New Poynter study on what gets readers' attention

[Frank_Ridgeway]

No doubt there will be a conflicting study someday, but the high points are:

Readers have longer attention spans than we thought.

Small photos and mugs (multiple points of entry) do not attract much attention.

Headline writing needs more emphasis.

Newspaper readers and Web site readers have different methods of reading -- they are dissimilar in what gets and holds their attention.

Readers like alternative story forms (graphics).

The full study won't be released till June.

I watched the accompanying videos.

http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=120458

 

[SF_Express]

Frank, it also said that readers were more likely to get farther in a Web story than a print story, right?

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

Frank, it also said that readers were more likely to get farther in a Web story than a print story, right?

Yes. I was not taking notes, just going from memory. Personally, I do not find I am any more likely to click to the next page than I am to read a jump in the paper (and less likely online for a Newhouse site where I have to give ZIP code and age to get the rest of the story). They do not say whether this is an indication of whether the same people behave differently when reading online or on paper -- my impression is that they are two distinct audiences.

As I say, no doubt there will be a conflicting study soon, so I take these with many grains of salt. But it contradicts what the man who designed my newspaper told us only a few years ago about an eyetracking study.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

One of those fancy scientific studies that tracks eyeball movement? Color me skeptical about those. I envision people all freaked out -- a la "A Clockwork Orange" -- while someone has their eyes taped permanently open as they read the paper!

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

One of those fancy scientific studies that tracks eyeball movement? Color me skeptical about those. I envision people all freaked out -- a la "A Clockwork Orange" -- while someone has their eyes taped permanently open as they read the paper!

I hear you. But apparently they studied the people with a month's worth of content (they said to neutralize the factor of the news being inconsistently interesting from day to day). Hard to fake it that long.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

I hear ya. I just wanted to throw out the reference. I always picture that when I hear about eyetracking studies.

 

[Starman]

 

[goalmouth]

Fascinating stuff. The eye-track study has been conducted yearly for some time. The results haven't varied that much in regards to reading of web pages. In the past it also found that most readers intentionally ignore large web ads and are more likely to read text-based ads that look more like regular content.

 

[MilanWall]

That's what I was going to say, too.

 

[SixToe]

Readers have longer attention spans than we thought.

Small photos and mugs (multiple points of entry) do not attract much attention.

Headline writing needs more emphasis.

Readers like alternative story forms (graphics).

I believe these four ideas could stand up at any newspaper across the country.

The only thing small photos and mug shots accomplish is pissing off the designer who has to jack around with getting more things on a page. They can help occasionally, but often it's just clutter. Additionally, cramming a thumbnail mug in a regular column of copy creates a thin strip of copy that is tough to read.

Newspaper readers and Web site readers have different methods of reading -- they are dissimilar in what gets and holds their attention.

Absolutely.

There are readers who want the paper in their hand and don't mind reading a 30- or 40-inch story (or longer) provided it is compelling. It could be a profile or a hard news story. If there never is time to read long stories or a 2- or 3-day series, then why are investigative pieces or long profiles often lauded by readers and picked up by other news sources? Because people read them.


On the other hand, Web readers are of a generation that grew up playing video games and seeing newspapers begin the push for shorter stories and I believe there is a connection. It's the CNN & USA Today crowd, with a shorter-is-better and give-it-to-me-now mentality. You maybe could take that another step by saying Johnny wouldn't read a novel but he will read Time or Newsweek or maybe even The New Yorker.

That doesn't make them bad readers or "incorrect" readers. People read and view things differently.

 

[21]

They could have skipped the study and just watched the JibJab video.

 

[Lugnuts]

I watched the accompanying videos.

That sorta says it all, doesn't it?

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

I watched the accompanying videos.

That sorta says it all, doesn't it?

Not really. I was steered to the videos because it contained information that the story didn't. If you read the story, which I did before I turned to the video, you'll see there isn't a lot of depth or hard info in it -- it's almost an intro. I don't think you can accurately conclude that video was more attention-grabbing than print. I've said on this board that newspaper Web sites ought to have less writing and more video. I envisioned the video drawing people in, and if customers wanted more, they would click for additional information in writing. This was the opposite, and I'm not sure it A.) tells us anything or B.) is the most effective way to draw in people. You have kind of a small refer on Romenesko, then you have a kind of drab, just-words story, then after you scroll down, you have a video and a link to another video. The videos are the third element you see: small photo refer, story, video. There was a transcript of one video but not of the second.

 

[Lugnuts]

Oh Frank I was just trying to press your buttons.

Mission accomplished! ;D