love of scandal, and for all the traffic it brings to its site, has struggled with profitability.)

For publishers struggling to sustain their operations, let alone grow them, it’s revenue that matters. And in Perfect Market’s study, via context-optimized advertising, it was consumer interest — not the casual variety that leads to quick headline-views, but the more engaged variety that leads to high time-on-site numbers and increased chances of ad clicks — that translated to revenue. Articles about social security were the most valuable to news publishers, the analysis found, generating an average of $129 in revenue for every thousand pageviews. Articles about mortgage rates were next, at $93 for every thousand views, followed by Gulf recovery jobs ($34 for every thousand).

LiLo, on the other hand? She generated only $2.50 for every 1,000 pageviews.

(It’s worth noting that the high-paying topics are united less by their hard-news nature than by their proximity to companies interested in hawking their wares. Immigration lawyers want their ads next to immigration stories; mortgage brokers and “Refinance now!” types want to be next to mortgage-rate stories; job sites want their ads on those Gulf-recovery-jobs stories. That makes sense, but it doesn’t do much for the sea of worthy news stories that won’t have an easy e-commerce hook. There aren’t many good contextual ads for Lohan court stories, but there also aren’t many for corruption investigations.)

We talk about the convergence of mediums: TV and print products and the web, video and text and multimedia, collapsing into one mega-medium. What the Perfect Market study suggests, though, is that there’s another type of convergence we would do well to cultivate: the conflation of editorial content and commercial. Earlier this year, Ken Doctor compared the revenues per unique user at the HuffPo and The New York Times; he estimated that, while the Times brought in $1 per unique user per month, the HuffPo brought in only 12 cents per user. And he attributed the discrepancy in large part to the Times’ advertising savvy: Its longtime presence in the ad-sales business means that it “owns key agency relationships.” It’s able to invest in making its ads contextually relevant to its content and, thus, to its users: AdSense, writ large. None of that is to say that the old church/state wall that has separated ads from journalism should be allowed to crumble; it is to say, though, that engagement may be just as important to news sites’ commercial content as to their editorial.

Image by Globovision used under a Creative Commons License.

July 14 2010

14:00

“Smart editorial, smart readers, and smart ad solutions”: Slate makes a case for long-form on the web

Via blogs, or, more likely, Twitter, you might have come across the breezy term “tl;dr.” Which is short — appropriately — for “too long; didn’t read.”

Yes. You know the conventional wisdom: long-form journalism doesn’t do well on the web. Our attention spans are too short and sentences are too long and and we’re too easily distrac — oooh, Macy’s is having a sale! — and, anyway, complex narratives are inefficient for a culture that wants its information short, sweet, and yesterday. Long, carefully wrought articles are tasty, sure; online, though, the news we consume is best served up quick-n-easy. The web isn’t Chez Panisse so much as a series of Sizzlers.

Whether or not that kind of thinking is valid from the psychological perspective, a more relevant question, for our purposes, is whether it’s valid from the financial one. What kind of value proposition does long-form journalism represent in the digital world? Can it be monetized? Or, as behavioral economists might put it: Does long-form, you know, work?

One piece of good news — good news, that is, if you’re a fan of the genre — comes courtesy of Slate.

The right readers

You may recall the online magazine’s Fresca initiative — so named for editor David Plotz’s passionate and non-ironic obsession with the grapefruity beverage — which launched last year to give Slate writers and editors the opportunity to focus on long-form work. Essentially, the fellowship program requires that every editorial staff member at Slate (Plotz recently added copy editors to the Fresca pool) take four to six weeks off from their normal jobs — and use that time to produce one in-depth piece (or, often, a series of in-depth pieces) on a subject that compels them. So far, the project has netted such praiseworthy specimens of long-form as, among others, Tim Noah’s analysis of why the U.S. hasn’t endured another successfully executed terror attack since 9/11 and Julia Turner’s look at the fascinating complexities of signage and June Thomas’ examination of American dentistry and Dahlia Lithwick’s crowd-sourced foray into chick-lit authorship and John Dickerson’s reclamation of risk-taking after the financial crash gave that quintessential American practice a bad name.

The other thing the initiative has netted? Pageviews. They’ve been in the millions, a Slate rep told me: over 4 million for Noah’s piece, over 3.5 million for Thomas’, nearly 3 million for Turner’s. That’s especially significant considering the length of the pieces, which often run in the tens of thousands of words. Combine that with New York Times Magazine editor Gerry Marzorati’s claim, last year, that “contrary to conventional wisdom, it’s our longest pieces that attract the most online traffic” — and, come to think of it, with tablet computing’s promise of portable, pleasurable reading experiences — and “tl;dr”: you are on watch.

