Wetpaint CEO Ben Elowitz on the Future of Digital Media
The Top 50 publishers on the web got a little bit more social traffic this month – but social as a proportion of total traffic stayed about the same in August as it was in July.
MTV bucked the trend by adding 2.5 percentage points to their social composition and earning the #2 spot on the Social Leaderboard. Reigning silver medalist People lost the #2 spot by standing still at 10.3% social – they fell to third. CBS held fourth place by adding 1 percentage point, and NFL dropped the ball and backslid into fifth place, dropping 1.4 percentage points in social composition. (More on that below, but in the mean time, let’s blame the replacements.)
Wetpaint Entertainment also went against the grain and added more than 10 percentage points to social composition in August – we’re now getting 45.1% of our traffic from Facebook and Twitter. Notably, that’s more traffic from social than from search.
Lately a number of people have asked me whether we are doing the same thing to earn our traffic as famous social ninja Jonah Peretti’s BuzzFeed. Actually, Wetpaint has a totally different approach to social: BuzzFeed focuses on choosing content that will go viral, while Wetpaint’s platform builds loyal tune-in relationships. But in honor of all the questions, I’ve added BuzzFeed to the charts below. Their social traffic composition backs up their social-savvy reputation and puts most of the Leaderboard publishers to shame.
In terms of social traffic volume, the average publisher was up just slightly (by 40K social visitors) in August. The Huffington Post held steady at the top with 7.6 million visitors from Facebook and Twitter. For the NFL, this chart revealed that while they added a ton of social volume (1.7 million visits, to be exact) and jumped from 14th place to 5th place on this chart, they swelled their other traffic even more. Wetpaint Entertainment muscled into the top 10 and claimed the #8 spot in social volume with 2.5 million social visitors in August – just 10K shy of #7 MTV.
|
MONTHLY RANKINGS |
PUBLISHER |
||||||
|
Aug |
Jul |
Jun |
Name of Publisher (Owner) | URL |
Monthly Uniques |
% from Social |
Change |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
Wetpaint Entertainment | WETPAINT.COM |
4,607,587 |
45.1% |
10.1% |
|
2 |
5 |
3 |
MTV | MTV.COM |
10,330,311 |
11.5% |
2.5% |
|
3 |
2 |
4 |
People | PEOPLE.COM |
12,499,324 |
10.3% |
0.0% |
|
4 |
4 |
10 |
CBS | CBS.COM |
5,522,235 |
10.1% |
0.9% |
|
5 |
3 |
2 |
National Football League | NFL.COM |
13,060,280 |
8.9% |
-1.4% |
|
6 |
7 |
6 |
NBC Universal | NBC.COM |
7,120,273 |
8.3% |
1.0% |
|
7 |
6 |
5 |
TMZ | TMZ.COM |
15,543,992 |
8.1% |
-0.4% |
|
8 |
9 |
12 |
E! Entertainment Television | EONLINE.COM |
8,598,875 |
7.5% |
0.4% |
|
9 |
13 |
13 |
Entertainment Weekly | EW.COM |
6,797,882 |
7.5% |
1.6% |
|
10 |
8 |
7 |
Yahoo! | YAHOO.COM |
150,308,328 |
6.9% |
-0.3% |
|
11 |
11 |
9 |
Patch (Aol) | PATCH.COM |
12,617,302 |
6.7% |
0.2% |
|
12 |
10 |
8 |
Major League Baseball | MLB.COM |
12,784,024 |
6.5% |
-0.3% |
|
13 |
14 |
14 |
TV Guide | TVGUIDE.COM |
