Slashdot Mirror
Half of Google News Users Browse But Don't Click
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from the International Business Times: "Nearly half of the users of Google News skim the headlines at the news aggregator site without clicking through to the publisher, according to new research. ... Outsell analyst Ken Doctor said in a statement that 'among the aggregators, Google's effect on the newspaper industry is particularly striking.' 'Though Google is driving some traffic to newspapers, it's also taking a significant share away," Doctor said. 'A full 44 percent of visitors to Google News scan headlines without accessing newspapers' individual sites.' ... With a number of US newspaper owners considering charging online, Outlook found that only 10 percent of those surveyed would be willing to pay for a print newspaper subscription to gain online access."
So the newspapers are finally realizing what Slashdotters have known for 10 years -- nobody RTFAs.
My guess is that the newspapers that switch to a "pay model" are going to try to provide an aggregator feed that their editors will fill only with teaser headlines: "The Massachusetts Election" instead of "Brown Wins in Massachusetts." We'll see how that flies when the aggregators continue to display free news sources, such as NPR headlines.
By the way, for the rest of you who never RTFA, the summary above really contains all the useful information in TFA. There isn't a need to click through in this case.
John
Outlook found that only 10 percent of those surveyed would be willing to pay for a print newspaper subscription to gain online access.
The article says the same thing but what they probably messed up is that it's Outsell not Outlook:
With a number of US newspaper owners considering charging online, Outlook found that only 10 percent of those surveyed would be willing to pay for a print newspaper subscription to gain online access.
For its annual News Users' survey, Outsell asked 2,787 US news consumers in July about their online and offline news preferences. The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus three percent.
Outsell found that 57 percent of news users looking for "news right now" go to digital sources, up from 33 percent a few years ago.
I'm guessing that was a spell checking/slip up. Not to be blamed on the submitter or slashdot editors but instead the IB Times.
My work here is dung.
how many people read or skin the slashdot summary, but don't read the article?
In other news, 99% of people read the headlines off newspapers in vending machines and in checkout lanes but don't buy the paper.
So now the real return on advertising is known. 50% sounds rather good to me.
Because if I was going to unscientifically guess at the number of times I go to Google News and don't see any headlines that garner my interest enough to click, ~50% would have been it. This value would be lower when exciting news is breaking, and higher when it's just more of the same BS about whatever is occupying the current news cycle magnifying glass. "Tiger Woods also revealed to have bunions!"
What's next? "44% of people scan front page headlines of newspaper in newspaper vending machine without making a purchase, clearly indicating that Seven Eleven is stealing revenue from the newspapers." Noooooo, Seven Eleven is making their product more readily available, and if people aren't interested enough to buy it, whose fault is that?
The enemies of Democracy are
Make them worth my time and I will click through and read them. That's essentially the problem. Let's take a look at the current international news: "New quake in Haiti." Ok. Whatever. "Obama signals he's ready to compromise on reforms." I already knew that and I might read it when we have a compromise, 'til then it's hot air. "Killing spree murderer in Virginia turns himself in." Don't care. "Geert Wilders in court." Don't care about a right wing asshole in Holland either. "Obama's first year" wake me when it's been his third, 'til then I can't do jack about it anyway (not that I could anything either then 'cause, well, I can't vote in the US). "Weapon lobbyist's testimonial threatening CSU" Duh. Who'd have though... Not interesting enough to click, though. "Italy's senate passing 'Lex Berlusconi'" He got promoted from King to God? He gets his way in Italy any way he pleases, how is this news? "Poland puts Patriot missiles to Russian border" Ok, that might be interesting enough to actually read it.
So, after reading all the "news", only one story was actually interesting enough (and could have some sort of impact on me) that it's something I might read. Everything else is either drivel, opinion or just plain pointless.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You don't need ammunition to support painfully obvious facts. yes, Google and other news aggregators link to stories without paying any advertising revenue. Brilliant sleuthing Sherlock.
Relatedly, if they hate having Google do so, it's trivially easy to get off the page. Why don't they? Because for all their whining, they know that Google does drive traffic to them. "I don't have a business model, and you do," isn't a valid reason to ask for Google's money.
Those two sentences have absolutely nothing to do with each other, despite Doctor's and the article's author's implication that they do. What really matters is, what portion of those 56% visitors would not have visited the news site in the absence of Google News. I'm guessing the answer is less. New result: Google is a net win for news sites.
In related news, almost no one is willing to pay for a DVD to gain online access to the movie. If I wanted to read the physical edition, I'd subscribe to that. If I want to read the online edition, asking to subscribe to the physical edition is insane. At my last apartment I got the Sunday paper for free. I did get some small amount of value from it, but I ultimately specifically requested to not get it because it wasn't worth the hassle to throw it away.
The article has shown nothing of the sort. It's entirely possible that in the absence of Google News that total news consumption would drop.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Maybe if you actually wrote your own content and didn't rely on the AP wire to write your headlines & stories for you, people would see your UNIQUE headline and article and click in to read your news instead of the 700 other versions of the exact same content? All Google has really done to hurt your business model is expose how much of your precious content is just AP regurgitated schlock. People have realized that there is no reason to go to one site or the other, since they're all the same. With that being the case, you might as well just click on the one that looks like it would have the least offensive presentation, and frankly, all of your flash ad laden pages and pop-ups just don't have that appeal.
today is spelling optional day.
Okay, lesse here ...
