The Value of Eyeballs and Its Impact on Journalistic Motivation

On Friday, Thomas Kostigen wrote a piece for MarketWatch titled DIGG it: story rankings play havoc with traditional journalistic tenets, that raised a host of important issues concerning the impact of the Internet on content creation that warrants discussion. His thesis: that story rankings have an influence on the type of stories journalists want to write. Why? Recognition and popularity, obviously. And while I agree with much of what he says, I think a key element is missing from the story, that of economic motivation. Clearly not all eyeballs are created equal in the eyes of advertisers. Further, the Internet has given advertisers the unprecedented ability to measure the value of those eyeballs and bridge the gap between popularity (read: pageviews) and value (pageviews x value of purchase/pageview). This is a critical subtlety that I believe needs to be addressed in order to fully assess and appreciate the ramifications of Kostigen's contentions.

On story rankings generally, Tom says the following:

The ranking either makes me feel really good or like I've missed the boat, depending on how high up the popularity list my story is.

I've never intentionally written a story to get hits, but I wonder whether subconsciously the ranking influences my decision to write about certain topics. I know, for example, that if I write about something provocative it will get readers over and above that I would get if I write about something educational or informational. I understand the art of column writing is to infuse a little of both information and entertainment, but being led by a ranking system is a different path than being led by experience and journalistic instinct.

To be clear, writers -- or at least this writer -- don't get paid by the number of readers who read them. The influence wielded upon us is one of ego. "My story was the most read on the site," produces glee, sort of the same feeling as winning when gambling. It hits those feelings in the brain associated with "You're good. You're better. You're smarter."

I've got to say he has a point. Though a newbie to the world of content creation (and as one who is clearly NOT a journalist), I can see the Pavovlian appeal of creating a story and seeing how it takes off in the blogosphere (aren't we just a bunch of animals with hard-wired responses, long-ago figured out by B. F. Skinner and the advertising industry, anyway?). Though I personally write for catharsis and self-satisfaction, I'd be lying if I said I didn't care about whether or not people read my stuff. The number of hits per story doesn't consciously impact what I choose to write about, but how can I say a bunch of poorly-received stories wouldn't subconsciously effect my choice of topics?  Invariably it would, over time.

But Kostigan steps back and attempts to separate ego from reality, one in which the quality of one's story is not related to popularity in a linear manner:

Of course when you step back and think about it, this is nonsense. More readers may have read a story because of a variety of factors that have nothing to do with the quality of the writing or the subject matter. Wednesday, for example, one of the most read stories on MarketWatch was "Enron's Ken Lay dead at 64." Its dateline was July 5, 2006. I thought that the sentencing of Enron's chief accountant Richard Causey that day might have prompted readers to click in droves back to the Lay story, but that wasn't the case; it was a technical glitch. (Note to all writers now working on "Ken Lay is dead" stories.)

In many ways, the Internet is becoming much more like television, where ratings influence content. If no one is watching, off the air the show goes, no matter how good the quality. More importantly, if many people are watching, no matter how bad the quality of program, more spring up like it -- game shows, talent shows, makeover shows, comedies trying to be the next "Friends." In the world of journalism, in-your-face-talk shows hosted by people with strong points of view are good examples of content being led by format being led by viewers.

Writing for the Web used to be much more like print, the world from which I'm sprung, than television. But it's heading much more in the direction of television; the advent of video networking assures this.

In order to analyze Tom's argument, I'd like to establish a concept: the Economic Character (EC) of a story. My belief is that a story's EC has three principal components:

1. Quality - which is comprised of

     i.   Accuracy

     ii.  Style

     iii. Insight

2. Popularity - which is comprised of

     i.   Interest

     ii.  Timeliness

     iii. Reputation

3.  Audience - which is comprised of

     i.   Size

     ii.  Breadth (diversity)

     iii. Purchasing power

It seems to me that Kostigen's analysis is a little flat in that it seems to genericize eyeballs and to equate popularity with success, which simply can't be the case. Is the right question to ask whether or not your story is listed in the Top 10 from a popularity standpoint, or if your story is being read by the right people in a quantity that would, on an EC basis, put you in the Top 10? If your story is "buzzy" and forwarded around a lot but not being read by those with the economic power to act when relevant ads are displayed, what does this mean? That you are a cult hero but not an economic success? I guess one also needs to define what success means for them - is it simply popularity by count or commanding the greatest salary because of the EC appeal of your product? This area is clearly not my bailiwick, but I don't think the ideas I'm raising here are either heretical or irrational - are they?

Tom goes on to discuss his perception of change in the editorial landscape in light of Digg and other popularity measures:

The job of a journalist is to lobby and report stories that he or she covers, or better yet, uncovers. In this way, the story is forced upon readers. At a newspaper that's more easily done because an editor can't point directly to a story's ranking and say, "Look son, no one wants to read about that. Go cover something else." But now he or she can. (Take a look at the NYTimes.com and you'll see what I mean.)

To blame for all this is DIGG. It's a Web site and technology that allows readers to exert hierarchical control over stories. It was started two years ago and has spilled into many different forms, all with the same sort of mission: move to the top/front page/whatever the content readers are most in favor of.

