Church of the Customer Blog
« Social media vs. less-social media | Main | links for 2006-06-25 »
June 23, 2006
Social media vs. less-social media
Three months ago, we compared the online reach of YouTube to the New York Times. Back in those olden days the 6-month-old, video-sharing-cum-social media site was on the verge of surpassing the traffic of the 155-year-old icon of traditional media.
Quelle difference!
The Times underwent a minor redesign, added videos to its front page and created a list of "most blogged" stories. Traffic declined.
YouTube added channels that made it possible for anyone to program the site's content, a sort of favorites list of videos. Traffic surged three-fold.
To be fair, comparing the two is like putting Pamela Anderson up against Margaret Thatcher. YouTube could run out of cash based on what must be very expensive bandwidth bills.
But adding a few videos to your front page isn't a strategy for growth. Adding intense levels of interaction with readers who can participate with, remix or otherwise create content on top of content is.
Update: In the comments, Heather Green of Businessweek writes that comScore stats show the Times' traffic going up a bit since its redesign. Where's the truth between server log files, Alexa and comScore? Probably somewhere in between. Considering how frequently Alexa data are cited, it would be in the best interests of everyone if Alexa were more transparent about its system, including the size and representation of its sample set.
In a separate post, Heather also points to analyses by Scott Karp and Mike Arrington, who say the traffic of Digg is now within striking distance of the Times. Of course, Digg is not a content originator like the Times, it's an aggregator. But the idea of Digg -- a democratized community that determines story rank while making it extraordinarily easy to participate with content -- is another bright, flashing sign of how our culture of news consumption is changing.
Update 2: Richard Siklos, in a piece for Sunday's Times, further illustrates the fear of innovation that renders most media companies frozen in time:
"One could make a case that the amount of focus on — and hype about — Internet activities at media companies has some kind of inverse relationship to the amount of near-term revenue they represent for these companies."
If it isn't immediately profitable, it must not be worth doing. He goes on to write:
"We're still in the early innings, but given how much the Internet has already transformed the media and society, it's surprising how little money traditional media companies make directly from it."
That's because most traditional media companies will never risk jeopardizing a single point of their own entrenched product positions, even as companies like Google and Craig's List boldly walk through their front doors and steal double-digit marketshare points worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
I'm not saying anything new here that Jeff Jarvis hasn't said more eloquently dozens (or hundreds!) of times before the past few years, but 2006 is the year when traditional media companies had better kick their social media strategies and tactics into high gear. (Or for pete's sake, develop a social media plan.) The trusses supporting the bloated media models of "synergistic" properties are about to collapse under their own weight of factionalism and economic indifference.
Other blogs that reference Social media vs. less-social media:
» The rise of social media from Johnnie Moore's Weblog
Ben McConnell highlights the contrasting online fortunes of YouTube and the New York Times.The Times underwent a minor redesign, added videos to its front page and created a list of "most blogged" stories. Traffic declined. YouTube added channels that ... [Read More]
» It Isn't Britney or Christina or Anna Nicole from BizStratBlog2
It's you and me and the things we're interested in. What is 'it'? IT is communication. The new tools used to share and convey thoughts, ideas, research, and more. It revolves around digital and the Internet (I know, some folks [Read More]
I can't tell from the chart but I wonder if the Times declined faster after the tweaks to the site or if they just remained on a decline? The story is interesting regardless but moreso if you can correlate a faster decline at the Times after the additions than prior.
Hi Ben,
I actually was looking at some NYTimes data from comScore and that data shows an uptick at the NYTimes, not a decline. Overall NYTimes digital rose from 36.2 million monthly visitors in March to 40 million in April, and the site itself (without About in there) rose from 7.8 million to 9.1 million.
That dovetails into the fact that I am still uncertain of how much weight to give to Alexa, frankly.
Hi Ben,
I looked at recent comScore data on the NYTimes and they show an increase, not a decrease since the redesign. Overall, NYTimes digital rose from 36.2 million monthly visitors to 40.3 million. NYTimes site itself, without About included rose from 7.8 million to 9.2 million.
Continues to make me wonder about Alexa data.
Ben:
What do you think would happen if YouTube did surpass the Times? Would it make the newspaper any less important? Would it diminish its role at all?
When we promote blogging, we say "it's not about the numbers." So why is it about the numbers here?
The New York Times has an audience. YouTube has an audience. Every now and then they intersect.
But they serve very different purposes, so I'm not sure there's a value in comparing them.
When today's teens and 20-somethings are in positions of authority, will they turn to the New York Times and other media outlets for insight and news, or will they ignore them because they can visit YouTube to laugh at people lip-synching on camera?
Ben:
What do you think would happen if YouTube did surpass the Times? Would it make the newspaper any less important? Would it diminish its role at all?
When we promote blogging, we say "it's not about the numbers." So why is it about the numbers here?
The New York Times has an audience. YouTube has an audience. Every now and then they intersect.
But they serve very different purposes, so I'm not sure there's a value in comparing them.
When today's teens and 20-somethings are in positions of authority, will they turn to the New York Times and other media outlets for insight and news, or will they ignore them because they can visit YouTube to laugh at people lip-synching on camera?
John -- Thanks for the comments. You're right that it's not a sprint... it's a marathon. My overarching point, which I could have expressed more cogently, is not necessarily to tweak the nose of the Times (of which I'm quite fond) but to illustrate the evident allure of media that encourages participation, not solitary reception.
Quelle difference !
