Twitter Influential but a Poor Driver of News Traffic
June 20, 2016
A recent report from social analytics firm Parse.ly examined the relationship between Twitter and digital publishers. NeimanLab shares a few details in, “Twitter Has Outsized Influence, but It Doesn’t Drive Much Traffic for Most News Orgs, a New Report Says.” Parse.ly tapped into data from a couple hundred of its clients, a group that includes digital publishers like Business Insider, the Daily Beast, Slate, and Upworthy.
Naturally, news sites that make the most of Twitter do so by knowing what their audience wants and supplying it. The study found there are two main types of Twitter news posts, conversational and breaking, and each drives traffic in its own way. While conversations can engage thousands of users over a period of time, breaking news produces traffic spikes.
Neither of those findings is unexpected, but some may be surprised that Twitter feeds are not inspiring more visits publishers’ sites. Writer Joseph Lichterman reports:
“Despite its conversational and breaking news value, Twitter remains a relatively small source of traffic for most publishers. According to Parse.ly, less than 5 percent of referrals in its network came from Twitter during January and February 2016. Twitter trails Facebook, Google, and even Yahoo as sources of traffic, the report said (though it does edge out Bing!)”
Still, publishers are unlikely to jettison their Twitter accounts anytime soon, because that platform offers a different sort of value. One that is, perhaps, more important for consumers. Lichterman quotes the report:
“Though Twitter may not be a huge overall source of traffic to news websites relative to Facebook and Google, it serves a unique place in the link economy. News really does ‘start’ on Twitter.”
And the earlier a news organization knows about a situation, the better. That is an advantage few publishers will want to relinquish.
Cynthia Murrell, June 20, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Half of Online News Produced by Just Ten Publishers
May 19, 2016
The wide-open Internet was supposed to be a counterweight to the consolidation of news media into fewer and fewer hands. Now, though, PublishersDaily reports that “10 Publishers Account for Half of All Online News.” The article cites a recent study from SimilarWeb, which examined 2015’s top online news publishers, on both mobile and desktop platforms. Writer Erik Sass summarizes:
“Overall, the top 10 publishers — together owning around 60 news sites — account for 47% of total online traffic to news content last year, with the next-biggest 140 publishers accounting for most of the other half, SimilarWeb found.
“The biggest online news publisher for the U.S. audience was MSN, owner of MSN.com, with just over 27 billion combined page views across mobile and desktop, followed by Disney Media Networks, owner of ESPN and ABC News, with 25.9 billion.
“Time Warner, owner of CNN and Bleacher Report, had 14.8 billion, followed by Yahoo with 10.3 billion, and Time, Inc. with 10.2 billion.
“A bit further down the totem poll were CBS Corp., owner of Cnet.com, with 9.9 billion combined page views; NBC Universal, with 9.5 billion; Matt Drudge, with 8.5 billion; Advance Publications, with 8 billion; and Fox Entertainment Group, owner of Fox News, with 7.9 billion.”
Sass goes on to cover page views for specific publications and outlines which outfits are leading in mobile. Interestingly, it seems smaller publishers are doing especially well on mobile platforms. See the write-up for more details.
Cynthia Murrell, May 19, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Infonomics and the Big Data Market Publishers Need to Consider
March 22, 2016
The article on Beyond the Book titled Data Not Content Is Now Publishers’ Product floats a new buzzword in its discussion of the future of information: infonomics, or the study of creation and consumption of information. The article compares information to petroleum as the resource that will cause quite a stir in this century. Grace Hong, Vice-President of Strategic Markets & Development for Wolters Kluwer’s Tax & Accounting, weighs in,
“When it comes to big data – and especially when we think about organizations like traditional publishing organizations – data in and of itself is not valuable. It’s really about the insights and the problems that you’re able to solve,” Hong tells CCC’s Chris Kenneally. “From a product standpoint and from a customer standpoint, it’s about asking the right questions and then really deeply understanding how this information can provide value to the customer, not only just mining the data that currently exists.”
Hong points out that the data itself is useless unless it has been produced correctly. That means asking the right questions and using the best technology available to find meaning in the massive collections of information possible to collect. Hong suggests that it is time for publishers to seize on the market created by Big Data.