Don't get me wrong. DIGG is a great technology. What I am writing about are the ramifications of that technology on the brains of people like me who write professionally.

I now know readers of this site, for instance, like to read most about stock tips, gold prices, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and anything that has to do with making them rich quickly, especially if it's written as a list such as "The Top Three Things You Can Do."

I also know people aren't so much interested in explanatory pieces such as this. And it will be easy enough to see whether or not I am correct: After you read this, just look to the right of your screen and check the "Most Popular" box. It may or may not determine if I write another story like this again.

Again, I buy his argument in terms of uni-dimensional popularity. But my ego is much more textured as it relates to popularity - if journalism were my business, popularity would be a secondary consideration to things like economic and personal achievement, which would driven by the intersection of the three EC concepts listed above - Quality, Popularity and Audience. It would be interesting to quantify the EC generated by, say, a writer on the Times Select platform (among the most respected writers in mainstream media) versus one writing for the most popular Internet sites like BoingBoing, Engadget and Huffington Post. Again, I am confident many of my readers have far more insight and data into this than I do. I believe that Tom has raised lots of really good points that are, in fact, quite relevant for today's journalists. However, I think he is missing the boat by being so focused on popularity and not on his ability to monetize his skill base. I guess it is just the hedonistic Wall Streeter in me talking. Please forgive me.

Comments

[Bill a.k.a. NO DooDahs]

I notice something analogous to a click-thru rate when I write something popular (linked by a popular source or stumbled upon, etc.). Most of the new readers are chaff but some are wheat. You bring in traffic, and some percent of that traffic doesn't bounce, of those that don't bounce, some come back, and some make it a habit. Of course, there's argument whether Digg or Delicious or whatever is better for the click-thru rate, but the principle is the same.

The essence of Wallstrip (IMO) is to use entertainment to drive traffic, and get that clickthru rate to the ideas being presented on the conversations. Presenting the content by itself is less likely to drive traffic; eye candy helps, as does humor and style.

There are some pieces I write because I think others find them interesting, but only if I find them interesting, too. Other posts I write, that I find interesting, probably piss off some readers and make them leave (I'm thinking the politics, here). At the same time, some of the viewers come specifically for the politics. Over time, I think the regular readership will reflect what I write about as much as what I write about reflects them. I seem to be popular with law firms, small investment management firms, and colleges, and I get a few visits from the small fry at the big boys. I find it interesting that my last 10,100 page views came from 66 different countries and only 70% are from U.S., Canada, and U.K. combined.

If I were to try and define it in Wallstrip terms, where (again IMO) they use style, humor, and eye candy to broach the subject of trend-following stocks with catalysts, then I'm probably writing about stocks, trading and finance in order to slip in some offbeat political views to those who probably haven't ever been presented them before. Of course, I have a passion for all those things so I could easily maintain two blogs if I had the time.

Think of it as wearing clothes. You schlumph around in weekend work clothes, and then when you go out socializing you dress appropriately for the event, for the attention you want to bring (or not bring) to yourself. Goth, grunge, black tie, seersucker, whatever you wear, the "right" crowd will eventually find you. Writing to get noticed by the MSM is a lot like wearing garters and fishnets 24/7. Yes, you're getting attention, but is it the kind of attention you want? If so, continue. If not, reconsider.

[Yaser Anwar]

When it comes to assessing one's journalistic/blogging motivation, it is fair to assume that popularity is a given (I believe popularity is a critical aspect in all forms of journalism/blogging).

In my view what needs to be defined is what kind of popularity they are seeking and how they intend to monetize it?

For a (1) journalist- it could/would be winning the Pulitzer alongside writing about his/her circle of competence or reporting news, for an (2) average blogger- it could be self-satisfaction alongside sharing his/her views as a favorite past time, for an (3) investment advisory service- it would be providing an insight to their readers, which would
translate into revenue if their target audience "DIGGs" their point of views, in this case subscribing to receive investment themes/ideas and for a site like (4) Engadget or TechCrunch- it is identifying new gadgets/tech companies to generate revenue through advertising.

Popularity is very influential. It determines many things we come across on a daily basis, such as- Fashion trends to what we watch & what we read.

Example- Since the tech bubble pension funds and investors looked towards alternate investments such as; Private Equity & Hedge Funds (to mention 2 of the most famous) as a source of the next phase of returns.

Today you can't go through a news service that doesn't talk about 'em on a daily
basis. So many sites have popped up with regards to VC, PE and HF, don't even get me started. Just recently- PEhub.com & FT's Alphaville.

Don't get me wrong- I love reading FT's Alphaville, but if it weren't for the media's love affair with VCs, HFs and PE (in Seinfeld's words- "not that there's anything wrong with that), we wouldn't have seen these sites come up alongside many others.

I'll be the first to admit that popularity of a subject influences what I write about on my blog. For those who are familiar with my blog, know that I've been interviewing HF veterans of late, why? because it gets me in the MSM. Similarly- I analyze stocks each day which have either been shot down/up or anything out of the ordinary.

Another example- recently WallStrip had a parody of Jimmy. Why? Besides providing its daily fun and humor- it got peoples' attention, including Cramer himself!

I hope you DIGG (dugg?) what I said.