What happens when you stop publishing new material and take a hard, professional look at your archives?
The Buffer team decided to find out:
Having not published original content on the blog for 30 days, we saw only a 4 percent dip in traffic compared to the previous month.
Basically, they took a professional approach to revising, revamping and repromoting evergreen or stock content – and reaped the traffic rewards.
This is still the least-appreciated aspect of running a website amongst news-centric publishers.
Also worth noting: this is a post from 2015, which I discovered because they repromoted it…
Paul Bradshaw does an interesting thing in sharing his answers to student questionnaires on his site. It’s interesting, because sometimes the questions are as indicative of the mindset amongst students as the answers are about the rest of us. So, here’s a recent questionnaire I filled in for an LCC student…
1- Could you briefly introduce yourself, what you do, your area of expertise and how long have you been doing this?
While I’m a business journalist by background (starting around 20 years ago), for the last decade I’ve worked largely on digital journalism and publishing – understanding what the internet does to our reporting – and our business models.
2- How would you define the term of ‘spreadable news’ and what impact [direct or indirect] does it have on journalism?
Spreadable news is news that is designed to spread on social media and find its audience that way. It’s an acknowledgement that news is less of a destination than it used to be. Social networks have drawn people’s attention, and so sometimes we have to piggy back on them to be read. Social is now the biggest traffic source across news sites generally – just beating out search.
2.2- Could you give me a few examples of the way journalists have to adapt their work to make it more ‘sharable’ and relevant to the audience?
Principally it requires a different style of headline writing – one that is designed to invoke an emotional reaction. But beyond that, it’s spending into new formats for news – especially video. Social video doesn’t look anything like the standard TV news package and finding a vocabulary for that is a struggle for many news organisations. (more…)
Simon Owens’ reason for cross-posting to his blog, Medium and LinkedIn:
The harsh reality is that only a tiny fraction of your social media followers will click on a link to an outside website, and most prefer to interact and consume content that’s native to the platform they’re browsing. So if you’re only publishing, at most, a few articles per week and don’t have an enormous social following, chances are your content is getting lost in the noise.
This is a new reality we’re living in that’s going to make it ever harder to build destination sites. What’s becoming important is finding ways to expose your ideas to a wider audience, and that now means, inevitably, working with other platforms to spread your writing and content.
I suspect that people working in video are well ahead of those of us who are more text-centric here. Do you know anyone working in video who isn’t uploading to Vimeo, YouTube or Vine?
We’ve talked for a long time about sites having “fuzzy” boundaries – that content diffuses beyond the “wall” of the website – but now we’re seeing that spreading further. I’m fascinated by the way Euan Semple cross-posts everything he writes to Google+, Facebook, LinkedIn and his own blog. He’s clearly more interested in sharing his ideas than building website per se.
And that’s a difficult idea for those of us from a publication background to adjust to.
True power is when media creates content explicitly for a network, rather than simply repackaging it.
A useful insight. A lot of work has been done over the last decade on workflows and tech for pushing the same content through multiple channels. And new, we’re slowly waking up to the fact that you need to create for the space, not merely repackage. That brings a whole set of hard choices with it.
Vox remains one of the most interesting experiments in digital journalism , because it’s so very aggressive in stepping away from the “flow” of traditional print news, and into creating “stock” evergreen content for the site.
Their latest experiment saw them spend a week revamping old copy to bring it right up to date. The results are fascinating:
What was interesting — though not completely unexpected — was that no one even seemed to notice that we were flooding the site with previously published content. A lot of the articles were enthusiastically shared by people who had shared them the first time around, too. No one seemed gripped by a sense of deja vu, or, if they were, they didn’t mention it.
Yglesias is right in that it shouldn’t be unexpected – “archive” content often surfaces in sites’ most-read lists. What remains surprising is how little the wider journalism world has got to grips with this idea.
Every single day, genuinely important, wonderfully interesting things happen in the world, and it’s, of course, a core mission of journalists to tell people about them. But lots of important things aren’t new at all, they’re just longstanding patterns, structures, or systems. Even more commonly, some new development causes an issue to get attention or seem more relevant, but once you do start paying attention you see that you’re just looking at one aspect of a longstanding issue — one you’ve written about extensively before.
These are genuinely new thought patterns for journalists used to the daily/weekly/monthly grind of disposable paper objects – but they’re crucial to making the digital transition.
The content we talk about least right now is content that gets a lot of reads, but no social media shares, Likes or retweets. Too many systems are set up to monitor these external marks of quality – from Facebook’s newsfeed algorithm, to Google’s search algorithm.
How do we identify and surface this sort of work, when people, for whatever reason, don’t want to share it or link to it, but do want to read it?
Maybe it’s down to a couple of decades extracting them from others. That said, I suspect I should be a tough more politic when I’m interviewed:
Tinworth’s style is both genial and refreshingly frank -”the market research we used to do to understand print readership was horsesh*t”- and he’s as comfortable talking about how social media has changed publishing -“you’re not ‘launching’ anything new any more – you’re joining a discussion that already exists”- as the rising popularity of native advertising -“my worry is that it will lead to irreparable reputation damage for publishers”.
And that’s just the first paragraph.
(And print market research largely was horseshit…)
This lurks towards the end of a slightly odd piece on Poynter about evergreen content:
My instincts say it’s weird to dig up old content without a specific reason, but it’s worth asking if our hyper-sensitivity to timeliness can get in the way of serving readers who might not care as much about news hooks or newness as we do.
Sam Kirkland starts off talking about some research, but drifts into gut feelings, and assumptions. And there’s a deep problem with that: most journalists’ instincts in this area are completely skewed by the process of journalism and their own interests:
- Most journalists are news junkies. They’re far more interested in news as an idea than the general population. That’s why they’re journalists. The rest of the population is far more inclined to seek out interesting information than inherently newsy information in the run of things. That’s why pretty much every single news site I’ve worked with is baffled by the fact that what they perceive as “old” stories are getting great traffic. They’re not “old”, they’re interesting – and that value does not diminish with age.
- Print publication demands news. The shift from print to online has reversed the traditional pattern of publication. Print is fixed but transitory – the story is calcified at the moment of publication, but the assumption is that the vehicle of publication will not have a long life. A publication is “today’s issue”, or “this week’s issue”, or “this month’s issue”. That time-based definition shapes the way we think about the content within from both a production and a consumption standpoint. Online is mutable but permanent – the story itself can be changed at any time, but it can, in theory, live online forever.
One of the problems in building sustainable online businesses is not recognising this shift. We’re still building journalism for transitory vehicles, in an age of the permanent site.
Evergreen content isn’t an odd quirk – it’s a major part of the future of publishing.
So much of the web discussion right now is about distraction and entertainment.
I really want this blog to stand for useful and interesting instead.
The reason is that content isn’t really king. Content is crap. Nobody walks out of a great movie and says, “Wow! What great content.” Nobody who produces meaningful artistic expression thinks of themselves as content producers either. So the first step to becoming a successful publisher is to start treating creative work with the respect it deserves.
The word “content” is a useful stand-in phrase for certain discussions. But never delude yourself into thinking you’re a “content” person. You have better skills than that – articulate them.