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.
