While Mashable was once a unique voice commenting on social media, Buzzfeed envy caused it to lose its way.
A year on - is The Times's controversial editions publishing strategy delivering growth for the title?
Are the financial problems that go with producing content at scale really a secret?
According to one report, Buzzfeed's editorial costs are staggering - and growing fast.
Liveblogging isn't just about sitting in the newsroom typing - you need boots on the ground
How to make change happen amongst journalists? Be the change you want to see…
A panel of journalists from nation, regional and TV debate the future of digital development and newsroom culture shifts.
David Higgerson published an interesting meditation on comments under articles yesterday. “Are comments under articles worth doing?” he asks, and flirts with the answer “no”, without coming to a definitive conclusion. The post, and the comments underneath (ironically) are well worth reading.
There are, I think, a couple of issues that arise from this. Firstly, if you have a problem with your comments, did you invest in community management resources before you enabled comments? If not, well, there’s part of your problem.
Secondly, the closer you get to general interest, the more of a problem you’re likely to have with comments. There’s less consequence for commenters, and often less personal investment in the subject. And, in my experience, the more mainstream the journalist, the more likely they’re to see themselves as above interacting with the hoi polloi readership…
Most importantly, though, I think there’s a structural issue which David gets very close to identifying here:
If you look at a blog by a sports journalist, you’ll see a much higher quality of comment than you will under the same sports journalist’s stories elsewhere on the site – and the quality will be even higher if the sports journalist responds to the comments.
A journalist and a reader will get infinitely more out of an open relationship via Twitter than they will via comments under a story. Maybe it’s the 140-character limit keeping you brief, or maybe it’s because on social media you expect the journalist to see what you’ve said. Or maybe it’s the fact that on Twitter – and even more so on Facebook – you’re more likely to use your real name.
Here’s the thing: most article formats are designed for the print age. The sites they sit on are structured in ways not unlike that of print, a medium where there is no inherent ability for the reader to react straight back to the author. Articles are designed to be complete in of themselves, not open-ended and prone to discussion. The author is a long way down the list of priority in “ownership” of the page. None of these are creating social signals that promote a good discussion.
A blog is a lot more than just a series of articles with comments under it. There are issues of ownership, identity and community that just can’t arise out of the more loosely collated structure that articles are publishing in online. A blog is a social construct. A website with a series of articles on it is not. Too often, attaching comments to a traditional form articles is like attaching an internal combustion engine to a bicycle: you can probably hack together something that goes, but you’re undermining the strengths of each of the two parts…
However, I’m not saying just rip comments off articles, and forget the whole thing. I’m suggesting that you need to rethink your articles more completely for the digital era. You build a motorbike by attacking an internal combustion engine to a frame that was designed for it. The problem isn’t that comments are broken, it’s that our site structures are still too wedded in print.
I’m more interested in rethinking site structures and article formats for the social publishing age than deciding if comments “work”…
Love this article, as tweeted by Kevin Sablan:
Unless a once-in-a-lifetime story is breaking in your community, the most urgent challenge facing every news organization today is making a swift and successful transformation to the digital future. Leading that transition is every editor’s most urgent challenge. And, for better or worse, Twitter has become a leading current indicator of a newsroom’s — or an editor’s — willingness to change.
You don’t lead change from your comfort zone. You lead change by showing your staff that you are willing to learn a new skill and suffer the discomfort of learning publicly.
Well worth reading the whole thing, by Mr Steve Buttry.
Catching up on my RSS feeds after my holiday, I came across this post in Jeff Jarvis’s blog. One bullet point in particular struck me:
* Some readers are not worth saving. One newspaper killed its stock tables, saved $1 million, and lost 12 subs. That means it had been paying $83k/year to maintain those readers. In creating business plans, the net future value of readers should be calculated and maximized.
The publishing package we call a newspaper or magazine has long disguised the value of individual chunks of content within that package. The value of content has been left to the judgement of the editorial team, which may be why so many journalists are resistant to using metrics to determine what is or isn’t working on the web. Their judgement can be questioned and challenged by the brutal realities of audience reaction.
Now, if you’re looking to reduce costs on your print product, without affecting its value to the existing audience, and to free up time to devote to online development, chopping out a chunk of the magazine that you deem low value is a risky strategy. But is there room for a virtuous feedback cycle. If a chunk of content is getting very little traffic on the web, could that be an indication that its value to the audience is way lower than your judgement suggests?