Wetpaint CEO Ben Elowitz on the Future of Digital Media
Regular readers know that it’s only a matter of months before social becomes the most valuable source of traffic for most publishers.
And this month’s Media Industry Social Leaderboard is sure to make you even more convinced. So let me get straight to it: From November to December, the amount of traffic the top 50* publishers received from social grew by a whopping 17%.
And, when it comes to who is best benefiting from social, let’s just say I’m personally very proud to announce the new leader, which, for the sake of modesty, I’ll do lower down the page.
As noted previously, the major changes Facebook announced at September’s f8 event caused a significant blunt in traffic to publishers last fall. Well, the hangover has ended. With 385 million aggregate visits to the top 50 publishers in December, volumes have recovered to pre-f8 levels.
The average top 50 publisher is now receiving almost 8 million visits per month from Facebook and Twitter. And in December, 48 of the top 50 publishers saw increased social traffic levels over November, with these publishers averaging a 2.1 percentage point increase in their composition.
At the same time, Twitter has grown in its contribution to the traffic pie, increasing over the course of the fall months from 2.2% of total in September to 3.4% in December.

As you know from my prior columns, one of the reasons I’ve published this leaderboard is because we set a goal for Wetpaint to reach #1. What I didn’t tell you previously is the timing: our goal was to do so by the end of 2011. And there is nothing we get more proud of here at Wetpaint than meeting our goals.
In December, Wetpaint Entertainment social traffic benchmarked at 20.8% of visits, even as our total traffic was at near-record levels. (Our internal numbers show an even higher contribution.) This outranks all of the top 50 web publishers, besting the number-two by nearly five points.
Allow me a moment to kvell: I could not be more proud of the entire Wetpaint team who have achieved this goal. Beyond the amazing results, they have built an amazing social distribution system and playbook that leads the industry. With the virtuous cycle the team has built, we are getting significantly better every month.
How did the other leaders from prior months do? People, the previous leader, improved with 16.1% of traffic from social, increasing by 3.9 percentage points even as it fell to the #2 position.
In third place now, US Magazine vaulted all the way up from position 19, improving from an average 3.9% to achieve 14.3% of their traffic from social. If you have any idea what drove their results, let me know.
As for places #4 and #5, CBS and NBC traded their two slots, with NBC gaining by 4.2 percentage points while CBS gained by only 3.5 points. And all of that activity pushed MTV down to #6, gaining far slower than the others. All the details are, as usual, in the table below.
Publishers are clearly benefiting as Facebook delivers on its potential to be not just a network but a social operating system for the internet. In December, we saw the best increases go to the most social publishers (top 10 on this leaderboard), who saw a 4.5 percentage point increase in social traffic composition month to month.
Innovation is attracting large audiences on Facebook. In particular, the four publishers driving traffic via social readers have increased their share of Facebook traffic to the Top 50 web publishers by 70%. Yahoo (not included in the 4 just described) has also begun experimenting with social reader tools across select sites and is seeing strong early results as well. In just two months, Yahoo! News US has reportedly seen a 300% increase in Facebook traffic, driven by 1 million “reads” shared daily.
We are clearly in the land grab phase on the social web. Those who are investing early in social as a top objective stand to gain the most – while others may be left behind.
But as my discussions with other media companies show, social is not a simple check-box initiative. It requires complete buy-in from the CEO to transform the organization with social distribution technology and expertise.
It can be done, as our own experience at Wetpaint as shown: In less than two years, we have launched a new property and already outranked all of the top 50 publishers on the web. Now we want more. And I hope you do too.