Pageviews, though, are only part of the picture. “The raw traffic numbers matter to me — I like them, they’re good, and they’re certainly good for advertisers,” Plotz says. But the Fresca pieces are about more than, say, Huffingtonian eyeball-harnessing and traffic-baiting (PHOTOS! SLIDESHOWS! CLICKCLICKPLEASECLICK!); they’re also about brand-building. Plotz got the idea for the fellowships, he told me, through his earlier experience as a general-assignment reporter at Slate, under Michael Kinsley and, later, Jacob Weisberg. As part of that position, he got to do longer pieces of the Fresca variety; and not only did those stories “make me enthusiastic about coming to work,” he says, but they also “clearly contributed to building the brand of Slate as a place you go for excellent journalism.”

And when Plotz took over the magazine’s editorship — in 2008, at pretty much the height of Media’s Existential Crisis — he realized that “in order to really thrive, in order to have the kind of committed, excellent, well-educated, media-engaged audience that we’ve always had — and to build that audience — we had to do something more than just 1,500 word pieces, and more than just explainers.

In other words, for Slate, long-form’s value proposition is also reputational, rather than strictly financial. The Fresca pieces are community and commodity ratifiers — subtle indications, to advertisers and audiences alike, that the magazine cares as much about informing users as attracting them. “Our job is not necessarily to build Slate into a magazine that has 100 million readers,” Plotz points out. “It’s to make sure we have 2 million or 5 million or 8 million of the right readers — readers who are the smartest, most engaged, most influential, most media-literate people around. That’s more attractive to advertisers, it makes the community of readers around the site more energetic and more lively, and it’s a way to distinguish ourselves from some of the more aggregation-heavy sites, or some of the single-person blog sites, or some of the commodity news sites.”

That wide-angle view of the reader/marketer relationship is one that permeates the outlet, from its editorial content to its business-side messaging. Take, for example, the magazine’s pitch to advertisers (entitled “Slate: The Online Magazine for the Smartest Generation”), which uses the term “smart” eight times on a single, short page, by my count — four of them in the declaration that “Slate is unrivaled at combining smart editorial, smart readers, and smart ad solutions to produce the smartest possible media buy.” It’s an approach similar to the Gawker Media strategy of leveraging “recurring reader affection,” rather than relying on the blunter instrument of simple traffic metrics — and one that emphasizes the holistic quality of the audience, as a commercial entity, over its simple quantity. It’s not the size of the boat, and all that.

Engaging readers and writers

The reputation-based approach is of a piece with Slate’s broader strategy of engagement: user affection is advertiser affection. And both of those are bolstered by staff affection — a smart, engaged audience being in large part the result of work produced by a smart, engaged staff. “As a reporting and writing process, this is what had attracted me to journalism almost twenty years ago,” John Dickerson says of his Fresca-enabled series. And “it was wonderful,” he says, to translate that process to the web — to harness the multimedia power of the web to produce “that long, narrative, long-fiction storytelling that’s always been so interesting to me in the course of my career.”

As fellow Fresc-er Tim Noah puts it: “I can’t speak highly enough about the project. I think it’s probably the most exciting thing that’s been going on at Slate for the last couple years.”

Leveraging the personal passions of journalists — as opposed to their skills and talents alone — is an idea that’s getting more and more traction in a media world where standing out from the crowd is a business-side mandate as well as an editorial one. There’s Google’s famous 20-percent time — which has led to personal-interest-fueled innovations like, for example, Google News — and, in journalism proper, the Journal Register Company’s implementation of an innovation team that will devote 25 percent of its workweek to stepping back from the much-maligned vagaries of the Daily Grind. One of the challenges journalism is facing, Noah points out, is in matching ambition to ability in reporting. And though “money is a big obstacle,” in general, he points out, “none of the Fresca pieces have really been terribly extravagant in terms of their cost.” They’ve been extravagant instead with the one resource that, in journalism, is even more precious than money: time. The Fresca stories are a declaration, Dickerson says, that “this is the kind of commitment we have to storytelling: being in-depth in a world of tiny little bites of information.”

Photo by Dave Winer used under a Creative Commons license..

April 05 2010

14:15

Three iPad design choices that will influence how we read news online

So we don’t have to guess about what news apps on the iPad will look like any more. With Saturday’s debut of the device — which is, oh by the way, amazing — we now know how about a dozen major news organizations have chosen to present themselves on Apple’s new platform. I think it’s fair to say that we’ve seen no revolutionary apps to this point — solid, competent, but not revolutionary — but that doesn’t mean there aren’t already some important lessons to be learned from what’s already out there. After a weekend of playing around with all the news apps I could find, here are three design choices that I think are worth taking a closer look at.