6,099,368 |
6.2% |
0.9% |
|
14 |
12 |
11 |
Aol | AOL.COM |
45,469,102 |
5.9% |
-0.3% |
|
15 |
15 |
15 |
IGN (News Corp) | IGN.COM |
9,429,765 |
5.7% |
0.5% |
|
16 |
17 |
21 |
Discovery Channel | DISCOVERY.COM |
10,905,175 |
5.4% |
0.5% |
|
17 |
23 |
19 |
US Weekly | USMAGAZINE.COM |
7,564,454 |
5.3% |
0.8% |
|
18 |
16 |
18 |
FOX News (News Corp) | FOXNEWS.COM |
28,758,692 |
4.9% |
-0.2% |
|
19 |
18 |
16 |
CNN | CNN.COM |
46,485,820 |
4.8% |
-0.1% |
|
20 |
22 |
26 |
National Geographic Society | NATIONALGEOGRAPHIC.COM |
6,194,328 |
4.8% |
0.3% |
|
21 |
21 |
20 |
BBC News | BBC.CO.UK |
15,418,148 |
4.7% |
-0.1% |
|
22 |
19 |
17 |
MSN | MSN.COM |
101,743,722 |
4.5% |
-0.4% |
|
23 |
26 |
22 |
TIME | TIME.COM |
8,588,623 |
4.2% |
0.2% |
|
24 |
24 |
23 |
The Huffington Post (Aol) | HUFFINGTONPOST.COM |
43,785,387 |
4.2% |
0.0% |
|
25 |
25 |
29 |
New York Times | NYTIMES.COM |
27,271,953 |
4.0% |
-0.1% |
|
26 |
20 |
34 |
FORBES | FORBES.COM |
12,918,005 |
3.9% |
-0.9% |
|
27 |
31 |
27 |
The Guardian | GUARDIAN.CO.UK |
10,494,906 |
3.5% |
0.0% |
|
28 |
32 |
31 |
IMDB (Amazon.com) | IMDB.COM |
35,522,764 |
3.5% |
0.0% |
|
29 |
27 |
24 |
Break Media | BREAK.COM |
10,449,419 |
3.5% |
-0.3% |
|
30 |
29 |
28 |
The Washington Post | WASHINGTONPOST.COM |
19,438,145 |
3.3% |
-0.4% |
|
31 |
28 |
32 |
Bleacher Report | BLEACHERREPORT.COM |
14,207,957 |
3.3% |
-0.5% |
|
32 |
33 |
30 |
Nickelodeon (MTV Networks) | NICK.COM |
7,333,226 |
3.0% |
-0.4% |
|
33 |
30 |
33 |
CBS News | CBSNEWS.COM |
13,388,220 |
3.0% |
-0.6% |
|
34 |
34 |
35 |
Los Angeles Times (Tribune) | LATIMES.COM |
17,468,860 |
3.0% |
-0.4% |
|
35 |
35 |
25 |
New York Daily News | NYDAILYNEWS.COM |
13,619,227 |
3.0% |
-0.2% |
|
36 |
40 |
41 |
USA Today (Gannet) | USATODAY.COM |
21,707,729 |
2.7% |
0.6% |
|
37 |
36 |
37 |
Food Network (Scripps) | FOODNETWORK.COM |
14,992,754 |
2.7% |
-0.3% |
|
38 |
37 |
36 |
Cartoon Network (Turner) | CARTOONNETWORK.COM |
7,833,924 |
2.6% |
-0.1% |
|
39 |
38 |
38 |
Wall Street Journal (News Corp) | WSJ.COM |
14,214,336 |
2.3% |
-0.4% |
|
40 |
39 |
40 |
Reuters | REUTERS.COM |
9,709,456 |
2.2% |
-0.2% |
|
41 |
41 |
39 |
FOX Sports (News Corp) | FOXSPORTS.COM |
27,985,259 |
2.0% |
0.0% |
|
42 |
44 |
44 |
Bloomberg | BLOOMBERG.COM |
7,228,157 |
1.8% |
0.1% |
|
43 |
45 |
46 |
Businessweek (Bloomberg) | BUSINESSWEEK.COM |
6,987,697 |
1.8% |
0.1% |
|
44 |
43 |
42 |
WebMD | WEBMD.COM |
22,922,906 |
1.7% |
0.0% |
|
45 |
42 |
43 |
CNET (CBS Interactive) | CNET.COM |
25,140,302 |
1.6% |
-0.2% |
|
46 |
46 |
45 |
everyday Health | EVERYDAYHEALTH.COM |
11,131,136 |
1.2% |
-0.3% |
|
47 |
48 |
48 |
About.com (NY Times) | ABOUT.COM |
59,365,050 |
1.1% |
-0.1% |
|
48 |
47 |
47 |
LIVESTRONG (Demand Media) | LIVESTRONG.COM |
17,494,625 |
1.0% |
-0.1% |
|
49 |
49 |
49 |
ThePostGame (Yahoo) | THEPOSTGAME.COM |
7,923,195 |
0.9% |
-0.1% |
|
50 |
50 |
50 |
Mayo Clinic | MAYOCLINIC.COM |
11,384,511 |
0.8% |
0.0% |
|
51 |
51 |
51 |
eHow (Demand Media) | EHOW.COM |
57,971,459 |
0.6% |
-0.1% |
This article was published in Ben Elowitz’s Media Success newsletter and is republished here for Digital Quarters readers.