Details for all 50 top publishers:
|
MONTHLY RANKINGS |
PUBLISHER |
|
|
||||
|
Dec |
Nov |
Oct |
Name of Publisher (Owner) |
URL |
Monthly Uniques |
% from Social |
Change |
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
Wetpaint Entertainment |
WETPAINT.COM |
3,076,202 |
20.8% |
10.1% |
|
2 |
1 |
1 |
People |
PEOPLE.COM |
13,203,882 |
16.1% |
3.9% |
|
3 |
21 |
19 |
US Weekly |
USMAGAZINE.COM |
9,339,801 |
14.3% |
10.4% |
|
4 |
5 |
5 |
NBC Universal |
NBC.COM |
6,972,501 |
12.3% |
4.2% |
|
5 |
4 |
4 |
CBS |
CBS.COM |
7,367,642 |
11.7% |
3.5% |
|
6 |
3 |
2 |
MTV |
MTV.COM |
9,920,294 |
10.7% |
2.1% |
|
7 |
6 |
7 |
TMZ |
TMZ.COM |
13,208,667 |
9.6% |
2.2% |
|
8 |
13 |
16 |
Break Media |
BREAK.COM |
8,603,649 |
9.4% |
4.2% |
|
9 |
8 |
6 |
Major League Baseball |
MLB.COM |
6,653,288 |
9.3% |
2.3% |
|
10 |
9 |
11 |
Patch (Aol) |
PATCH.COM |
9,917,563 |
8.7% |
2.2% |
|
11 |
14 |
12 |
Discovery Channel |
DISCOVERY.COM |
12,769,340 |
8.5% |
3.4% |
|
12 |
7 |
9 |
Yahoo! |
YAHOO.COM |
167,257,797 |
7.6% |
0.5% |
|
13 |
10 |
10 |
Aol |
AOL.COM |
50,093,953 |
7.4% |
1.1% |
|
14 |
15 |
15 |
CNN |
CNN.COM |
45,650,334 |
7.1% |
2.1% |
|
15 |
12 |
13 |
IGN (News Corp) |
IGN.COM |
10,263,828 |
6.7% |
1.4% |
|
16 |
23 |
25 |
MailOnline |
DAILYMAIL.CO.UK |
16,656,093 |
6.4% |
2.8% |
|
17 |
25 |
22 |
TIME |
TIME.COM |
9,256,468 |
6.3% |
2.7% |
|
18 |
16 |
14 |
TV Guide |
TVGUIDE.COM |
7,546,763 |
6.0% |
1.3% |
|
19 |
11 |
8 |
The Guardian |
GUARDIAN.CO.UK |
8,495,543 |
6.0% |
0.0% |
|
20 |
19 |
18 |
FOX News (News Corp) |
FOXNEWS.COM |
24,444,163 |
5.9% |
1.3% |
|
21 |
29 |
23 |
CBS News |
CBSNEWS.COM |
12,064,240 |
5.7% |
2.6% |
|
22 |
24 |
26 |
CBS Local |
CBSLOCAL.COM |
9,574,168 |
5.7% |
2.1% |
|
23 |
20 |
27 |
The Washington Post |
WASHINGTONPOST.COM |
18,671,039 |
5.5% |
1.4% |
|
24 |
18 |
17 |
MSN |
MSN.COM |
111,990,691 |
5.3% |
0.7% |
|
25 |
30 |
32 |
New York Daily News |
NYDAILYNEWS.COM |
9,585,617 |
5.1% |
2.1% |
|
26 |
17 |
20 |
BBC News |
BBC.CO.UK |
14,480,236 |
5.1% |
0.4% |
|
27 |
41 |
36 |
FORBES |
FORBES.COM |
12,232,929 |
5.0% |
3.0% |
|
28 |
26 |
31 |
The Huffington Post (Aol) |
HUFFINGTONPOST.COM |
36,196,784 |
5.0% |
1.6% |
|
29 |
31 |
28 |
New York Post |
NYPOST.COM |
8,085,270 |
4.8% |
1.8% |
|
30 |
37 |
41 |
Bleacher Report |
BLEACHERREPORT.COM |
9,178,003 |
4.7% |
2.4% |
|
31 |
22 |
21 |
New York Times |
NYTIMES.COM |
30,575,839 |
4.6% |
0.8% |
|
32 |
34 |
29 |
Cartoon Network (Turner) |
CARTOONNETWORK.COM |
10,600,092 |
4.5% |
1.7% |
|
33 |
33 |
30 |
Nickelodeon (MTV Networks) |
NICK.COM |
9,752,977 |
4.5% |
1.5% |
|
34 |
27 |
24 |
IMDB (Amazon.com) |
IMDB.COM |
38,220,405 |
4.3% |
0.9% |
|
35 |
32 |
35 |
Los Angeles Times (Tribune) |
LATIMES.COM |
17,080,642 |
4.2% |
1.2% |
|
36 |
40 |
39 |
FOX Sports (News Corp) |
FOXSPORTS.COM |
22,401,409 |
4.2% |
2.0% |
|
37 |
36 |
34 |
Food Network (Scripps) |
FOODNETWORK.COM |
19,614,352 |
3.8% |
1.2% |
|
38 |
39 |
37 |
Wall Street Journal (News Corp) |
WSJ.COM |
12,521,560 |
3.6% |
1.4% |
|
39 |
35 |
33 |
Allrecipes (Readers Digest) |
ALLRECIPES.COM |
25,288,480 |
3.5% |
0.8% |
|
40 |
45 |
42 |
CNET (CBS Interactive) |
CNET.COM |
28,948,963 |
3.1% |
1.5% |
|
41 |
38 |
38 |
Reuters |
REUTERS.COM |
11,692,493 |
3.0% |
0.7% |
|
42 |
44 |
45 |
CNBC |
CNBC.COM |
5,674,719 |
3.0% |
1.3% |
|
43 |
43 |
44 |
Bloomberg |
BLOOMBERG.COM |
7,515,601 |
2.8% |
1.1% |
|
44 |
46 |
47 |
Businessweek (Bloomberg) |
BUSINESSWEEK.COM |
7,964,543 |
2.6% |
1.0% |
|
45 |
28 |
43 |
USA Today (Gannet) |
USATODAY.COM |
17,222,775 |
2.6% |
-0.6% |
|
46 |
42 |
40 |
WebMD |
WEBMD.COM |
11,901,016 |
2.5% |
0.5% |
|
47 |
47 |
46 |
LIVESTRONG (Demand Media) |
LIVESTRONG.COM |
9,464,669 |
1.8% |
0.5% |
|
48 |
48 |
48 |
About.com (NY Times) |
ABOUT.COM |
58,684,194 |
1.6% |
0.6% |
|
49 |
50 |
50 |
eHow (Demand Media) |
EHOW.COM |
45,015,977 |
1.5% |
0.8% |
|
50 |
51 |
51 |
ThePostGame (Yahoo) |
THEPOSTGAME.COM |
18,321,581 |
1.4% |
0.8% |
|
51 |
49 |
49 |
Mayo Clinic |
MAYOCLINIC.COM |
9,198,317 |
1.4% |
0.5% |
* 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 TechCrunch, and is republished here for Digital Quarters readers.
