PRESSTIME asked: "What parts of a traditional newspaper site would you discard completely? Which traditional elements do you think hold the most promise?"
With this question, PRESSTIME is searching for a specific project to shoot with a silver bullet. But there just isn't any single feature on all newspaper Web sites that is worth killing in every case.
I'll concede that a lot of worthwhile ideas are being poorly implemented. Take for example almost any "shopping" section. Using these sections often only solidifies in users' minds that newspaper Web sites are the wrong place to find bargains. With some concentrated effort, though, a local shopping deals section has great potential.
The best way to identify parts of your Web site that should be discarded is to check traffic. Find those things that require the most time to produce yet garner the fewest page views. Check out my formula for calculating the importance of projects.
Chris Tolles, CEO for Topix.net, clearly hasn't read or doesn't agree with my formula because his answer to PRESSTIME's question trashes one of the highest performers. He said: "I wouldn't put AP content online. I would use content as the start of a conversation as opposed to a definitive product."
Posting Associated Press content is usually an automatic process that requires zero effort to maintain. And yet it consistently generates a significant amount of traffic for local newspaper sites. Users of AP content on local sites aren't looking for the best national coverage, they're looking for local stories and happen to bump into interesting national news. What's wrong with answering that lower-level need?
If you ignore what its CEO says and instead do as Topix.net does, then the most effective use of AP content is to package it contextually with related stories and topics where readers are likely to find it passively. AP content can effectively fill out the long tail if the site's technology helps users find only the stories they need.
Sorting the gems from the trash requires first understanding that effective long-tail content not only takes minimal effort to produce but also must be easily found.
COMING NEXT
Will focusing on hyperlocal content pay off?
PREVIOUS ENTRY IN THIS SERIES
PRESSTIME, here are the right answers
Comments (4)
Here's one thing I agree with Chris on.
I have never seen any newspaper.com with a local focus generate any meaningful traffic to AP stories.
It doesn't happen at any GHS paper, and it didn't happen in Ventura, and it didn't happen in Bakersfield -- which is why I canned AP from the site, saving us a significant amount of expense.
AP is largely a waste of time (even automated) and money for local news sites, unless the site can use it, as Chris says, as a conversation starter.
Posted by Howard Owens | December 24, 2007 10:37 AM
Posted on December 24, 2007 10:37
How much traffic would you say constitutes "meaningful" traffic?
Because you're right . . . all services include an opportunity cost. Paying money for the AP stories means not subscribing to something else or investing that money elsewhere.
So what determines whether traffic is meaningful?
Posted by Lucas | December 26, 2007 1:12 PM
Posted on December 26, 2007 13:12
oh, something more than less than 1 percent.
A little less snarky: In a long-talk context, anything that aggregates into 3 percent or so of page views starts to be worthwhile.
There's a big gap between AP's less than 1 percent and 3 percent.
Posted by Howard Owens | December 26, 2007 7:56 PM
Posted on December 26, 2007 19:56
Within our online Sports section, AP content accounts for 5 percent of traffic. Even if it's less than 1 percent of total traffic, it's possible that AP content should be retained within certain topic areas.
Posted by Lucas | December 27, 2007 9:00 AM
Posted on December 27, 2007 09:00