Chelsea Kerwin, March 22, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Elsevier and Its Business Model May Be Ageing Fast
July 13, 2015
If you need to conduct research and are not attached to a university or academic library, then you are going to get hit with huge subscription fees to have access to quality material. This is especially true for the scientific community, but on the Internet if there is a will there most certainly is a way. Material often locked behind a subscription service can be found if you dig around the Internet long enough, mostly from foreign countries, but the material is often pirated. Gizmodo shares in the article, “Academic Publishing Giant Fights To Keep Science Paywalled” that Elsevier, one of the largest academic publishers, is angry about its content being stolen and shared on third party sites. Elsevier recently filed a complaint with the New York District Court against Library Genesis and SciHub.org.
“The sites, which are both popular in developing countries like India and Indonesia, are a treasure trove of free pdf copies of research papers that typically cost an arm and a leg without a university library subscription. Most of the content on Libgen and SciHub was probably uploaded using borrowed or stolen student or faculty university credentials. Elsevier is hoping to shut both sites down and receive compensation for its losses, which could run in the millions.”
Gizmodo acknowledges Elsevier has a right to complain, but they also flip the argument in the other direction by pointing out that access to quality scientific research material is expensive. The article brings up Netflix’s entertainment offerings, with Netflix users pay a flat fee every month and have access to thousands of titles. Netflix remains popular because it remains cheap and the company openly acknowledges that it sets its prices to be competitive against piracy sites.
Publishers and authors should be compensated for their work and it is well known that academics do not rake in millions, but access to academic works should be less expensive. Following Netflix’s model or having a subscription service like Amazon Prime might be a better business model to follow.
Whitney Grace, July 13, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Juvenile Journal Behavior
April 28, 2015
Ah, more publisher excitement. Neuroskeptic, a blogger at Discover, weighs in on a spat between scientific journals in, “Academic Journals in Glass Houses….” The write-up begins by printing a charge lobbed at Frontiers in Psychology by the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (JNMD), in which the latter accuses the former of essentially bribing peer reviewers. It goes on to explain the back story, and why the blogger feels the claim against Frontiers is baseless. See the article for those details, if you’re curious.
Here’s the part that struck me: Neuroskeptic supplies the example hinted at in his or her headline:
“For the JNMD to question the standards of Frontiers peer review process is a bit of a ‘in glass houses / throwing stones’ moment. Neuroskeptic readers may remember that it was JNMD who one year ago published a paper about a mysterious device called the ‘quantum resonance spectrometer’ (QRS). This paper claimed that QRS can detect a ‘special biological wave… released by the brain’ and thus accurately diagnose schizophrenia and other mental disorders – via a sensor held in the patient’s hand. The article provided virtually no details of what the ‘QRS’ device is, or how it works, or what the ‘special wave’ it is supposed to measure is. Since then, I’ve done some more research and as far as I can establish, ‘QRS’ is an entirely bogus technology. If JNMD are going to level accusations at another journal, they ought to make sure that their own house is in order first.”
This is more support for the conclusion that many of today’s “academic” journals cannot be trusted. Perhaps the profit-driven situation will be overhauled someday, but in the meantime, let the reader beware.
Cynthia Murrell, April 28, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
NSF Makes Plan for Public Access to Scientific Research
April 16, 2015
The press release on the National Science Foundation titled National Science Foundation Announces Plan for Comprehensive Public Access to Research Results speaks to the NSF’s interest in increasing communications on federally funded research. The NSF is an independent federal agency with a 7 billion dollar annual budget that is dispersed around the country in the form of grants to fund research and education in science and engineering. The article states,
“Scientific progress depends on the responsible communication of research findings,” said NSF Director France A. Córdova…Today’s announcement follows a request from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy last year, directing science-funding agencies to develop plans to increase access to the results of federally funded research. NSF submitted its proposal to improve the management of digital data and received approval to implement the plan.”
The plan is called Today’s Data, Tomorrow’s Discoveries and promotes the importance of science without creating an undue burden on scientists. All manuscripts that appear in peer-reviewed scholarly journals and the like will be made available for free download within a year of the initial publication. In a time when scientists are less trusted and science itself is deeply misunderstood, public access may be more important than ever.
Chelsea Kerwin, April 16, 2014
Stephen E Arnold, Publisher of CyberOSINT at www.xenky.com
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