Entertainment News, nope, couldn't care less [scrolls]
Sports News, nope, couldn't care less [scrolls]
Random Feel-Good Stories, nope, couldn't care less [scrolls]
Domestic News, government officials are still corrupt, stock market is still iffy, another auto maker is filing Chapter Whatever, [scrolls]
International News, emergency relief in Haiti still ongoing, continued tribal disputes in the Middle East, China still has internal issues
Okay, so it's the same crap as yesterday, and the day before that. I'm a bad person because I don't want to re-read a story regurgitated from several days ago? And the news outlets are upset that the recycled content isn't generating revenue?
A huge portion of newspaper articles (though not as large as the portion of television news segments) are fluff, not worth reading. If you can get all the information you need from the headline, maybe the article wasn't much worth writing anyways.
Maybe if newspapers were to write more articles exposing the horrendous fustercluckery going on locally and abroad, making meaningful commentary on artistic endeavors, giving relevant information on local events, etc. rather than living off press releases, whitewashed statements from politicians, and reprinting AP/Reuters feeds, people might be more inclined to read them.
Hell, one somewhat respected (though less so lately) newspaper in my area reserves the back page of its front section for photographs of its readers holding up a copy of their paper while on vacation. Every day.
The very fact that The Family Circus is still in print is a testament to the utter incompetence and out-of-touchery of newspapers.
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
So Google News, which is stealing content from other news sites without payment or permission, is actually sending half of its readers to the sites themselves? This will probably get modded redundant, but Murdoch is an idiot.
may hurt some of the big sites but most sites are probably helped out. I visit the CNN homepage less since Google News came out, but there are dozens of other sites that I've visited that would never have heard of if they didn't show up on Google News.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Depending on the headlines and the news day, some of these thief's might come around and buy a newspaper(here is another amazing thing, once you put your money in, you could take as many as you wanted!).
This is no different. In many ways it is better. Instead of seeing only the above-the-fold headlines, users can see many headlines which may increase the chance that the user will 'buy a newspaper', in this case view the ads. The newspaper no longer has to deliver the physical product, procure space to market the product, and deal with broken machines. Furthermore,the user does not get to read more than a few sentences of content. All those costs are handled by the news aggregator.
Of course, if your headlines are crap, no one will buy. And, of course,there are many more headlines to write as each article must sell itself. More work for those that are willing to do the work to reach readers.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
So.. I go to google news, search "hamburger".
I find all the summaries boring, except an article about the hamburger festival in Abkhazia, which is what I was *actually* looking for. I then proceed to click on that article.
I had no intention of reading the other articles, I wasn't looking for them, so why would it be expected that I click on them?
Sent from my PDP-11
First off, that 50% is a fantastic click-thru rate, though I'm sure they'll find a way to make the glass half empty.
There are so many great comments here that collectively sum up the news industry, especially reliance on AP and every paper having essentially the same content. However, I'm surprised that no slash-dotters have mentioned the obvious fact of many "articles" simply being paid ads. I'm sure many Americans are aware of this.
Last summer I attended the Mayborn Literary Non-Fiction Conference in Dallas (and hosted by my alma mater, UNT) and had my suspicions confirmed by fashion "reporter" Joy Sewing of the Houston Chronicle. In a presentation which essentially boiled down to a defense of her paper's increased emphasis on fluffy content, she let the truth come out with the following quote about fashion top-ten and gift lists: "If Macy's buys an ad in my paper, then guess what? Macy's is in my article."
Since hearing Ms. Sewing's admission, I've made it my personal goal to quote her to the world -- please pass it on! People like her are willingly turning journalism into a farce, even as they admit to knowing better. Shrugging shoulders and saying it's "Nature of the business" is saying you don't care about quality as long as you're getting paid. It also makes it more difficult for people like me to get work.
I dunno, I'm pretty interested in finding out what errors Intel could have made with regards to the Underpants Bomber. Is it related to the FDIV bug?
The enemies of Democracy are
... turns into:
Wow, doesn't that sound better? Not only that, but it makes the next step easily seen: how many people scan Google News? What's 55% of that number? How many clicks is that? Isn't that a gigantic portion of a news site's revenue?
But hey, the stat sounds much more evil when you say it the other way around.
Why would anyone Read The Fucking Article when the heading and introduction/opening paragraph give us everything we need to know...
Here is an example from a real headline...
Michael Jackson's Giraffes Murdered?
(RTTNews) - Bizarre events surrounding the late Michael Jackson's continue to unfold, this time with the death of two giraffes that once lived at the King of Pop's Neverland Ranch.
Ok so by seeing this on my RSS reader I now know that Michael Jackson's Giraffes were indeed murdered and that cops are still incompetent and much like myself don't really care enough to delve deeper into this topic. On the other hand if the news blurb had come across my reader as "Michael Jack's Giraffe Murderer Found - The Giraffes were killed as part of an illegal Giraffe fighting operation ran by Michael Vick" then I probably would actually take the time to read the article...
Who knew that people would only click what they're really, really interested in or what sounds really really crazy? Anyone for watching the "Sanctity of Marriage" oh I mean "The Bachelor"...
Ave Molech Setting
You mean, like the media used to do?
Carried over multiple days?
The NYTimes is being money squeezed by the darkside.
All of the traditional news media is being squeezed.
The darkside does not want in-depth investigative reporting.
They want fluff.
They want mis-informed, dis-informed, and un-informed
readers, because the readers are the public, the same
public that can stop their attacks on the readers freedom.
Oh look! Britney Spears!
Fucking gag me with a spoon.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.