Without question, one of the greatest gifts of the human species is our ability to communicate. We can create, transmit, and absorb ideas with immense freedom in pictures, speech, writing, music, and more. And yet, from the earliest days of man until very recently, the state of the art of media has been about as sophisticated as cave paintings.
Truly great communicators don’t start out by focusing on their message. They start with their audience. They research, observe, and monitor every knowable detail – from background facts beforehand to micro-reactions during the conversation – and adjust their content and delivery precisely, so it will make an impact. But it’s not like this is a secret formula. Even toddlers do it, carefully measuring parents’ reactions and perpetually tuning in to the behavior patterns that get them the attention they want. That tuning is carefully optimized to achieve maximum effect from each individualized recipient.
Meanwhile, media has virtually ignored its audiences.
But it’s finally beginning to open its eyes and ears to them through personalization. I believe that personalization has the greatest potential to transform the media business.
But before we get to that, let’s start with what’s gone wrong in media that has made us blind to our audiences’ cues.
In the world of print and broadcast, there was fundamentally no data about audience interests or reactions. It was impossible to “read the room,” because the room was pitch black. If media leaders’ eyes were closed, I’d be hard pressed to blame them; there was nothing to see.
As a result, there were two operating principles that made sense at the time, but which have since become outdated anachronisms.
First, that an editor should serve as oracle for what the audience desires (I call this the “Editor Fallacy”); and second, that content created in that vacuum of data should then be distributed as broadly as possible (let’s call this the “Broadcast Assumption”).
These two assumptions – even though they came from the print and broadcast legacy businesses – have errantly managed to drive the entire Web media mentality.
And the resulting misguided formula – across the board – has been Prophesize, Publish and Proliferate.
The big hope with this media Ouija Board has been that the guesses will be right, and that those who broadcast widely will then draw a big audience. When the guesses miss the mark with audiences (no surprise there), publishers turn up the volume or amp up the sensationalism. To some degree, this is why the Huffington Post succeeds with its brash and blaring headlines, and it explains why, thanks to Henry, we’ve collectively Blodgetized Web 1.0 media.
But to make room for the new media model of the next 100 years, we need to let these old assumptions fall by the wayside. The new vision is for media to start doing the work that each member of the audience already does; and that means deliberately selecting and contextualizing the media we each consume.
Putting it simply: media’s great opportunity is to bring the right content to the right person at the right place and time.
And this is where things get very interesting.
Bring Me My Very Own World
The social transformation of the Web has already taken us half way down the road toward a personalized future.
We finally recognize that the Web is made up of people, and Facebook and others have made people and relationships the key “nodes and edges in the graph” of the Web, replacing pages and links. The social Web is now people-centric; and, increasingly, social is becoming the operating system for the Web at large. Most impressively, “what my friends like” is already proving to be a good starting point to predict “what I like,” and so much of the Web is beginning to get at least a clue of how to serve us.
Despite this tremendous progress, however, when you go behind the scenes, the Web is still organized by data, not by people. Server data is affiliated with accounts; cookies are associated with Web browsers; and activity logs are tethered by IP addresses.
And yet, as the social revolution has proven, the real value of the transformation has been to stop looking at me as an IP address, a browser, or an account; and to start holistically realizing that I’m a person – I am me.
So, the great opportunity is to move from a Web of sites to “my” Web of me.
Media is at a critical transition point today, because we are about to completely redefine our sense of the audience. Starting now, the audience is no longer one massive opaque agglomeration. It’s not a “them” or an “us”; it’s a lot of individual “me’s.” (This must-watch from Monty Python paints the picture.)