In the last few weeks, I’ve had three remarkably coincidental conversations with three different friends in this world of media, all around one theme:
What if, for a moment, we were freed from the urgent decisions of which platforms to support, what pay barriers to erect, and what features to include today – and, in a blissful pause, we could focus instead on the much bigger and harder question: What strategic moves should media companies make to be successful 20 years from now?
It’s a refreshing change in perspective – liberating, even – that comes from setting aside questions of this year’s performance, next year’s planning process, and even the 5-year strategy map. And, for most of us, it’s incredibly telling how rare and different that question is from what we work on every day.
We know that in a 20-year timeframe, digital will be here to stay – and most offline media will be farther down their own curve of attrition. And yet, it’s hard to know which (if any) of today’s vogue digital strategies is one for the long haul.
I’ve taken a pause to see what will endure in a time of overhaul, and here are the themes I see for the next two decades of success in media:
1. The premium created by SCARCITY
Ever since Gutenberg’s printing press broke up the monks’ illuminated manuscript racket, the world of media has been moving in one clearly irreversible direction: from scarcity to abundance. And over the last ten years, the pace of change has accelerated. The article, the photo, and even the video are undergoing a transformation: these pieces of content used to be highly valuable, but now many if not most are worth just the few pennies that monetize a view. Publishers who focus on low-cost, commodity content do fine at earning traffic. But they haven’t proven valuable, because they don’t have a product that builds a meaningful and sustainable business. Abundance is the number one threat to the long-term success of any media company. An enduring company needs a product that is scarce.
2. The impact of EXPERIENCES
Today, it takes more than words and pictures to delight an audience: it takes motion, sound, and, above all, an emotional connection. Content is a part of this emotional connection, sure, but so is the mood and the setting and the medium. Am I checking a phone on the go? Sitting back on the couch with an iPad? Taking a quick browsing break at the office? In a world of infinite content, brands that provide the best experience in every context are the ones we’ll keep coming back to. Richard Branson’s Virgin continually redefines experiences that others take for granted. Changing lighting, music, upholstery, and safety videos on a plane may not seem revolutionary – but in a sea of commodity experiences, it earns massive loyalty. Standout experiences lead to standout success.
3. The relationship of BRANDS
If you’ve ever had your brain imaged with an MRI exam, you know that there is no brain center dedicated to corporations. And yet there are zillions of nerves that light up for relationships: relationships with people, relationships with the familiar, and yes – relationships with brands. Brands occupy a surprising crossover space between companies and real people: we know they’re not people, but we respond to them as if they were. That’s why your brand is the most valuable, irreproducible asset you have. In 20 years, there will be hundreds of times more content out there, but our brains will only have room for about the same number of brands – and more than ever we’ll rely on trusted brands to break through the noise and tell us what’s important. Disney and the NFL command some of the most amazing premium pricing in the world, not to mention licensed revenue streams, because their brands mean so much to the consumer. They stand for a feeling, a lifestyle, an experience. What does your brand stand for?
4. The irreproducibility of TALENT
In the words of Steve Jobs, “technology is not enough.” As technology becomes less of a differentiator, the competition will increasingly be won (or lost) on talent. Billy Beane (of Moneyball fame) earned the Oakland A’s a record-breaking winning streak with a cutting edge analytical strategy. But what was the point of the strategy? To acquire better talent. Ed Catmull pioneered a golden age of animation using Pixar’s advanced computer graphics, but his flair for creative storytelling is what kept them ahead. Anna Wintour took a stagnating fashion publication and transformed it into the industry standard with her inimitable eye. Might Marissa Mayer do the same for Yahoo? I’m bullish: Extraordinary talent makes ordinary things stop happening – and makes visionary things happen instead.
5. The climax of LIVE EVENTS
Live events like the Super Bowl and the Oscars stand out in today’s media landscape – you can’t have them at your leisure, they take place at a single place and point in time, and if you want to fully be part of them, you need to be there in person (and pay a ticket price a hundred times greater than what you’d pay for a recording). With the value of content rapidly declining, brands and publishers ought to take a cue from the music industry and start thinking about how to go from Memorex to live. Pearl Jam used to play concerts to promote album sales – today they distribute songs to promote the tour. Media companies that understand the power of “now” and can convene real people in real places will unlock huge value.
6. The compounding power of CONTENT and DISTRIBUTION
Content companies need to become distribution companies. This idea is not a new one – Time Inc. and Meredith have been direct marketing powerhouses for years – but many content-creating companies still have their soul in editorial. Distribution has been massively transformed over the last 20 years, and the pace of change is only going to accelerate as consumers spend more and more of their time on social and mobile. Media companies have no choice but to become masters of distribution.
