Blog Post

For News Sites, Google Is the Past and Facebook Is the Future

Stay on Top of Enterprise Technology Trends

Get updates impacting your industry from our GigaOm Research Community
Join the Community!

When it comes to attracting visitors, Google (s goog) is still a far more important source of traffic for major news websites than social media, according to a new study by the Pew Research Center, but Facebook in particular is climbing in importance, and has already become a significant driver of pageviews for some sites. Among its other findings, the study also reinforces how much work even the leading news websites still have to do when it comes to building engagement with their readers and convincing them to stick around once they arrive at their news pages.

The Pew study, a partnership with online-survey company Nielsen that tracked how users came to the major news websites and where they went after they left, shows Google still accounts for about 30 percent of the visitors to most of the 24 sites surveyed, on average. For 17 of those — including CNN (s twx), The New York Times (s nyt), ABC News (s dis) and The Huffington Post (s aol) — it’s the leading source of visitors, and for the others in the study, it was the second highest source. The survey results combined the traffic from both Google’s main search pages and from Google News.

While Google still rules, Facebook is growing in importance as a driver of visitors. For some sites, it accounts for as much as eight percent of their total visits, and for several of them — including The New York Times — it accounts for over 5 percent.

The Huffington Post is by far the most influenced by Facebook, which accounts for about five percent of its traffic. That isn’t surprising, given the company’s early embrace of Facebook’s “open graph” plugins and other features. The site implemented a substantial integration of Facebook profiles and “likes” after the social network launched those features, and this drove not only pageviews but also a dramatic increase in comments from Facebook users. The Huffington Post was also one of the first to make recommendations based on what readers’ social graphs were reading, something other sites such as the New York Times have begun doing to a lesser extent.

While Facebook is increasing in importance, the Pew study found that for the major news sites it looked at, Twitter still isn’t a large driver of visits. The service only showed up as a referring source for nine of the 24 sites surveyed, and for most of those, it accounted for only about one percent or less of the visits. Although it’s worth noting this likely underestimates Twitter’s influence — since many users don’t go to the Twitter website but use mobile apps and other services — the data will likely reinforce for some publishers the idea that Facebook is the only thing they need to worry about — something Gawker owner Nick Denton put into words when he redesigned his network of blogs and removed the Twitter links, saying “only Facebook matters.”

The Pew study also confirmed some other assumptions about online news readers, including the fact that they don’t click on ads. Nielsen tracks any link that is clicked more than five times, and not a single link from any advertisement on any of the sites surveyed managed to clear that bar in the nine months the survey was running. This reinforces how little mainstream media sites can rely on advertising, and helps explain why so many are experimenting with paywalls and signing up for Apple’s (s aapl) iPad subscription plans (which Conde Nast and Hearst have just embraced).

One of the results that stood out from the survey for me, however, was the number of repeat visits and time spent by visitors for some of the main sites that Pew looked at. In some cases, the leading news sites are only getting one or two repeat visits a month — and remember these are daily news sites that should theoretically be attracting people multiple days a week, if not multiple times a day. The Pew Center admitted there is controversy over how unique visitors and repeat visits are counted, but those are still extremely low numbers by any measure.

That’s a serious issue for publishers, because it means they are failing to capture much of the attention of their users — and attention is the new currency of media online. For younger visitors, much of that online attention and time is likely being spent elsewhere, including Facebook, and that’s a growing risk for all media entities.

Post and thumbnail photos courtesy of Flickr user Stefan Le Du

21 Responses to “For News Sites, Google Is the Past and Facebook Is the Future”

  1. I believe Facebook is long way to go to overtake Google as news site. Most of people login to facebook to socialize, chit chat, etc. There are two totally different market. I feel weird to read news on Facebook compared to other news sites.

  2. Robespierre

    It all comes down to trust. And maybe perception of trust. I am very wary of any and all links I see posted on Facebook. They are just Web links without ancillary information. You can so easily be led down the garden path to invasive websites, identity theft, viruses, etc. I trust Google’s results much more, and can often tell if a site is wonky by the way it lists. Google’s search features get me where I want to go fast. Facebook is way overrated, but all the folks who think they are on the leading edge of technology adoption are gaga over it. (Twitter, too. I only use Twitter for DM crisis communications.)

    Like Betty White said about Facebook, or thereabouts, “What a tremendous waste of time!”

  3. Your article is 100% true and relevant but I’m wondering…how much from the online newspaper’s traffic comes from news aggregators? I mean Topix aggregates, aggregates, therefore sending traffic towards the big news websites.

    I know that is only a small percentage, but it would be interesting to see the actual number.

  4. Very interesting. Another take-away here – Twitter would be smart to devise a platform-wide solution to the measurability problem of links posted in it (when looking at the platform level, not the individual link level, of course). This is only a small example how the lack of measurability is a problem for them.

  5. Highly misleading title. Deliberately designed to suck in readers. What is the difference between tabloids with sensationalistic headlines and Gigaom?

  6. Kuhan

    Sites like longreads and givemesomething to read is the new way in which users can seek long from news content. Prior to this I had no exposure to newyorker, newyork magazine, atlantic monthly and vanity fair. With this service I have become loyal to these magazine publications and I am considering subscribing to these publication once I decide upon an effective tablet reader device.

  7. Peter

    The only difference between Google News and HuffPo is CSS. If Google would stop letting Engineers run departments, they might learn how to build a usable service from UX/UI experts, but they are too vain.

  8. It was quite sad to read today this morning that Google has to end that part of it’s online news service. But, they are rebounding in their online technology game, by diversifying into online music distribution. Can you say $ gUaP $ over top of long $ gUaPeY $ ? And, can you also say —> Taadow ?! =)

  9. I agree that it is shifting over to facebook but I’m not sure I totally agree that it will become huge. Look at all the big publishers and they are using Facebook alright but they are just using it to push out content and nothing else. The real exciting bit is what is happening on sites themselves as the more or less get taken over by the various strands of Facebook!

  10. Content Tech Guy

    “This reinforces how little mainstream media sites can rely on advertising” is a bit specious.

    Excluding direct response campaigns, clicks have little to do with display ad revenue. Impressions (and ad recall rate) are far more important for the brand-building campaigns on most large websites.

    • It’s true that impressions are important, but more and more advertising is being sold on a pay-per-click or even pay-per-action basis, and the income that media companies can get from pure display continues to decline — that was the point I was getting at. Thanks for the comment though.

      • Content Tech Guy

        Sorry, that’s not correct. Media companies with dedicated sales teams that sell directly to advertisers can earn > $10 per 1,000 display impressions served, compared to 10 cents a click for AdSense, or a bit more retargeted impressions sold via Criteo etc.

        Clicks really don’t factor into monetization for media sites.

  11. Chris

    I find it interesting that I continue to see articles that try to make facebook into some great website. Personally I log onto facebook maybe once a month. I really can’t stand the site. A lot of people I know also seem to be shying away from it. It seems to me that more and more individuals are starting realize that facebook is destructive because it is designed eliminate privacy.

  12. “For News Sites, Google Is the Past and Facebook Is the Future” — This title is a bit misleading. Most people reading the news on the internet are doing so from work and most companies block social sites such as facebook. Google News is still the best way to link to news articles…