In this context, the Broadcast Assumption of content creators is completely out of touch with the 21st century zeitgeist. It revolves around the played-out maxim of “create once, distribute everywhere,” which made sense when audiences were opaque and distribution channels were just big dumb pipes. But it totally ignores the “me’s” in the audience – when it comes to both creation and distribution.
The bottom line, then, is that media experiences, which used to be one-size-fits-all, must now be customized so they’re just for me.
In other words, the media experience of the future must take a cue from Facebook, and bring my world to me – regardless of where it originated.
The Six Elements of Ultimate Digital Personalization
Social represents progress toward this vision of fully personalized media, but it’s only one part of the game.
In my view, there are six key elements that contribute to ultimate digital personalization – and these elements are the basis for the ultimate success model in digital media:
After considering these six elements as a whole, I’m most inspired (and encouraged) by Facebook, Twitter, AOL Editions, the recent Flipboard clones, NetFlix, and the potential of a new Siri-powered Apple TV.
Each of these demonstrates the central aspect of this new vision for media: bringing my world to me.
Data Is the Currency of Personalization
To be successful, we all need to be data companies – as data is the clear way to know what our audience wants. Data is the currency of personalization, and so it is our best path to delighting our audience.
News sites should know by now what topics and stories to program for whom; and no sports site should serve a balanced home page when no sports fan likes all teams equally.
It’s an approach that, of all companies, Yahoo! ‘gets’– and for them it’s been paying huge dividends for a long time. And so it should for the rest of us.
What this means for media is that it’s not all about the content – instead, it’s all about the audience. And that means the nature of media has changed.
It’s all about you. It’s all about me.
That’s the digital media future. And we need to start going there today – because audiences are asking (and even demanding) that we pay attention to them, that we really know them, as true individuals.
So, if you’re a publisher, here’s the challenge as you try to create meaningful content experiences today: Each member of your audience – no matter how vast it is – has to become the most important person in the world to you. Or, looking at it in a slightly different way, you have to become deeply involved and digitally intimate on a global scale each and every day.
When it comes to the emerging world of social operating systems, I’ve said before that there can be multiple winners. It’s been clear that (at least in the U.S.) LinkedIn is the dominant one for business, while Twitter serves as a backstage wire service for content producers and distributors.
Of course, we’ve all also known intuitively that Facebook has taken the lion’s share of the consumer market.
But until we ran an analysis, I didn’t realize just how extreme Facebook’s domination is when it comes to consumer usage.
How about 95%!!!
That’s on the basis of time spent by U.S. audiences on their PC’s, according to comScore data – and it signifies almost complete control of the category.
In terms of being relevant to consumer audiences, there’s now no question that “social” means “Facebook.” And, if you want to take advantage of the more than 1 in every 7 minutes of online time that consumers spend on Facebook, you follow one simple rule for media in a social age:
You must be present – in the Facebook newsfeed – to win.
Back by popular demand is an updated ranking of the Media Industry Social Leaderboard. As a reminder, my company and I are obsessively focused on data about the social web – so much so, that we decided to track and publish not only our own results, but those of the top 50 media companies. This is all captured in the chart below which profiles the top 50 web publishers’ effectiveness at driving traffic from social media.
For the inquisitive among us, you’ll note that we determine the top 50 relevant web publishers; then, using data from Compete.com, we determine and chart how much of their traffic is from Facebook and Twitter.
One important note is that Facebook’s changes in its algorithms launched at F8 impacted nearly all publishers in this ranking – more on that in a moment.
But first, let’s get to the results:
Facebook Traffic Down by 13%.
The first thing you’ll notice is that the bars are lower this month. In fact, over 90% of the top 50 web publishers saw a decreased percentage of their visits coming from Facebook and Twitter in October, with the bars shortening on average by 50 basis points.
In terms of aggregate performance, if you sum the total Facebook visits for all properties, they’re down 7.1% October vs. September, and 12.8% comparing October vs. the pre-F8 August highs. We believe this trend is the direct result of the F8 algorithm changes made in mid-September. Savvy social publishers (ourselves included) have been battling to reclaim previous highs since the F8 changes; but by October few had recovered. The chart below highlights the reduction in referrals from Facebook to publishers over the course of their algorithmic change.
Winners and Losers: CBS down; People, MTV, Wetpaint up
CBS has continued to fall in social traffic composition (-3.7% September-over-August, -5.5% Octocber-over-September), moving from the top rank on the Media Industry Social Leaderboard to number 4. Unclear what has caused this decline although one hypothesis could be an increase in either SEO or paid audience acquisition. If you have any insight here, shoot me a note.
Closer to home, People, MTV, and Wetpaint maintained their relative rankings and have moved to the top 3 spots. At Wetpaint, we credit our climb up the ladder to our relentless A/B testing that has allowed us to understand what our audience desires in a deep way, and inform our editors with this insight. The result is that we are creating, packaging, and distributing the right content, at the right time and our audience has voted with clicks, likes, and shares.