7. The criticality of INNOVATION
Not all changes are good for incumbents. But every change does, inarguably, create new opportunities. New opportunities are good for innovators, and startups aren’t the only ones who can play that game. The big companies that live to see the light 20 years from today will be the ones that never settled for the 5-year plan and instead fought hard and took risks to drive a wave of innovation. Failure is not an option: Any media company that doesn’t innovate will simply not be around to reflect on how it went.
8. The depreciation of ADVERTISING
Most existing modes of advertising will devalue over the next 20 years, as where there was once a scarcity of ways for advertisers to reach consumers, now there is abundance. Combine that with increasingly efficient ad spend made possible by Google’s PPC, the growth of retargeting, and increasing targetability and these trends all threaten the premium that top publishers and broadcasters have enjoyed for the last 50 years. What’s to be done? Create new modes of advertising that are worth more, not less. Take a cue from AOL’s Project Devil and create proprietary and native ad formats. And even more importantly, get ready for a new era of relationship marketing on the social networks.
9. The ability for CONSUMERS TO PAY
While new formats will bolster declining advertising revenues somewhat, consumer spend will step up to become the most important driver of revenue for content companies. In 20 years, consumer expectations dictate that content will be available anywhere, anytime, and at a bite-size price. And as the friction of payments gets reduced, payment frequency is guaranteed to increase. That’s why more than paywalls, in 20 years, it will all be about the velvet rope: people will pay for premium access and experiences from their favorite brands. Whether in bundles or per use, the consumer revenue stream will take on increased importance for most media companies.
10. There is nothing as unique as PERSONALITY
Back to that MRI, what makes the biggest impression on our psychology? Real people. No matter what else changes in media, the progression of incredibly valuable personalities will not. Over the last 20 years, we’ve seen Seinfeld, Tiger, Oprah, Ellen, Britney, Bieber, and Gaga capture the public imagination and rake in billions of dollars. The smartest media owners today are investing in the personalities that will garner huge audiences over the next 20 years. If an infusion of personality can make a pig cease to be a filthy animal (according to Samuel L), it can most certainly transform a media company.
11. The necessity of mastering ADAPTATION
If one thing is clear, it’s that over the next 20 years, the shortest distance from A to B is going to be anything but a straight line. To survive, much less to thrive, will require being both clever and smart. Clever means a willingness to try new things – be scrappy and make bold bets, even if they may not pay off. Smart means keeping your eyes on the year-2032 prize – be ready to cut off the experiments that aren’t working, and cultivate your willingness to let go of the legacy as the time comes.
Put it all together…
We are decidedly not all on a level playing field. Some top media executives have inherited a legacy and little beyond that; while others have an empire set to endure. Who has it best? The NFL runs one of the most robust media businesses in recent memory, one that deftly weathered even the economic storms of the last few decades that soaked the rest of us. The NFL media empire has flourished largely because they’ve been able to combine all of these elements: brands, talent, experiences, live events, scarcity, hefty consumer payments, and very big personalities (thank you, Ochocinco). If we can all take a page from their playbook, we can still be in the game 20 years from now.
Facebook has maintained its squeeze on sending traffic out to web publishers for another month.
The average publisher on the Social Leaderboard lost 0.1 percentage points in social composition from May to June. The most social publishers fared the worst, with the top ten losing an average of 0.6 percentage points month-over-month.
Even after losing 1.5 percentage points since May, Wetpaint Entertainment held the top spot on the Social Leaderboard with almost 30% of traffic coming from Facebook and Twitter. The #2 spot was taken by NFL, which climbed three spots on the leaderboard and drew 12% of total traffic from social channels in June. After holding second place for two months, People fell to 4th place, and MTV held steady at 3rd.
Each month, we measure social traffic two ways: by composition (percent of traffic from social); and by total volume (number of social visits). In June, volumes also saw a slight decline. Wetpaint fared better than most, adding 100,000 visitors in June and becoming the 11th most social publisher by volume (not counting portals) with 1.4 million social visits. The Huffington Post still holds the top spot in the volume ranking, with 6.5 million social visitors in June.
