AP reporter tweets Raiders coach fired, except he wasn't

I agree with the "turn off the lights" part.

The idea that Twitter is driving revenue is just the latest falsehood. It follows blogs and video and all the other synergies that were supposed to happen because executives said so and so the workers put their heads down and do it because, well, because.

 

Until someone, anyone, can figure out how to monetize it, increased readership isn't worth the pat on the back and hearty handshake you'll get from "management."

 

Looking at my own story traffic, everything starts with Google. That represents the vast, vast majority of where people found my stuff.

If something is taking off a bit, then there might be a bump from Facebook.

Twitter does not provide that much of a bump. Exposure, yes, which is fine. But not many people click on stories from there. It may be that people are looking at Twitter just to get the bite-sized nuggets, given how fast a feed can go.

 

First, I don't think Twitter will exist in 5-10 years. Oh, someone might purchase and use the name, the way that brands like Polaroid and MySpace still linger. But it won't be what it is now. It may not even be publicly traded.

Second, I think I agree with you about the dead tree version. I know on the other thread people have discussed the pockets of the country where people still care about their local news.

But here's the thing, and I think it's a big, enormous thing:

There is so much information available out there now, for free, that I think that people are unlikely to pay for local news, no matter the exclusivity of the particular product. Can't get high school sports news? I'll just follow college and pro news on ESPN. Can't get school board news? No thing. I'll just consume information on the U.S. Congress instead. I can find that for free.

Except for extreme niches - sports recruiting, fantasy sports obsessives perhaps video gamers, and, especially, finance/Wall Street types - people in 2014 flat-out will not pay for information. They won't do it. They don't believe in it.

I have a theory, and it's that people like to consume news for a certain number of hours each day. However, they are likely pretty flexible on what kind of news it actually is. There was a time when the local yokel paper had a monopoly. Now it doesn't. People will mostly pick free over local.

 

Twitter is only going to get much bigger before (and if) it fades into oblivion. I don't think that happens for a long time.

But I agree that there are too many ways to get any kind of information you want -- and for free. Too easy.

 

Yeah, I'm sure TMZ and other sites that make their nut with online advertising post all their links to Twitter because it doesn't work.

When I was monitoring web traffic, it almost always broke down in this order, as far as external sources for views:

1) Google
2) Facebook
3) Twitter

Facebook and Google were always significantly higher than Twitter, but that doesn't mean there is no value to Twitter. Even if it means only one extra set of eyeballs gets to your content, it's probably worth the 10 seconds it takes to post a story link on Twitter.

 

There's no downside to it.

That doesn't mean there's an upside to it.

 

You probably are right about this. I know I stop looking at, say, the Chicago Tribune website when a paywall of some sort pops up. Too many other places to get White Sox or Bears coverage.

But here's another thing: Advertising, for better or worse, pays for news reporting. And advertisers always want their ads in or a product people PAY for, because then they will actually read it.

That was true when total market coverage (i.e., free) shoppers competed with paid circulation newspapers for ad dollars. It has proven true for cable TV. And it's true with free content on the web.

 

The link Bob Cook posted on another thread about this states that the top 10 companies routinely earn 70 percent of all Internet advertising revenue. Think about that, and then think about how many sites are out there.

Basically, if you're not Google, Yahoo or that ilk, you're earning jackshit through online advertising.

 

'Tis the reason many web-heavy news outlets are encouraging the use of staff-produced video. That way, they can tack a 30-second commerical onto the front of it and generate legitimate ad revenue.

 

Purely anecdotal, but I know not one person who actually watches or clicks on newspaper videos.

 

I disagree with that. In every major city, you'll find at least one or two free publications -- not shoppers, but alternative weeklies, like the Austin Chronicle or Arkansas Times -- that have plenty of advertising. Those are quality publications that do good journalism, often the type of journalism the dailies can't or won't do.