I’ve projected before that within the next couple of years, social can drive as much traffic as search to major media properties – especially those that are driven by real-time news. But I hadn’t expected it to happen so soon!
Yesterday was a milestone here at Wetpaint: social for the day drove over 45% of our audience visits; while search brought in about 30%.
Now consider this: Layer on the ~150% higher lifetime value of our social audience (our social users stay longer, come back more frequently, and bring additional viral referrals), and social was responsible for over 60% of the value of our audience yesterday.
It may start as an outlier, but it’s going to get more common. We are on track to be the #1 social publisher within a short time. Want to know where you stand too? Stay tuned for the updated media industry social leaderboard, which I’ll be posting in the next few days.
This article was recently published as a guest post at GeekWire, and is republished here for DigitalQuarters readers.
Since Google+ launched in June of this year, two questions have been on everyone’s mind in the digital community: 1) Can it become a huge success for Google? And 2) Can I use it to make huge success for me?
Much has been written about the first question; but very little about the second.
And so, because we’re obsessive about knowing the social Web, my colleagues and I at Wetpaint have looked long and hard at the second (and unanswered) question.
After a good deal of analysis, I can report that the answer for us as a media company (so far, at least) is “no.”
Here’s what we’ve found:
The lights are on, but no one is home – Google has been quick to point out that 40 million users have “signed up” for Google+. That’s because the product is deeply bolted onto every product inside the Google empire, including Gmail, and they did a nice job of making it easy to invite everyone you know. People checked it out, but they haven’t been back, and I’d bet their active user rates are in the single digits. Every time I log in, there’s almost zero activity among my “circles.” Even with 40 million, that pales in comparison to the reach of Facebook’s worldwide audience of 800 million (200 million in the U.S.), who are far more active (500M per day!).
Users can manage one social network, and no more – Mainstream users have demonstrated that they reach saturation after managing one social network when it comes to their personal life. First, it was Friendster; then MySpace; now Facebook. People don’t have the time and attention span to manage overlapping networks of friends and conversations.
It doesn’t solve a consumer problem – There hasn’t been a migration to Google+ because it doesn’t solve a real consumer problem. Facebook has an entrenched audience with deeply embedded habits. In order for a migration to take place, Google+ needs to do something massively new that addresses a consumer pain point (which it doesn’t – at least not yet), or Facebook needs to make a massive blunder that drives people away (for example, around privacy, which I don’t think most users really care about). Overcoming this is even harder for Google, largely because it’s viewed by most as a utility, not a place to facilitate stronger online connections / community.
That said, there are a few things I’ll be watching as Google+ moves ahead in the short term:
Influencers – The people who are using Google+ now (the single digits mentioned above) are industry influencers / luminaries / connectors. They’re using it as a less restricted version of Twitter, because Google+ can share longer, deeper messages than 140 characters will allow. I’ll be curious to see if there’s a migration of these folks from Twitter to Google+. I tend to doubt it, however.
Business pages – Google has encouraged businesses and brands to sit on the sidelines until they release business pages as part of Google+ later this year. These are akin to “fan pages” on Facebook. If these solve a new consumer problem, then they could trigger some migration. But, again, I attach low odds to this possibility.
Search impact – The most convincing argument for embracing Google+ is its potential impact on search. It’s too early to say, but there is speculation that Google will tune its search algorithms to overweight those who “perform” well with Google+. For example, if a brand gets lots of +1’s (Google’s version of the “like” button), then that brand’s share of search volume could be dramatically increased to encourage broader adoption of content providers. This is something I’ll be evaluating after business pages launch, which should take place before the end of the year.
There is no question that the crew at Google is brilliant. And they will clearly be looking to improve their service for consumers and make it relevant as a premier social operating system for the Web. But what I will be watching is whether they can solve these core issues to make it a must-have for consumers. And, if they do, then it will become a must-have for publishers as well.
A few months ago, Ken Doctor wrote about the cost of a story, highlighting that financial pressures in media require new formulas to lower content costs. But my takeaway was different: that the greater leverage point for media success is not in reducing cost, but in increasing value.
And the hard truth is that each and every story has to pull its own weight on the new social Web these days. Demand for media now comes for the item, not for a bundle.
That said, social networks – led primarily by Facebook and Twitter – provide publishers with increased transparency about what readers consume, interact with, and share; all in real-time.
This makes publishing easier and less expensive, hence more profitable, because editors know exactly what their readers want to consume, and they don’t have to waste time, effort and resources creating content that simply won’t resonate.
