I think TV broadcasters going digital are moving along a similar path to the one newspapers were forced to take some 10 years ago. Many of their issues run parallel and hence some lessons and solutions encountered by editors may be useful for broadcasters. Strange as it may seem to many, newspapers have been among the earliest adopters of the Internet and among the most successful in terms of traffic since 40% of web users visit newspaper web sites, according to research by Nielsen Online.
Another media tsunami, 10 years later
To pick one single player, Craig Newmark in 1995 began in San Francisco with an email distribution list of friends. In 1996, he created a web service called Craigslist.org. By 2001, North American newspapers started to feel the destructive effect of Craigslist and the Internet on their powerful franchise of printed classifieds. Almost monopolistic businesses until then, dailies saw the barriers to entry disappear and their business begin to crumble. In 2005, 10 years after Newmark, the founders of YouTube started their journey and when Google acquired the site in 2006, a new era began to take shape: extended, cheaper and ubiquitous broadband was eagerly adopted by a generation that does not feel the fixed broadcasting times and frequent interruption of advertisers are built for them. A destructive tsunami (from the incumbents’ point of view) will deploy its slow motion awe and it will take years to reconstruct a new business model. Many buildings -brands - will cease to exist and new ones will take their place. The wider broadband penetration as well as decisions to turn off analog signals (FCC’s required exactly that in June, 2009) guarantee that this time broadcasters are to follow suit faster, as will their P&L.
History never repeats itself but sometimes it behaves in a spiral, which adds new elements to a déjà vu story. In this case, it matters to study the common patterns as well as the differences as some solutions may be common to both.
Some broadcasters are humbled by editors on their own turf…
I have been surprised by the under developed video experience of some broadcast websites and I am going to say something that may surprise many: some smart print editors offer a better online video experience than larger broadcasting companies. I only mention company names in my blog if it’s for the positive and this time will not be an exception. The Wall Street Journal has developed a video center of high quality. Actually, the project has been largely pushed by the guys from the sales department, since advertisers are keen to use their products. The New York Times or tabloids like The Sun in London have also evolved dramatically. Smaller newspapers like the ones owned by Vocento also offer video experiences largely surpassing equivalent, established TV players. On top of that, most of those newspapers offer extremely well integrated video in their news content offerings. So far, newspapers are being smarter at getting money from the TV players than the other way around. Given that editors were not too successful at scraping money from search, video was a logical way forward. Wooed by the high CPMs they can charge, “News Web sites are starting to look a lot less like newspapers and a lot more like television,” according to The New York Times.
…and most newspapers have more traffic than televisions
I have tracked web traffic on two of the largest TV networks in the U.S. (NBC, ABC) and compared it to newspapers like The New York Times and Wall Street Journal. In reach (% of Internet users who visit them), the newspapers are way ahead (see graph) and the gap doesn’t seem to be narrowing. As expected, the amount of time spent on site by users is very similar. I’d expect the networks to lead in the future, but we’ll have to wait and see.
As regards page views per user, The Times and ABC are on top, which is a positive since it equals to building advertising inventory. In my last comparison, things change in favor of the networks: their bounce rate (percentage of visitors who "bounce" away to a different site and just visit one single page) is lower. When looking at the keywords being typed in a search engine’s box, it’s obvious that the newspapers do not own or have exclusive rights to the news they feature while the networks do, since users write very frequently the name of the series they want to see.
is simplistic comparison indicates that large dailies are leading in traffic but broadcasters have the possibility to reverse the online status quo. They both see their traditional businesses at risk and are beginning to compete for each other’s advertising budget as never before. At the end of the day, one will be the winner. (End of part 1)
You are free to use this article in your publication as long as you credit the author Fernando Samaniego
Comments