Online numbers are below the Mendoza line

The piece was overly simplistic. For the paper I used to work at, most page view came within that city. I don't think any search engine spiders are based in that city.

That still doesn't solve the problem of how to pay for a news operation with Internet advertising, but saying the numbers are way off track is wrong as well.

 

Any good web metrics system separates legitimate page views from search engine spiders.

 

I'm not so sure.

Up the road in Louisville, the Courier-Journal is doing that/was doing that with columns by Rick Bozich and Eric Crawford.

If you wanted to talk about it, you had to go buy the paper and read it yourself and if you wanted someone else to be able to read it, you had to type it in yourself. This keeps the rivals.com/scouts.com message board posters from simply reading it on their sites without linking to the C-J.

We use this same concept at my smaller daily. We'll give you a 10-inch prep football recap online for free on Saturday, but if you want the 30-inch optional, stat box, high resolution photos, updated area stat leaders, etc., you have to buy the paper.

By putting EVERYTHING online, you're diminishing the one part of the paper that actually generates revenue ... the paper itself.

 

But you'll get web hits, which in terms of trendiness, is way more important than revenue.

 

Just like Chicago and Dallas circulation numbers!

 

Turns out that Jason has already done the work better than I would have -- in his blog, "Reinventing the Newsroom." This is some heavy going but it's fascinating and, for me, anyway, reason for optimism in the journalism business . . .

http://reinventingthenewsroom.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/harmon_on_traffic_numbers/

 

Dave, thanks for the link. That was a very interesting piece. It's worth noting that the advanced math and research methodology backs up what common sense tells you -- that the most engaged users of Home Town Paper's Web site live in Home Town.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about the fact that in the Year 2010, a "New Media" columnist for a place that aspires to be a major bastion of journalism education says "Holy Crap! I've discovered that bots and spiders can artificially spike your page views!"

And now this blog: Cookies?! WOW! Fascinating! What are those? These strange new Web terms are so confusing!

Obviously, he's just trying to dumb this all down for people who don't really pay attention to Internet-related issues. Because there is absolutely no way any of this is news to someone who has worked extensively in Internet-related media.

In the end, what is the point? To educate people regarding how Web hits work? Well, he's apparently doing that for some. Is it an attempt to say "Hey man . . . the print product is still relevant! That Web thing is full of deception and lies!! We can measure how many people read the print product! No bots or spiders there!"

If his point is to weave a tale about a commonly known aspect of the Web that he only recently discovered, then the SJC didn't screen its New Media Columnist applicants very well. But again, I don't think any of this is news to him. He's just using the personal anecdote to illustrate this for the readers.

 

Except how many people are going to buy a paper because a few stories won't be posted until 5 p.m. that day. Even if a newspaper dropped its website, would circulation dramatically increase? I tend to think it wouldn't make much of a difference.

 

Try feeding your family with a web hit.