1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mashable: Google declares war on content farms

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by mediaguy, Feb 25, 2011.

  1. PublisherPam

    PublisherPam New Member

    First of all, you should see how many clicks our Jersey Shore content gets on the day after the show airs.

    Also, we serve our reader's interests and needs just fine, thank you. We've really been making an effort to gets more kids' names in the print edition ... even the ones that try really hard, but barely play. I think it's helped significantly with traffic and sales.

    Just my two cents.
     
  2. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

    Then you're not a trusted news source. You run a content farm.
     
  3. BrianGriffin

    BrianGriffin Active Member

    I agree to an extent. But the hard lesson we should all have learned in this whole papers-are-dying trend was all of our journalistic ideals worked because the newspaper business model was such a slam dunk. It didn't matter that much if a part of your organization did not think of itself as a business, but as a community service because the bottom line took care of itself to a great extent.

    But now that the model is not only not a slam dunk, but a failing business model, we MUST think like entrepreneurs, to an extent. What's going to sell product and keep us in business?

    And make no mistake, there has always been a certain amount of doing-things-as-a-business-to-pay-for-things-that-don't-bring-revenue mentality in newspapers. But the newsrooms have largely been spared from this kind of thinking and decision making. Not any more.

    Now, don't get me wrong here. I'm certainly NOT defending content farms and I think it's a flimsy long-term business model and a useless part of the online conversation. I agree with that. I was in a position where I had a chance to pursue Bleacher Report as a partner for my paper, kind of like the Houston Chronicle. The reaction was not only "no," but "hell no." That kind of stuff damages your brand and is a lazy, lazy, LAZY way to drive traffic.
     
  4. SF_Express

    SF_Express Active Member

    Oscaroscaroscar, and others, here's the thing about what PublisherPam says.

    Yes, media is supposed to be a watchdog and afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted, but anybody who thinks there was a golden age where this wasn't about money at the corporate level is really naive.

    Newspapers were able to do watchdog journalism BECAUSE they were making zillions of dollars in a monopoly (or half of one) environment. No newspapers would be around today -- the era would already be done -- if they hadn't been money-making machines for years.

    So let's not be too holier-than-thou about newspapers' noble mission -- they could afford to be noble, because they were making a shitload of cash.

    Now, survival is the mode, and if serving up a lot of Charlie Sheen is driving heavy traffic increases, then that says as much about the low bar for readership interests as it does about the newspaper mission. Because that mission has always -- always -- included giving the readers what they want.

    Did the Dallas Morning News need 15 people covering a Cowboys game? Of course not. Could the DMN afford it, and did readers eat it up? Yep.

    So don't knock Pam for being a realist. She's not Charles Foster Kane, content with losing $1 million a year. She has a business to run.
     
  5. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    If newspapers were sticking to their watchdog rolls and not giving people entertainment coverage, all the sports departments would be axed.

    That said, whoring out for Charlie Sheen hits and assuming that will somehow turn into profits is a fool's game.
     
  6. BrianGriffin

    BrianGriffin Active Member

    Completely agree with this. No way a local newspaper can makes itself profitable simply as an aggregation site. Especially considering the resources at hand, it must generate original content that will generate interest from its specific market.

    I know at my paper, the Entertainment section's, ahem, "coverage" of Charlie Sheen on the website does not generate nearly as a much interest as controversial local news stories or (and this really pisses off some newsroom people) the local university's sports coverage. That stuff gets, oh, 300-times more hits than celebrity gossip (and that's a conservative estimate).
     
  7. wicked

    wicked Well-Known Member

    I'm starting to smell sock puppet when it comes to PublisherPickleJuice.
     
  8. dreunc1542

    dreunc1542 Active Member

    Starting to? Honestly, anyone who thinks that it's not a sock puppet is a fool. This sentence should have closed the deal: "We've really been making an effort to gets more kids' names in the print edition ... even the ones that try really hard, but barely play."
     
  9. wicked

    wicked Well-Known Member

    I'm not the sharpest tool around. It takes me a while to catch on sometimes.
     
  10. BrianGriffin

    BrianGriffin Active Member

    Ah...I've largely been outside that inside joke, though I am aware of the existence of this PickleJuice. Glad to see she's been kicked upstairs to the executive wing.
     
  11. HanSenSE

    HanSenSE Well-Known Member

    Just think of the great "South Park" episode that will emerge from the Sheen meltdown [/threadjack]
     
  12. Heh. A fool then am I. Or was I, at least. I started recognizing the parody effect after my rant and agree the line about "trying hard" should clinch it. Oh, well. Felt good. And much of it stands on a general basis.

    Look, I'm not naive. I should have said most of the newsroom wasn't in the business for money. But the overall point is, why the heck would anyone in the newsroom work these long hours for little pay if they were not looking at journalism beyond the bottom line?

    You can have a much more enjoyable life in other fields. So I don't think it's too naive to expect journalists to chafe at the idea that you should just do whatever it takes. Maybe it sounds holier than thou, but we are supposed to be, in the disseminating of news at least, more concerned than the general public.

    SF, I'll disagree slightly on it always being about "giving them what they want." I was at a conference years ago, when good, old Dean Singleton gave a speech saying newspapers had always resisted that and literally said the hell with that, "give them what they want." Another person at the conference spoke up and said he didn't think we had to do that. Give them some broccoli along with the cotton candy.

    There was always cotton candy sprinkled in. But now the veggies are gone and people are getting sick from the junk. It's not only about the readership either. Again, if it was that simple every website in the world would be a version of www.hottestpornever.com. (I was going to say the link doesn't work, but it probably could lead somewhere, so click at your own risk. I haven't checked.)

    I'm a big enterprise guy and love quick-hit, creatively fun items probably more than a lot of old-fashioned folks so I understand it's not all about the watchdog stuff. I think we need to explore ways that help us adapt. What tripped me up and got me frothing at the mouth (this time) was the city council reference as well as the fact that responsible news organizations now consistently make the Charlie Sheen type stuff their lead story instead of a tease.

    Basically, there's a point you come to when your survival mode becomes a lie, because what you were trying to do did not survive.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page