To put it a different way: imagine that you have a magazine, and it’s blank. The first page, the home page, might serve as a table of contents. Then, as you click and read along, each page gets filled in – based on what you read on the previous page; the depth to which you read the previous page; and the amount of real-time sharing that you participated in on the previous page. The next page becomes an instant predictive reflection of the prior set of interest signals. This “Magic Magazine” is assembled just for you, and its content is based on your implicit explicit preferences.
I believe that we’re headed in this direction, and we’ll get there, sooner than you might think.
In fact, it’s already beginning. AOL’s Editions product invites each user to thumbs-up and thumbs-down the various topics and sources it shows, resulting in a Pandora-like experience that self-tunes, so that today’s magazine is even more personally relevant to each user than yesterday’s.
And that has the potential to make a more efficient content economy, to the extent publishers can invest in the right content and get it to all the right people.
To do that, publishers must collect all those valuable signals from the audience – which naturally means connecting on the social Web. The social Web provides robust real-time signals about exactly who the audience is, and what they want. That’s why, at Wetpaint, we’re maniacally focused on writing our playbook to master this best. Right now, we derive more than 12% of our visits from Facebook and Twitter, which ranks us #4 when compared to the 50 largest Web publishers. And we expect that figure to double or more over the next 12 months. (In fact, we’ve been increasing our Facebook traffic by 11% per month.) We’re benefiting from more than traffic: the value of each visitor is going up as well, with social visitors coming more frequently and staying longer.
It’s because our social focus lets us serve customers better. Looking ahead, we’re moving in the direction of hyper-personalization, with customized experiences that seamlessly make themselves felt.
You can see this, to some degree, on the Huffington Post today. They pioneered social channels based on what’s hot, and what’s being shared, and then they reorganized their own pages and published in real-time in order to flow into this.
Old-line media players must adapt here, and in a hurry. From my perspective, Forbes, under Lewis D’Vorkin, is way out front and doing an excellent job showing the way.
With all that programming, what about serendipity? It will still be there. But if a publisher can provide 90% of what a consumer needs and wants, that’s a big value add – especially if the remaining 10% is all the stuff the customer doesn’t know they want yet.
Over the next two years, as social media is continuously refined in new and previously unimaginable ways, I believe that the value of individual stories will keep rising.
And, if we focus on the economics of it, the value of a story online can be thought of as an equation: Page Views x RPM.
But the mathematical symbols in this case are directly representative of two really basic things – how much audience the story attracts, and how desirable the publisher’s full offering is to advertisers.
The roots of both of those are in the content; great content increases both dramatically – albeit over time (The truth is: it takes years of repeat!). And, when we peer out across the long-term horizon, it’s clear that great content that increases audience increases overall reach; and this, in turn, has the compound effect of increasing the desirability to advertisers even more.
My strong sense is that publishers of both old and new media can definitely take advantage of this all-important dynamic by closely watching and assessing the way their consumers interact with content on a real-time basis. In the end, the process should be interesting – and profitable.
As I have shared previously, our goal at Wetpaint is to be the leader in building media properties on the social Web. That’s because I am seeing the web’s nature fundamentally change to become fully social. 
It’s not just theory – it’s data.
As I shared recently at AllThingsD.com, the social Web is capturing a dramatically increasing share of users’ attention – with internet users collectively increasing the amount of time they spend per month on Facebook by 69% over a one-year period – while usage for the entire rest of the Web, excluding Facebook, shrank by 9% over the same period.
Social is the most strategic medium for our industry. And yet we haven’t established how to track our collective progress.
So, I’d like to introduce to you the first industry effort to do so. I’ve released it this week, so that we can all compare ourselves with other top publishers and see our individual and collective progress.
Below you’ll find the “Media Industry Social Leaderboard”, a scoreboard and chart that was developed by tabulating the top 50 media publishers, based on monthly unique visitors, and then determining which were best at generating traffic from Facebook and Twitter. Of course, I’ve included Wetpaint Entertainment on the list because we are so committed to social that we are going to make our progress public. (And it doesn’t hurt that we are already significantly better at reaching audiences on these two key social platforms than many major media brands such as The New York Times, The Huffington Post, CNN, Fox News, TMZ and others. My mother should finally be proud!)
This Month’s Findings
This month, we found that MTV’s website leads the pack with 14.3% of its traffic from Facebook and Twitter, indicating the shareability of their content (especially video, which is inherently more viral), and the heavily socialized audience they serve – not to mention their great execution. In fact, MTV beat average performance by a factor of two, and were one of only four out of the top 50 that were in the double digits. Sadly, over half of the Web’s top 50 had less than 4% of their traffic from social, making them menial performers on the medium.
