[HN Gopher] News Publisher Quit Facebook. Readership Went Up
___________________________________________________________________
News Publisher Quit Facebook. Readership Went Up
Author : thejteam
Score : 40 points
Date : 2021-04-02 10:42 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.npr.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.npr.org)
| ppf wrote:
| It's something I learned to be true on a personal level, and I'm
| sure it applies to many other levels - giving yourself away for
| free on Facebook and other social media devalues your social
| contributions and presence as a human being.
| readflaggedcomm wrote:
| Gaining quality readers by ditching a quantity aggregator makes
| sense. But the only proof we're given that Stuff's readers
| valued them more was a single donation spike.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Interesting. I have a blog. I deleted my Facebook presence in
| July 2019. Readership went up, same as sales of my books.
|
| Is it possible that Facebook sells you an audience that would
| have found you anyway?
| echoradio wrote:
| Genuinely curious: What other ways would your audience have
| found you?
|
| I've given thought to how a new web site or business quickly
| grows an audience without social. With search engines, the site
| still needs to be "seen" by the engine and compete with more
| established sites.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| I have a free reprint policy, so my texts are often reprinted
| elsewhere with attribution and link to the original version
| on my site. Also, some people have the habit of sending links
| to interesting texts (or what they deem to be interesting)
| around by e-mail.
|
| There are many spontaneous undercurrents in the pond of the
| Internet. It is also the reason why fake news are so hard to
| root out.
| echoradio wrote:
| Thank you! This is actually very helpful to know. I've been
| talking with someone about using a Creative Commons model
| for sharing content to gain attention/traffic, but I wasn't
| sure if it worked in the wild.
| _rpd wrote:
| > "If we had remained on Facebook, we might have had another 5%
| growth,"
| james-skemp wrote:
| You may have accidentally submitted too quickly.
|
| As it is, this quote is a little misleading. Additional context
| from the article:
|
| > "If we had remained on Facebook, we might have had another 5%
| growth," she said. "But even if we throttled our growth ...
| it's brought us a lot of positives."
|
| > Donations from readers went up, for example, once word of
| Stuff's decision leaked out. Boucher said the company's
| newsrooms felt the impact, too.
|
| > "We can definitely see a change in the way people react to us
| and talk to us" she said. "Hearing anecdotally from
| journalists, they feel like they've been able to get interviews
| they would not have got before. They feel that it has really
| has contributed to people trusting us more, thinking about us
| as an organization with a clear set of values."
|
| Based on the rest of article, sounds like they value being a
| trusted source more then getting more eyes. Given that Facebook
| and the like are a firehose of truths and lies, I wish more
| news sources would take this stance. (And do deep dives.)
| bozzcl wrote:
| >But Boucher says her experience suggests publishers should
| prioritize a different relationship: the direct one they have
| with their audience.
|
| I feel there's quite a bit to unpack here. Social media was sold
| to us as being a way to engage your users more closely... yet it
| seems the opposite is true.
| pasttense01 wrote:
| "Last year, in the middle of the pandemic, Sinead Boucher offered
| $1 to buy Stuff, New Zealand's largest news publisher... The punt
| worked. The Australian company accepted the offer of 1 New
| Zealand dollar, worth about 70 U.S. cents."
|
| Explanation? You expect that the economy will eventually recover
| --so why essentially give the company away? [The only thing which
| comes to mind is a very heavy debt load which the new owner
| assumes.]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-02 23:02 UTC)