The New York Times published a thoughtful but disconcerting story on the future of journalism yesterday.
If I were being paid by the click for this column, I might have begun it this way: Will an oppressive emphasis on “click bait” mean that the news ends up imprisoned by transgendered models posing in disgraceful listicles accompanied by kidnapped nude kittens?
But I’m not. So let’s just say that there is a growing trend in many corners of journalism to tie the compensation of journalists to the amount of web traffic and/or articles they generate.
At the end of February, The Daily Caller, a conservative political site run by Tucker Carlson, said it would begin a hybrid arrangement in which staff writers were paid a base salary plus a traffic incentive. The Daily Caller’s publisher told The Washington Post that the new plan would lead to more traffic and higher overall compensation for writers.
Joel Johnson, the editorial director of Gawker Media, announced a program in February called “Recruits” that creates subsidiary sites for new contributors, attached to existing editorial sites like Gawker or Jezebel. The recruits receive a stipend of $1,500 a month, and pay back that amount at a rate of $5 for every 1,000 unique visitors they attract. They then get to keep anything above the amount of the stipend, up to $6,000.
At the end of 90 days, the contributors are evaluated and retained or cut loose based on their traffic performance. (Gawker has long been a pioneer in traffic transparency and giving its writers bonuses based on traction in the marketplace.)
Depending on your perspective, the trend could be a long overdue embrace of the realities of the publishing landscape, or one more step down the road to perdition. Nick Denton, the founder of Gawker, is bullish on the effect of new pay paradigms.
“The journalist will do extremely well in the next 10 years. It will be a booming profession,” he said, adding that he agreed with a recent suggestion by the venture capitalist Marc Andreessen that “news will be 10 times the size it was.”
Others worry that compensation built on metrics will leave working journalists on the short end of the stick.
“It is very early days of pay-for-click for professional writers,” said Minda Zetlin, president of the American Society of Journalists and Authors and a columnist for Inc.'s website. “In terms of it being a bonanza for writers, that is far from true right now, but there will be value in learning best practices and where our traffic comes from.”
There is much more worth reading in the story. Some of this gnashing of teeth over "click bait" is hyperbole. Catchy headlines always get attention and have always been used to sell newspapers. The editor has to use something to catch your interest. What is troublesome is the focus on "clicks". Crime stories? Clicks. Sports? Clicks. Chicks? Definitely clicks (Why do you think so many sports radio websites have "babe galleries"?). Latest city council meeting? The county beat? Fewer clicks. Taking three days to investigate a real story? No clicks for three days. Well, the reporter's comp just took a hit. Don't believe me? Keep reading.
The Oregonian, owned by Newhouse’s Advance Publications, is focusing on digital journalism — and the people who produce it — with a great deal of specificity.
Beginning immediately, according to the documents, the company’s leadership will require reporters to post new articles three times a day, and to post the first comment under any significant article. It’s part of a companywide initiative to increase page views by 27.7 percent in the coming year. Beyond that, reporters are expected to increase their average number of daily posts by 25 percent by the middle of the year and an additional 15 percent in the second half of the year.
If that sounds like it won’t leave much time for serious work, the new initiative also calls for reporters to “produce top-flight journalistic and digitally oriented enterprise as measured by two major projects a quarter,” which will include “goals by projects on page views and engagement.” In the more-with-less annals of corporate mandates, this one is a doozy. Article
This isn't reporting. This is throwing stuff up on a website wall and hoping it sticks, er I mean, people read it. The times they are a-changin'.
7 comments:
Slow Day?
Click Bait will be the death of investigated reporting, clarity of focus, deep analysis & advocacy journalism.
March 25, 2014 at 10:11 AM = has nothing better to do
when journalists figure out how to use click generators to their advantages, this policy will go away.
click bait--good grief.
I agree with " Catchy headlines always get attention and have always been used to sell newspapers. The editor has to use something to catch your interest." That's part of the journalist's job.
But click bait will lead to half baked stories because the FACTS become 2nd most important thing. The most important thing becomes---get them here so I can have money.
Interestingly, there are several news organizations that already treat the facts as if they are something irrelevant. Perhaps they are getting their 'reward' in something other than clicks.
Would you like to go to the black hole?
"Investigated" Reporting?
Whur at?
Post a Comment