Social Success Could Triple Your Audience’s Value
Lest you think that MTV’s 14.3% is anything to sneeze at, we dug a bit deeper to look at the true value of social. Beyond the boost to audience attraction, we also looked at audience retention. Measuring the visit frequency to each of the publishers (excluding the portals), we found a striking correlation to their sociability. The performers above median in social saw an average of more than five times as many “addicts” (visitors who come 30+ times per month) as a proportion of their audience, according to data from Quantcast, compared to those below the median; and they saw a corresponding reduction in their “passers-by” (visitors who come only once) by 16 percentage points. These patterns map overall into more than three times the visit frequency per audience member overall for these top performers. That’s three times the value per unique.
A Leading Indicator of Long-Term Success
One thing is clear from the growth trends of the social web: Those publishers that figure out how to capture and maintain a leadership position in social will win over the next decade. For Wetpaint, it’s a critical strategy for us to be a leader among the media industry. Which would make my mother very proud.
Speaking of which, in this debut month, my company Wetpaint came in #4, bested only by MTV, People, and ESPN. Not bad for a debut… we’ll be #1 within six months.
For those interested, detailed rankings of all Top 50 are included below.
| Rank | Name of Publisher (Owner) | URL | Monthly Uniques | % from Social |
| 1 | MTV | mtv.com | 17,101,841 | 14.3% |
| 2 | ESPN | espn.com | 33,242,207 | 13.7% |
| 3 | People | people.com | 12,671,101 | 13.2% |
| 4 | Wetpaint Entertainment | wetpaint.com | 2,532,044 | 12.4% |
| 5 | TMZ | tmz.com | 14,575,713 | 8.8% |
| 6 | Yahoo | yahoo.com | 172,269,418 | 8.6% |
| 7 | Patch (Aol) | patch.com | 10,610,327 | 8.6% |
| 8 | Major League Baseball | mlb.com | 15,552,415 | 7.9% |
| 9 | Aol | aol.com | 51,659,415 | 7.7% |
| 10 | Discovery Channel | discovery.com | 11,170,738 | 6.7% |
| 11 | Break Media | break.com | 9,166,220 | 6.3% |
| 12 | IGN (News Corp) | ign.com | 10,112,530 | 6.1% |
| 13 | Us Weekly | usmagazine.com | 10,970,162 | 5.9% |
| 14 | CNN | cnn.com | 56,595,377 | 5.3% |
| 15 | FOX News (News Corp) | foxnews.com | 26,900,038 | 5.0% |
| 16 | BBC News | bbc.co.uk | 14,863,384 | 4.8% |
| 17 | MSN | msn.com | 115,933,138 | 4.6% |
| 18 | Nickelodeon (MTV Networks) | nick.com | 10,716,354 | 4.6% |
| 19 | The New York Times | nytimes.com | 33,034,269 | 4.4% |
| 20 | MailOnline | dailymail.co.uk | 15,747,179 | 4.4% |
| 21 | IMDB (Amazon.com) | imdb.com | 39,778,499 | 4.4% |
| 22 | CBS Local | cbslocal.com | 11,039,512 | 4.4% |
| 23 | TIME | time.com | 10,024,132 | 4.2% |
| 24 | Cartoon Network (Turner) | cartoonnetwork.com | 10,794,764 | 4.2% |
| 25 | The Washington Post | washingtonpost.com | 17,818,260 | 4.1% |
| 26 | New York Daily News | nydailynews.com | 9,931,052 | 3.9% |
| 27 | The Guardian | guardian.co.uk | 10,283,648 | 3.8% |
| 28 | CBS News | cbsnews.com | 12,144,917 | 3.7% |
| 29 | Food Networks (Scripps) | foodnetwork.com | 14,324,933 | 3.5% |
| 30 | Allrecipes (Readers Digest) | allrecipes.com | 17,986,031 | 3.4% |
| 31 | The Huffington Post | huffingtonpost.com | 36,701,275 | 3.3% |
| 32 | TODAY / MSN (NBC/Microsoft) | today.com | 23,323,684 | 3.3% |
| 33 | Los Angeles Times (Tribune) | latimes.com | 18,618,265 | 3.2% |
| 34 | WebMD | webmd.com | 12,048,444 | 2.6% |
| 35 | The Wall Street Journal | wsj.com | 16,643,499 | 2.5% |
| 36 | Forbes | forbes.com | 12,356,124 | 2.4% |
| 37 | FOX Sports | foxsports.com | 18,346,185 | 2.2% |
| 38 | USA Today / Gannett | usatoday.com | 16,979,964 | 2.2% |
| 39 | Reuters | reuters.com | 12,726,776 | 2.2% |
| 40 | ABC News | abcnews.com | 19,876,129 | 2.1% |
| 41 | CNET (CBS Interactive) | cnet.com | 27,602,379 | 2.1% |
| 42 | Sports Illustrated (Time Inc.) | si.com | 9,304,012 | 2.1% |
| 43 | LIVESTRONG / (Demand Media) | livestrong.com | 9,650,128 | 2.0% |
| 44 | MSNBC Digital Network | msnbc.com | 44,198,985 | 1.9% |
| 45 | About.com / NY Times | about.com | 36,978,618 | 1.4% |
| 46 | Bloomberg | bloomberg.com | 10,592,480 | 1.4% |
| 47 | Mayo Clinic | mayoclinic.com | 10,944,436 | 1.1% |
| 48 | eHow (Demand Media) | ehow.com | 48,624,976 | 1.0% |
| 49 | ThePostGame | thepostgame.com | 12,017,913 | 0.9% |
| 50 | CNN Money | cnnmoney.com | 16,643,785 | N/A |
Source: Wetpaint.com analysis, comScore, Compete.com.
