10 Comments

Summary:

The future of online media may look like a bleak landscape filled with shallow clickbait and pageview-driven sharing by people who haven’t even read the entire article, but Betaworks CEO John Borthwick says there is still hope for deeper forms of content

Sometimes it seems as though the future of online media is a fairly bleak one: an ocean of clickbait and shallow pageview-driven articles, all of them chasing the dwindling juice that social-network algorithms provide, with scattered chunks of longform journalism drifting aimlessly, unable to get the attention they deserve. But is that a realistic picture of where we are? Betaworks CEO John Borthwick says it isn’t — and says he has the data from services like Chartbeat and Instapaper to prove that things aren’t as bad as they seem.

As Borthwick notes in a post on Medium, the most recent debate on this topic flared up a couple of months ago, sparked by a post from Facebook product manager Mike Hudack that lamented the state of online media, and how much of the content that was being produced even by “serious” media outlets was shallow clickbait:

“Personally I hoped that we would find a new home for serious journalism in a format that felt Internet-native and natural to people who grew up interacting with screens instead of just watching them from couches with bags of popcorn and a beer to keep their hands busy. And instead they write stupid stories about how you should wash your jeans instead of freezing them. It’s hard to tell who’s to blame. But someone should fix this shit.”

Partly Facebook’s fault, but not completely

In the hue-and-cry that followed, a number of journalists, bloggers and others (including our founder Om and me) noted that Facebook was part of the problem that Hudack was complaining about, since its algorithm has become one of the central points of control that determine what kinds of news people see online. And for all of the effort that the giant social network has put into trying to focus on promoting “high quality” content, the reality is that much of what people like to share just happens to be shallow, click-driven content.

In his post, Borthwick — who has been involved in tracking the social web and online media world from a variety of perspectives, by investing in or starting services like Bitly, Chartbeat, News.me and Digg — described one recent cautionary tale: the story about how a piece of software had beaten the legendary Turing test, by pretending to be a 14-year-old boy. As it turned out, the story was fatally flawed to the point where it was essentially not true, but by the time anyone pointed this out it had been shared and tweeted and linked to hundreds of thousands of times.

As the Betaworks CEO notes (and as Om and I have pointed out a number of times), the social-distribution system that has been built up around the news — a system that is now arguably as important or even more important than search –favors shareability, not analysis. That’s why Om has argued that we all need to be aware of what we share, and take the time to think about whether it deserves our attention or not. Chartbeat CEO Tony Haile has pointed out that his data shows that much of what people share is content that they haven’t even read. As Borthwick notes:

“We have a dominant social distribution system that favors sharablility… it is biased towards speed, and that bias is short circuiting fact checking – as the Turing example shows. And in the case of Facebook it’s mediated by algorithms that aren’t transparent. Algorithmically created news stories, mediated by algorithms, shared by people, people who are barely reading these posts. If we can all just get services like Socialflow to do our sharing – we humans can completely quit this loop.”

Algorithms creating and sharing content

Algorithmically created news stories — thanks to services like Narrative Science and Automated Insights, which AP is now using for earnings stories — mediated by the black-box algorithms of networks like Twitter and Facebook, shared as quickly as possible by people who haven’t even read them. It may not be Orwell’s “boot stamping on a human face forever,” but that’s a pretty bleak vision. But Borthwick argues there is still some reason for optimism about media.

According to a chart from Upworthy, which tracks a metric it calls “attention minutes,” there is a significant burst of sharing that comes from people who have barely read a piece of content — behavior that is likely driven by short-term effects such as a clickbait headline, catchy video clip or GIF, etc. Then there is a low point where many people don’t make it all the way through a piece, and don’t really share it much either. But there is also a large upswing on both reader attention (or time spent) and sharing that occurs at the far end of the graph, something Borthwick calls “the hill of Wow,” as opposed to the “valley of Meh.”

Upworthy attention chart

There is still the hill of Wow

What this seems to show is that a significant number of people are willing to spend significant amounts of time with articles that are relatively long, and are willing to share them — in other words, there is a demand for things other than just shallow clickbait. And looking at the data on the number of articles that are saved to Instapaper (which Betaworks acquired last year) seems to support this conclusion, Borthwick says:

“What we saw is interesting. Reads are increasing over time for all domains and for some domains they are increasing a lot. This suggests that the Wow hill of the curve is increasing, ie: some people are reading more, not less.”<br />

So what we really have are two versions of the online-media world, both of which exist at the same time: one is the noisy, click-driven, social-sharing ecosystem, which favors speed and shareability — and is more noticeable because of all the Like buttons and Favorite meters and other share-tracking widgets — and the other is a deeper and less noticeable ecosystem of longform articles that people actually read, and likely get shared through slower forms of media such as email newsletters and what some have called “dark social.”

Borthwick argues (and I share this view) that businesses or people who focus on the right-hand side of the chart embedded above — the “hill of Wow,” in other words — may not rack up the huge pageview numbers or highly-visible sharing statistics, but ultimately they will build stronger businesses. As Betaworks data scientist Suman Deb Roy puts it in a quote that Borthwick includes: “The landscape of media content diffusion… is a hill-valley-hill of attention, and you’d probably do better sitting on the right hand hill. People sitting on the left hill appear to be more visible, but there are people on the right hill too. And the latter is growing.”

Post and thumbnail images courtesy of Shutterstock / Lenar Musin

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

Comment

Community guidelines
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Avatar you are commenting using your account. Sign out / Change

Comment using:

Or comment as a guest

Be sure to review our Community Guidelines. By continuing you are agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

10 Comments

  1. Ralph Haygood Wednesday, July 16, 2014

    And atop the Hill of Wow, there sits a shiba inu, presumably.

    So longreads! Such antiviral! Wow!

  2. The “Hill of Wow” mirrors the Valley of Death.

  3. Reblogged this on e-poetry/d-lights and commented:
    Welcome to the “hill of Wow”… or why there are signs that critical content consumption, or reading and comprehending as it used to be known, might actually be on the increase once again.

  4. Jonathan Mendez Wednesday, July 16, 2014

    I think neither idea correlates to strong businesses if the business of news media is selling media. Digital media buyers are concerned foremost with their return on ad spend and audience targeting – neither of which news has been able to figure out how to deliver to them in the digital age no matter what hill they sit on.

    1. That’s a fair point, Jonathan. Thanks for the comment.

  5. Nice writeup and I share the view of the article. We believe high quality long form stories are something people need rather than short status updates or those listcles. That’s why we build Pixotale, a mobile app to let user tell their stories quickly and easily directly from their mobile phone. Try it in case you didn’t aware we just launched the public beta and people are loving it – https://itunes.apple.com/app/id866275871

  6. There are long form articles written by Matt Taibbi that feed your need to read There are at the same time articles dancing around the subject meandering around to fill space and time and there are articles that simply restate a shallow point in multiple forms and are nothing more than a large valley filled with echos.

    I shared with friends this gem by Pete Hamill who was present at the assassination of Robert Kennedy. Brilliant writing. Get better writers. There, solved that one…
    http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2010/05/pete_hamills_ey.php

  7. Zimbio Insider Thursday, July 17, 2014

    TLDR…

    Joking. Nice job, Mattew. Excellent piece.

  8. I really did share this before I read it.

  9. bcbackpackers Thursday, July 17, 2014

    I think Facebook is just not the place to share serious articles because people are there to catch up with their friends. A lot of people say they use Twitter for curating content. Google Plus also seems like a good place for sharing long-form journalism because people can organize it using circles.