While Facebook traffic to publishers was down this month, Google traffic was down even more. This could be a turning point – the gap between Google’s and Facebook’s traffic contributions to publishers has been widening in Google’s favor since March, but the June results show a reversal of the trend. Will Facebook finally close the gap and officially become a more important traffic source for publishers than Google? Check back next month to see if the trend continues.
|
MONTHLY RANKINGS |
|
||||||
|
Jun |
May |
Apr |
Name of Publisher (Owner) | URL |
Monthly Uniques |
% from Social |
Change |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
Wetpaint Entertainment | WETPAINT.COM |
4,172,874 |
29.3% |
-1.5% |
|
2 |
5 |
5 |
National Football League | NFL.COM |
4,005,954 |
12.0% |
1.6% |
|
3 |
3 |
4 |
MTV | MTV.COM |
10,314,480 |
10.8% |
-0.1% |
|
4 |
2 |
2 |
People | PEOPLE.COM |
12,424,002 |
10.5% |
-1.0% |
|
5 |
7 |
9 |
TMZ | TMZ.COM |
11,485,750 |
8.7% |
0.1% |
|
6 |
4 |
3 |
NBC Universal | NBC.COM |
5,210,665 |
8.5% |
-2.0% |
|
7 |
8 |
10 |
Yahoo! | YAHOO.COM |
155,141,946 |
7.3% |
0.1% |
|
8 |
10 |
11 |
Major League Baseball | MLB.COM |
14,857,814 |
6.8% |
0.1% |
|
9 |
9 |
8 |
Patch (Aol) | PATCH.COM |
11,178,542 |
6.7% |
-0.4% |
|
10 |
6 |
7 |
CBS | CBS.COM |
5,130,686 |
6.2% |
-2.7% |
|
11 |
11 |
12 |
Aol | AOL.COM |
48,274,409 |
6.2% |
0.0% |
|
12 |
28 |
31 |
E! Entertainment Television | EONLINE.COM |
6,036,527 |
5.8% |
2.1% |
|
13 |
15 |
16 |
Entertainment Weekly | EW.COM |
5,648,180 |
5.5% |
0.3% |
|
14 |
14 |
19 |
TV Guide | TVGUIDE.COM |
5,701,617 |
5.3% |
0.0% |
|
15 |
16 |
17 |
IGN (News Corp) | IGN.COM |
8,385,741 |
5.3% |
0.1% |
|
16 |
19 |
21 |
CNN | CNN.COM |
42,355,439 |
4.9% |
0.1% |
|
17 |
18 |
22 |
MSN | MSN.COM |
93,297,562 |
4.9% |
0.0% |
|
18 |
20 |
20 |
FOX News (News Corp) | FOXNEWS.COM |
25,048,343 |
4.8% |
0.0% |
|
19 |
17 |
18 |
US Weekly | USMAGAZINE.COM |
6,349,666 |
4.7% |
-0.3% |
|
20 |
23 |
23 |
BBC News | BBC.CO.UK |
12,572,110 |
4.5% |
0.3% |
|
21 |
13 |
15 |
Discovery Channel | DISCOVERY.COM |
9,501,796 |
4.5% |
-1.0% |
|
22 |
21 |
13 |
TIME | TIME.COM |
6,980,029 |
4.3% |
-0.1% |
|
23 |
22 |
27 |
The Huffington Post (Aol) | HUFFINGTONPOST.COM |
38,557,478 |
4.1% |
-0.2% |
|
24 |
12 |
14 |
Break Media | BREAK.COM |
8,666,861 |
3.9% |
-2.0% |
|
25 |
29 |
29 |
New York Daily News | NYDAILYNEWS.COM |
10,818,073 |
3.7% |
0.0% |
|
26 |
24 |
26 |
National Geographic Society | NATIONALGEOGRAPHIC.COM |
5,410,317 |
3.7% |
-0.3% |
|
27 |
35 |
6 |
The Guardian | GUARDIAN.CO.UK |
8,035,982 |
3.7% |
0.7% |
|
28 |
25 |
24 |
The Washington Post | WASHINGTONPOST.COM |
16,253,595 |
3.7% |
-0.3% |
|
29 |
26 |
25 |
New York Times | NYTIMES.COM |
25,415,028 |
3.7% |
-0.3% |
|
30 |
33 |
33 |
Nickelodeon (MTV Networks) | NICK.COM |
10,489,580 |
3.6% |
0.4% |
|
31 |
31 |
30 |
IMDB (Amazon.com) | IMDB.COM |
34,449,740 |
3.5% |
0.3% |
|
32 |
32 |
36 |
Bleacher Report | BLEACHERREPORT.COM |
10,126,821 |
3.4% |
0.2% |
|
33 |
27 |
28 |
CBS News | CBSNEWS.COM |
10,775,680 |
3.3% |
-0.5% |
|
34 |
30 |
32 |
FORBES | FORBES.COM |
11,733,587 |
3.3% |
-0.1% |
|
35 |
38 |
35 |
Los Angeles Times (Tribune) | LATIMES.COM |
14,005,725 |
3.2% |
0.5% |
|
36 |
36 |
38 |
Cartoon Network (Turner) | CARTOONNETWORK.COM |
9,270,980 |
3.0% |
0.1% |
|
37 |
34 |
34 |
Food Network (Scripps) | FOODNETWORK.COM |
13,629,536 |
2.6% |
-0.4% |
|
38 |
37 |
37 |
Wall Street Journal (News Corp) | WSJ.COM |
12,259,307 |
2.5% |
-0.2% |
|
39 |
41 |
40 |
FOX Sports (News Corp) | FOXSPORTS.COM |
17,869,805 |
2.0% |
0.0% |
|
40 |
40 |
39 |
Reuters | REUTERS.COM |
10,285,882 |
2.0% |
0.0% |
|