Story-to-story navigation

Web-analytics types push time-on-site and pageviews-per-visit as measurements of a reader’s engagement. It’s fine to have someone following an occasional link in Twitter, but the real money, some argue, is in dedicated readers who spend lots of time with your content. And to that end, a number of sites have been working on their internal website navigation to push users from story to story, rather than asking them to head back to a list of headlines first.

On news iPad apps, that story-to-story navigation has become the norm. The Wall Street Journal, BBC, Associated Press, USA Today, NPR, Reuters — their apps all allow (and in some cases emphasize) swiping or tapping from story to story rather than Back and Forward, web browser-style. (The New York Times’ app is an interesting exception.) I suspect that’ll lead to more stories consumed per session — and I wouldn’t be surprised if you didn’t see more news companies taking that lesson back to their websites.

Diving right in

Similarly, just about every news website created in the past 15 years has pushed users down a similar path: show them a whole bunch of headlines, arrayed into a variety of design styles, then expect the user to choose one of them and begin what the site hopes will be a lengthy run of clicking on stories. It’s a decision tree: Here are your options, now make a choice.

The very attractive BBC app takes a key step away from that pattern. When you launch the app, you’re not confronted just with a bunch of headlines — you’re also thrown immediately into the text of the app’s top story, without so much as a click. And once you’re reading one story, the act of flicking to another one seems closer to a default act than when you’ve just selected from a menu of options.

It’s a model that makes perfect sense from a broadcasting background; a BBC radio or TV show doesn’t wait to ask which story the listener wants first. It just dives right in. Considering how many news website users never get past that list of initial headlines, dumping the reader directly into a story might be a way to push browsers into readers. The BBC may not rely on in-app advertising to pay the bills, but for sites that do, it’s a model worth watching.

The Times’ cyberclaustrophobia

There’s been a hearty debate among a certain breed of techie over whether the iPad’s existence as a closed ecosystem of apps makes it somehow evil. I think that argument’s more than a little overblown, but using The New York Times’ Editors’ Choice app, I was surprised at my own reaction to the closed universe of Times news it presents.

The free Editors’ Choice app includes a limited sampling of Times stories; presumably, that’s because the full New York Times experience is being held back for a subscription-only app to come later. But the experience of using the app is markedly different from going to nytimes.com, because it has an endpoint. Give yourself two minutes and you can easily read every headline, with five swipes and four taps. Not too much longer and you can read all the stories you’re interested in reading.

On one hand, I’ve heard print-centric people complain that one reason they prefer newspapers over their websites is that, with a newspaper, you know when you’re finished. Turn that last page and you know your news-collection job is complete. With a news website of any size, there’s always one more place to click, always one more link to follow, always one bit of breaking news that dribbled in since you started reading. Maybe an approach like the Editors’ Choice app’s can give a jolt of emotional satisfaction to those users.

But for me, the Editors’ Choice app just gave me a weird case of cyberclaustrophobia. It’s like swimming in the river of news only to find it ends not at a lake but in a parking lot. It’s like reaching the end of the Internet.

I can’t knock the Times, or pretend my reaction is logical. They are giving away around 50 stories at any given time, nytimes.com is still a click away in the iPad’s web browser, and I’m glad to see them (and others) experimenting with paid-content strategies. But at a gut level, reaching the end of a Times digital project still feels wrong after more than a decade of training.

March 31 2010

13:56

Nieman Journalism Lab: Gawker’s new traffic metric measures ‘reader affection’

While others pour over pageviews and underscore uniques, Gawker Media has been quietly working on a new metric, one designed to measure so-called “reader affection”. This new metric is called “branded traffic” and is, according to Nieman Journalism Lab, “both more nebulous and more significant” than traditional forms of measurement.

The idea is to measure the number of visitors that arrive at the site via a direct search for its name or variations on its branding, or by typing in the site URL directly, and distinguish them from more incidental traffic.

The metric comes from a simple compound: direct type-in visits plus branded search queries in Google Analytics. In other words, Gawker Media is bifurcating its visitors in its evaluation of them, splitting them into two groups: the occasional audience, you might call it, and the core audience.

The original Gawker release highlights the value the site places on turning the internet passerby into an affectionate reader:

While distributing content across the web is essential for attracting the interest of internet passersby, courting these wanderers, massaging them into occasional visitors, and finally gaining their affection as daily readers is far more important. This core audience – borne of a compounding of word of mouth, search referrals, article recommendations, and successive enjoyed visits that result in regular readership – drives our rich site cultures and premium advertising products.

Full post at this link…

Similar Posts:



Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl