My most important news comes from my twitter feed where I follow newsmakers and journalists around the globe. I ignore broadcast TV especially “the news” and I despair at the mainstream daily newspapers who all seem to be trapped in the death of a thousand cuts.
Those cuts come from click bait and the overwhelming pressure for publishers to become lemmings jumping off a cliff. We have reached the time when if we want a healthy fourth estate we have to be prepared to pay for it and that means paywalls of some kind.
Alan Kohler wrote The media’s five revolutions (and counting)
Ironically it may be that his post is behind a paywall now so I have quoted extensively below.
“The advent of programmatic ad exchanges is the fourth successive media convulsion within the digital revolution that began in the 1990s. The first was portals like Yahoo! and Alta Vista, then came pure search as Google carried all before it, then social media with Facebook and Twitter, followed by Instagram, Pinterest and a host of others and then programmatic ad exchanges, which really got going with the acquisition of the DoubleClick ad exchange by Google in 2008”.
…………
“The basic, no frills CPM rate for a digital ad is now $2 (per thousand page impressions) and big partnerships are almost dead. Even major national advertisers are moving to the ad exchanges for their campaigns.
At that rate a publisher needs 5 billion page impressions to make $10 million; a journalist needs 200,000 clicks per day to pay for a salary of $100,000. You might get that if you luck on a story about a kitten being rescued from a drain, or you’re the one assigned to the Brussels bombing, or your yarn gets picked up by Buzzfeed and goes global, but for everyday journalism in Australia, it’s simply impossible.
That’s fundamentally why newsrooms are shrinking. I wrote last week that the market will dictate the size of newsrooms — well, in fact it is actually becoming a market exactly like the stock exchange (which is also being taken over by programmatic trading, by the way) and advertising has become commoditised.”
“Publishers are working hard to readjust their business models and keep up with these continuous convulsions and these new, enormously rich competitors and they’re trying, with some success, to get readers to pay them directly, but it’s tough.”
In that story Kohler makes the point that Facebook and Google don’t pay for their content yet they know more about their readers than anyone else and this is why programmatic trading of ads is killing the ad funded media.
To put it simply when newspapers are full of click bait stories about kittens, crocodiles and sharks almost none of the real stories stand a chance of being read.
And nothing in Kohler’s story even mentions ad blockers.
“In the 1970’s, Herbert Simon pointed out that when information becomes abundant, attention becomes the scarce resource. In the digital age, we’re living through the pendulum swing of that reversal—yet we consistently overlook its implications.”
And continuing…
“Your technologies, on the other hand, are trying to maximize goals like “Time on Site,” “Number of Video Views,” “Number of Pageviews,” and so on. Hence clickbait, hence auto-playing videos, hence avalanches of notifications. Your time is scarce, and your technologies know it.
But these design goals are petty and perverse. They don’t recognize our humanity because they don’t bother to ask about it in the first place. In fact, these goals often clash with the mission statements and marketing claims that technology companies craft for themselves.
These petty and perverse goals exist largely because they serve the goals of advertising. Most advertising incentivizes design that optimizes for our attention rather than our intentions.”
…….
“Before software, advertising was always the exception to the rule—but now, in the digital world, advertising has become the rule.”…..
“If enough of us used ad blockers, it could help force a systemic shift away from the attention economy altogether—and the ultimate benefit to our lives would not just be “better ads.” It would be better products: better informational environments that are fundamentally designed to be on our side, to respect our increasingly scarce attention, and to help us navigate under the stars of our own goals and values. Isn’t that what technology is for?”….
“The burden of proof falls squarely on advertising to justify its intrusions into users’ attentional spaces—not on users to justify exercising their freedom of attention.”
We haven’t heard the last on this. We all have a need to be paid fairly for work done but blunt application of technology is not the answer. The sheer overwhelming amount of information out there gets in the way of us doing that.
Programmatic ad trading can tell us there is volume traffic in stories on kittens but there is no weighting for the value of human life in there. Remembering back to Terminator series of films and the fight against Skynet.
Skynet is here already. It’s just that we think it is friendly and helpful but really it is google and facebook with a reverse AI algorithm on it.
In my view the sheer overwhelming number of ads in various online media means that I avoid visiting any of it. It has swamped the valuable content with trivia and sponsored content is even worse.
In a recent profile of Peter Arnett How New Zealand’s Peter Arnett, the world’s greatest war correspondent, found peace at last By Ben Stanley; Arnett makes the point that there is a difference between information and journalism.
“He’s open about his admiration for the likes of Vice News and ProPublica (a New York-based non-profit investigative website) and his handle on the problems of revenue streams for online news is impressive, but he disagrees with rhetoric that journalism is entering a ‘bold new era.’“It’s not a great new era of journalism – it’s a great new era for information,”
Arnett says, still under the sun at the French cafe. “I don’t think it’s a very good era for journalists at all. What I think would change it all… would be the kind of story so big that it demands disciplined, superb journalism. Unfortunately that category is a big war, a major depression, [or] a cataclysm – Christchurch on a larger scale – that rivets public attention on good journalism.”
Hat tip to Bernard Hickey who flagged this story from Kohler.
The sooner NZME & Fairfax NZ face reality and call off their online-ad-funded-free-site suicide missions the better https://t.co/58hZjmG80W
— Bernard Hickey (@bernardchickey) March 23, 2016
I can understand why there are people who use ad blockers. I can understand why there are people who don’t want to pay to read online news sites. However, there are many who fall into both camps and that’s a mystery to me. Journalists can’t write for nothing.
Hi Bill – thanks for the thoughtful comment. I suspect the overall answer will be leaky paywalls which ration content the way some of the larger sites do today already. On the ad front its wishful thinking ( so far) to assume that ad blockers will force a more human approach to ads and change that paradigm. I do think we will see more of a tiered approach where certain sites will set both their paywall & ad policies with more of a human touch which is what is needed.
At present the tendency for many sites is to “optimise” the ad element. In fact Google Adsense encourages that as the default position. To quote “Allow ads from sensitive categories – Consider allowing ads from sensitive categories to increase auction pressure and improve performance.” The examples used for the sensitive categories include “Gambling & Betting (18+)”, “Get Rich Quick” and many other category names I don’t want to mention here as they might attract unwelcome attention.
So the algorithm encourages what it calls ad optimisation by running all categories of ads on a website which is what you’d expect a money making machine to do. The algorithm has no conscience. What is best for Google is NOT what is bet for your website and your content.
OTOH A Google editor has also written this: “First, consider your users
Organize your site’s content logically and make your site easy to navigate. Here are a few questions to ask yourself when considering where to position your ads:
What is the user trying to accomplish by visiting my site?
What do they do when viewing a particular page?
Where is their attention likely to be focused?
How can I integrate ads into this area without getting in the users’ way?
How can I keep the page looking clean, uncluttered and inviting?”
All great questions that a smart publisher, editor, sub-editor, content author / owner would be thinking about. But many of those moderating influences have been removed from the publishing eco-system due to cost cutting. The result can be the machine default which comes from some owners wanting to maximise the revenue and application of a technical logic that makes some sense but misses the point of the content in many regards.
It is a fine line to walk. Everyone wants to get paid. But how to balance those competing interests. Last night I read a very scary post “The Rest Is Advertising -Confessions of a sponsored content writer – JACOB SILVERMAN. In which Jacob tells his story about a “native advertising, sponsored content” project for which he was paid very well but it is a disturbing trend. The sponsored content scenario is one that is on the increase. I do think that like “product placement” it would work better when readers don’t know it is sponsored content.
Regardless of what publishers say – it devalues their brand. The NZ Herald is obviously experimenting more with sponsored content in the last few weeks. They have a story marked as SPONSORED CONTENT on the top left column of their home page about 4 stories down. On one day last week I noted that a sponsored content story which featured a very expensive car even made it into the “Most Read” stories of the day. Which has happened again today with this story “New rules, harder to visit the Gold Coast” I am suspicious if it is one of the top read stories but given its prominent placement it could be. What I dislike about it is that if you were to click on the story you have to scroll down to the bottom before you get a byline of any kind.
That is a convention change that I dislike immensely especially when stories have been sourced from the Daily Mail or other dodgy sources but it looks like it is here to stay.
Unless of course Ad blocking really takes off to such an extent that it forces some of these changes.