41 |
39 |
41 |
USA Today (Gannet) | USATODAY.COM |
16,604,354 |
2.0% |
0.0% |
|
42 |
42 |
43 |
WebMD | WEBMD.COM |
14,952,061 |
1.8% |
0.0% |
|
43 |
43 |
42 |
CNET (CBS Interactive) | CNET.COM |
22,956,989 |
1.8% |
0.0% |
|
44 |
44 |
44 |
Bloomberg | BLOOMBERG.COM |
6,373,252 |
1.7% |
0.0% |
|
45 |
46 |
45 |
everyday Health | EVERYDAYHEALTH.COM |
9,426,117 |
1.6% |
0.0% |
|
46 |
45 |
46 |
Businessweek (Bloomberg) | BUSINESSWEEK.COM |
6,490,385 |
1.6% |
-0.1% |
|
47 |
48 |
49 |
LIVESTRONG (Demand Media) | LIVESTRONG.COM |
14,265,338 |
1.2% |
0.1% |
|
48 |
49 |
48 |
About.com (NY Times) | ABOUT.COM |
51,103,478 |
1.1% |
0.1% |
|
49 |
47 |
47 |
ThePostGame (Yahoo) | THEPOSTGAME.COM |
7,594,651 |
1.1% |
0.0% |
|
50 |
50 |
50 |
Mayo Clinic | MAYOCLINIC.COM |
10,112,971 |
0.9% |
0.0% |
|
51 |
51 |
51 |
eHow (Demand Media) | EHOW.COM |
50,306,160 |
0.8% |
0.1% |
Social Leaderboard Results for May: Traffic Is Down Across the Board
Facebook threw publishers a curve ball in April: an algorithm change combined with a pullback in social reader promotion. And it had a big impact, causing the top 50 web publishers to lose more than 10% of their social traffic in just one month. The May Social Leaderboard shows that they still haven’t recovered: the average publisher’s social traffic was flat in May, matching April’s dip.
The dramatic drop in traffic set off alarms with some social publishing pioneers – the Social Reader had been the one bright spot on an otherwise dark and winding path into digital media. Is the honeymoon over?
Publishers who embraced Social Readers have every right to feel like Facebook’s scorned lovers right now. Facebook seemed to have pulled the plug, right when the relationship was blossoming. But through the tears, might this actually be good for the relationship? In the long term, what’s in the best interest of publishers is also in the best interest of Facebook: if users are being served the right content at the right time in the right way and clicking through at a high rate, everybody is happy.
Facebook, it seems, has decided it needs some space. Before they fully commit, they’re sowing their wild oats by experimenting with user experience, testing and tuning. This experimentation happened to take the publisher-friendly form of heavy Social Reader promotion over several previous months – but now they have turned the dial back.
Presumably, Facebook is dialing back social reader promotion to figure out how much friction is right for sharing. Frictionless sharing may be part of our future, but accidental over-sharing could undermine the present. Imagine the scenario: I unwittingly broadcast “Ben is reading Home Hair Removal for Men,” and the phone rings: It’s my mother with her assuredly well-intentioned advice. And yet, how mortifying. Who could blame me for deleting my account forever?
More tuning will bring about the right controls to manage private activity. Ultimately, those controls will support more sharing. At that point, the lead-out dial on Facebook’s dashboard will likely be turned back up, and we can all start planning our second honeymoon.
As for the top publishers this month, nobody on the Leaderboard made great strides in social traffic, but a few publishers kept their heads above water better than others. MTV gained 2 percentage points in social traffic composition, bringing them up to 10.9% social and making them the third most social web publisher. People held onto the #2 spot on the board by holding steady at 11.5%. NFL and TMZ were the only other publishers to improve their social composition this month, each gaining 1 percentage point.
