Publishing – the only metric that matters

Publishers (and bloggers specifically) tend to measure their business on two parameters:

  1. Page views
  2. Ad revenues

These are fine metrics, but I believe that they are derivatives of a much more fundamental metric which, if ignored, could be devastating to a publisher’s business. Lets call this metric the “Reader’s Goodwill Pot”.

Lets assume an imaginary pot into which imaginary goodwill points can be deposited, and from which imaginary goodwill points can be depleted. Sort of like a bank account for goodwill. Now, as a publisher/blogger, imagine you are running this kind of ‘goodwill account’ with your audience of readers.

Piggy_bank
When you post great content you are adding points into the pot. When you provide your reader with a great user experience you are adding points to this pot.

If you build a big enough goodwill pot, with a big enough audience, then you can dip into that pot occasionally, take some points away and put them in your pocket. That is also usually known as advertising.

As a publisher, with every pixel you put on your site (or ink on paper, or frame on screen, etc), with every piece of content you produce, with every ad you take on your site – this is the single most important metric you should obsess over. Am I putting goodwill points into my piggy bank, or am I taking some away?

Great publishers understand that the need to keep this balance is far more important than the need to track any of the other metrics – PV’s and revenues, for example – in isolation.

As we hit a recession, I suspect many more bloggers and traditional publishers are going to ignore this metric and will try squeezing the lemon as much as possible by cutting on the content and the user experience, and at the same time trying to maximize the number of ads that interrupt the readers. Publishers ignoring the ‘Reader’s Goodwill Pot’ will not survive, not because of the bad macro economy, but rather because they failed to understand the micro economy of publishing.   

{Image CC by: Nieve44/La Luz . Thanks!}

Share this post!

Yahoo, Newspapers and Quigo

Finally some good news for Yahoo… Today it announced a partnership with 176 newspapers. Coverage on TechCrunch, NY Times, PaidContent, and others.

From the NY Times:

A consortium of seven newspaper chains representing 176 daily papers across the country is announcing a broad partnership with Yahoo to share content, advertising and technology…

This sounds to me a little like the beginning of the "Switzerland Inc." that Tom Mohr (ex-President of Knight Ridder) described in his manifesto a few months ago (this very important doc is behind a password on Editor&Publisher… urrggghhh! No link love here!… see Greg Sterling’s blog for some snippets).

From it:

To win, industry
leaders must adopt a Marshall Plan embodying two key objectives: the
migration to common platforms
, and the acquisition of the ability to
sell top-quality online product to our advertisers
. To fulfill these
objectives, the independent companies of a proud industry must
aggregate into an industry-wide network. In this network, each company
must cede some control over its digital future into a “Switzerland”
organization that manages the network.

Seems like Yahoo is now tackling some of the pieces of the first part – offering common technology platforms for classifieds, maps, etc.

On the second part, Quigo (full disclosure: which I founded, and am employed at) is the undisputed leader. As the NAA recently pointed out in a research called "Online Newspapers’ Response to Google":

"…Quigo easily took the category, having affiliations with half the respondents."

With Yahoo handling the classifieds/syndication/maps areas, and Quigo handling the performance-based advertising, it seems like the newspapers are starting to put together those building blocks for creating a Switzerland Inc. that will survive (and hopefully thrive!) through the Google storm.

Share this post!

Permanews

[note: this is a slightly edited version of a post I published on Quigo’s blog, so if you read both, go ahead and skip this]

Yesterday I posted about the newspaper industry being in it’s ‘horseless carriage era’. The first newspaper-related idea I want to discuss is one I call Permanews:

Historically, news articles were good for roughly 24 hours, after
which a fresh news*paper* was delivered to the reader. But the events
reported as news aren’t usually confined to that 24 hour cycle – they
can go on for weeks or months sometimes (a recent example of this is
the war going on in Israel and Lebanon which has been going on for over 3 weeks now).

However, it seems that the short news cycle paradigm, originally
dictated by the fact that news was printed on paper and was fully
replaced after a day by a new paper, should be revisited when the news
is being consumed online. When I read the latest news item about the
war on Hizbollah, it’s assumed that I have perspective of all the
information that preceded it. But that is a false assumption in 99% of
the cases. Online publishing therefore shouldn’t be confined to the
limits imposed by the print side of the business.

The idea of Permanews is to evolve the way rolling news events are
covered using the tools and publishing capabilities that online
publishing provides us with. A Permanews article would be in a way
similar to a Wikipedia entry – constantly evolving and being updated.
The Permanews item for a given subject will become the anchor for all
new breaking news associated to that topic.

In the example above, the Permanews article may give some historic
background about the history of the past Lebanon-Israel conflicts, maps
of the region, the timeline of the war, related events, photo gallery,
related videos, etc. The breaking news articles will continue covering
specific events and developments, but only the ones that are
significant on a broader level will be updated on the Permanews
article.

A Permanews section can easily be maintained using one of the many
wiki apps available with multiple contributors constantly editing it as
needed. The cost of doing this is practically zero.

The advantages of Permanews items may be great for a news organization:
– First of all, content that has long life expectancy tends to attract
many incoming links, and therefore much traffic. Just like mostly all
mentions of books on the web point to their respective Amazon page, and
most “referencable” mentions point to the correlating Wikipedia
entry, a newspaper can attract incoming links from other websites to
its Permanews articles. This is difficult to achieve on small articles
with a life expectancy of several hours.

– Permanews can also be great for getting indexed on search engines
for the same reasons (long life span, lots of incoming links).
Wikipedia would not have been among the top-20 sites in the world had
it not been for all the natural search engine traffic it attracts.
Newspapers should be the similar traffic attractors for developing news
events.

– Permanews can also serve as a great differentiator from other news
sources and aggregators. With more of the articles being syndicated
from AP and Reuters (=same articles appear on many news sources),
having a Permanews section can growingly becoming a useful
differentiator in the eyes of the readers.

– Permanews, like op-ed, can provide the added value the users
cannot get when they consume their news via news aggregators like
Google News.

– Lastly, Permanews can be an easier sell for advertisers who are
normally concerned about advertising alongside future news of unknown
nature. An article that is more permanent (even if frequently updated
and tweaked) is a much easier and safer sell.

Like the idea? – go ahead and Permanews it!

Share this post!