Wetpaint Entertainment had a cushioned lead – we lost 7 percentage points of social composition from April to May, making us the most hard-hit publisher by the Facebook changes, even while holding on to the lead. While my company is still the leader on percentage terms, total volume tells a different story, as the benchmark data shows we slid seven spots (to #14) in that ranking.
|
MONTHLY RANKINGS |
|||||||
|
May |
Apr |
Mar |
Publisher | URL |
Monthly Uniques |
% from Social |
Change |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
Wetpaint Entertainment | WETPAINT.COM |
4,012,641 |
30.8% |
-7.3% |
|
2 |
2 |
3 |
People | PEOPLE.COM |
12,174,195 |
11.5% |
0.1% |
|
3 |
4 |
8 |
MTV | MTV.COM |
9,674,892 |
10.9% |
1.9% |
|
4 |
3 |
2 |
NBC Universal | NBC.COM |
7,964,950 |
10.5% |
0.4% |
|
5 |
5 |
5 |
National Football League | NFL.COM |
4,821,558 |
10.4% |
1.4% |
|
6 |
7 |
4 |
CBS | CBS.COM |
7,190,888 |
8.9% |
0.1% |
|
7 |
9 |
9 |
TMZ | TMZ.COM |
12,288,156 |
8.6% |
0.9% |
|
8 |
10 |
15 |
Yahoo! | YAHOO.COM |
154,820,184 |
7.2% |
-0.2% |
|
9 |
8 |
12 |
Patch (Aol) | PATCH.COM |
11,746,588 |
7.1% |
-0.6% |
|
10 |
11 |
10 |
Major League Baseball | MLB.COM |
14,100,489 |
6.7% |
-0.2% |
|
11 |
12 |
17 |
Aol | AOL.COM |
46,798,608 |
6.2% |
-0.1% |
|
12 |
14 |
7 |
Break Media | BREAK.COM |
7,987,804 |
5.9% |
-0.1% |
|
13 |
15 |
13 |
Discovery Channel | DISCOVERY.COM |
11,213,913 |
5.5% |
-0.2% |
|
14 |
19 |
18 |
TV Guide | TVGUIDE.COM |
6,077,003 |
5.4% |
0.2% |
|
15 |
16 |
11 |
Entertainment Weekly | EW.COM |
7,348,060 |
5.2% |
-0.4% |
|
16 |
17 |
16 |
IGN (News Corp) | IGN.COM |
8,612,512 |
5.2% |
0.0% |
|
17 |
18 |
6 |
US Weekly | USMAGAZINE.COM |
6,873,880 |
5.0% |
-0.2% |
|
18 |
22 |
26 |
MSN | MSN.COM |
95,931,716 |
4.9% |
0.0% |
|
19 |
21 |
21 |
CNN | CNN.COM |
42,308,122 |
4.9% |
-0.1% |
|
20 |
20 |
22 |
FOX News (News Corp) | FOXNEWS.COM |
24,392,403 |
4.8% |
-0.2% |
|
21 |
13 |
19 |
TIME | TIME.COM |
8,870,094 |
4.4% |
-1.8% |
|
22 |
27 |
31 |
The Huffington Post (Aol) | HUFFINGTONPOST.COM |
39,361,623 |
4.3% |
0.4% |
|
23 |
23 |
23 |
BBC News | BBC.CO.UK |
14,030,015 |
4.2% |
-0.4% |
|
24 |
26 |
20 |
National Geographic Society | NATIONALGEOGRAPHIC.COM |
8,096,974 |
4.0% |
0.0% |
|
25 |
24 |
24 |
The Washington Post | WASHINGTONPOST.COM |
16,415,782 |
4.0% |
-0.4% |
|
26 |
25 |
27 |
New York Times | NYTIMES.COM |
28,401,893 |
3.9% |
-0.3% |
|
27 |
28 |
25 |
CBS News | CBSNEWS.COM |
11,668,152 |
3.9% |
0.0% |
|
28 |
31 |
35 |
E! Entertainment Television | EONLINE.COM |
6,905,095 |
3.7% |
0.3% |
|
29 |
29 |
30 |
New York Daily News | NYDAILYNEWS.COM |
10,059,573 |
3.7% |
0.0% |
|
30 |
32 |
28 |
FORBES | FORBES.COM |
12,413,284 |
3.4% |
0.1% |
|
31 |
30 |
33 |
IMDB (Amazon.com) | IMDB.COM |
34,981,883 |
3.3% |
-0.2% |
|
32 |
36 |
32 |
Bleacher Report | BLEACHERREPORT.COM |
9,248,603 |
3.2% |
0.2% |
|
33 |
33 |
29 |
Nickelodeon (MTV Networks) | NICK.COM |
8,960,646 |
3.2% |
0.0% |
|
34 |
34 |
38 |
Food Network (Scripps) | FOODNETWORK.COM |
13,652,316 |
3.0% |
-0.1% |
|
35 |
6 |
14 |
The Guardian | GUARDIAN.CO.UK |
8,481,112 |
3.0% |
-5.9% |
|
36 |
38 |
40 |
Cartoon Network (Turner) | CARTOONNETWORK.COM |
8,035,517 |
2.8% |
0.0% |
|
37 |
37 |
39 |
Wall Street Journal (News Corp) | WSJ.COM |
12,792,880 |
2.7% |
-0.2% |
|
38 |
35 |
34 |
Los Angeles Times (Tribune) | LATIMES.COM |
15,064,947 |
2.7% |
-0.3% |
|
39 |
41 |
42 |
USA Today (Gannet) | USATODAY.COM |
17,570,870 |
2.0% |
0.0% |
|
40 |
39 |
41 |
Reuters | REUTERS.COM |
8,928,289 |
2.0% |
-0.4% |
|
41 |
40 |
36 |
FOX Sports (News Corp) | FOXSPORTS.COM |
19,207,713 |
2.0% |
-0.1% |
|
42 |
43 |
46 |
WebMD | WEBMD.COM |
14,441,556 |
1.8% |
0.0% |
|
43 |
42 |
37 |
CNET (CBS Interactive) | CNET.COM |
22,672,657 |
1.8% |
-0.2% |
|
44 |
44 |
45 |
Bloomberg | BLOOMBERG.COM |
7,351,621 |
1.7% |
0.0% |
|
45 |
46 |
43 |
Businessweek (Bloomberg) | BUSINESSWEEK.COM |
6,256,325 |
1.7% |
0.3% |
|
46 |
45 |
44 |
everyday Health | EVERYDAYHEALTH.COM |
9,883,208 |
1.6% |
0.1% |
|
47 |
47 |
47 |
ThePostGame (Yahoo) | THEPOSTGAME.COM |
10,242,755 |
1.1% |
-0.1% |
|
48 |
49 |
48 |
LIVESTRONG (Demand Media) | LIVESTRONG.COM |
14,378,579 |
1.1% |
0.0% |
|
49 |
48 |
49 |
About.com (NY Times) | ABOUT.COM |
57,358,285 |
1.1% |
-0.1% |
|
50 |
50 |
51 |
Mayo Clinic | MAYOCLINIC.COM |
10,746,954 |
0.8% |
0.0% |
|
51 |
51 |
50 |
eHow (Demand Media) | EHOW.COM |
54,128,475 |
0.7% |
0.0% |
The publishers included in the Media Industry Social Leaderboard are the top 50, as ranked by comScore-reported uniques, whose primary business is web publishing. Once they are selected, data from Compete.com is used to estimate the amount of traffic referred to each by Facebook and Twitter.
This article was published as a guest post at Business Insider, and is republished here for Digital Quarters readers.
(image via Steven Leary)
We spend more time on Facebook than anywhere else on the web. Out of every seven minutes online, one of those minutes is spent on Facebook. Second place Google captures only one in ten – and that’s including YouTube!
But you wouldn’t know it from looking at the way advertisers allocate their money. Globally, advertisers spent $36 billion with Google in 2011. They threw $4 billion at Yahoo (which captures 8% of our web time). But for Facebook? $3 billion and change.
Facebook garners only 4% of internet advertising spend when they’re capturing 14% of our online attention. And the discrepancy deepens when we look at online and offline combined: because advertisers haven’t shifted money to digital as quickly as we’ve shifted our attention, Facebook gets shortchanged even more (by 7x, to be exact) in the big picture.
What would Facebook revenues look like if brands matched ad spending to consumer attention?
(For context: the entire US magazine industry brings in advertising revenues of $18 billion.)
The revenues in the chart above hypothecate only that Facebook gets “back to even” with other forms of advertising. But Facebook has an asset no other brand advertising vehicle has: a treasure trove of targeting data. Facebook’s greatest business opportunity is to use that targeting data to sell relationships, not impressions. And if it can do that, then it may be able to achieve even more than “average” pricing. And it could deserve it – if it can offer relationships with consumers that are worth exponentially more than a magazine spread or a keyword ad on Google.
Larry Page, are you sweating yet?