Facebook F8 has made clear that the digital world is now powered by social operating systems. It’s all changed. The below post was previously published at paidContent, and is republished here for DigitalQuarters readers.
SOS – The Social Operating System
How the Social Web Has Rewired the Digital World From the Ground Up
In the wake of Facebook’s F8 mega-event, with its parade of product, feature, and platform announcements, I’m struck by the recent major inflection that has social networking penetrating more and more completely into our digital lives.
Indeed, social networking has moved from something that’s a destination activity, to something that is ever-present throughout every digital experience. And, no doubt, Facebook will continue this rapid progression.
My awareness that social networks have seriously and profoundly journeyed into our lives began with the startling statistics that I published in June: the searchable Web is shrinking (by 9% in consumers’ monthly time spent over a recent one year period); while the social Web is growing (with a matching 69% increase in time spent on Facebook specifically).
But the change has since intensified, as Facebook’s share of consumer attention has increased even further, and as Web sites the world over race to recruit Facebook “fans” and “likes.”
In addition, the trendline has also become increasingly clear and sharply etched in recent months with the LinkedIn IPO; and with the Google+ Project, as even mighty Google vies for relevance as a social fabric that helps weave our world together.
Putting it all together, I’m seeing a restructuring of the stack: a new layering of how media is created, distributed, and experienced, different from the first generation of the Internet.
It’s the rise of what I’ve come to view as the “social operating system (Social OS).” And I think it changes everything for media and other companies online.
The New Way News Travels
Unlike the analog world, where content and distribution companies have largely fixed channels (licensed spectrum; contracted cable distribution; stable subscription bases; theater outlets; and other distribution power), digital content isn’t channelized. It’s itemized.
That means digital content has to earn an audience – item by item. The first generation of digital media publishers turned to search engine optimization to solve that, with an endless and constantly escalating set of editorial and technical tricks to bait search algorithms to rank them highly. This became de rigeur for every digital publisher; even as it spawned an arms race to find an audience.
But now that social is ubiquitous, the nature of distribution changes for media companies. And now, instead of having to reinvent the distribution wheel every day for every page, publishers can rely on a system far more powerful than the search engine to sort, select, and rank content. That system is part human, and part technology – but it is 100% social.
The Social OS sits at the boundary between content and the people who consume it. It provides a layer of functionality that lets Web companies focus on their unique content and the experiences that they offer – while earning distribution, not via channels, but via people. And, in the process, they earn, not a mechanistic relationship with an algorithm, but a real relationship with their audience.
None of this was possible until very recently.
The Internet was too immature: both in terms of technology, and audience. Indeed, it’s only since this decade started that we’ve had the social network and mobile technology in combination with literally billions of users online; this mix lets people connect to each other, and allows content to flow effortlessly from one consumer to the next.
And it’s this combination of technology (networks like Facebook and Twitter); content (with providers like Apple, NetFlix, and YouTube, not to mention the hundreds of blogs and media companies); and, most significantly, real people online to spread all that goodness, which makes the Social OS work.
The New Common Medium For Transmission
That’s why each Social OS is defined, first and foremost, by who’s on it, and what the connections mean. But beyond that, each social operating system can make identity, personal information and interests, relationships, and other data and actions available to applications. And third, and most importantly, is the role of the Social OS as distributor. Because Social OS’s have transformed the primary navigational coordinates of the Web from document-to-document links to person-to-person, the Social OS becomes the medium for propagation.
As recently as a few years ago, large media companies saw some parts of this wave coming, and they thought the answer was for each of them to build their own proprietary social network. But relationships between people aren’t proprietary to media; rather, they are the conduits through which all media travels.
And that puts in perspective what Mark Zuckerberg recently said, about how media is the next big application for his Facebook Social OS:
“Some of the earliest examples we’ve seen are with games. It just leads to massive disruption. And I think, over the next 2, 3 years, we’re going to start to see that in more and more industries, and the next ones I would expect are going to be media-type industries.”
Or, as we say at my company, Wetpaint, we are becoming the Zynga of publishing, leveraging social operating systems like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to build a powerful media business on top of them.
Reinventing the Media Industry For a Social World
The rise of the social operating system has two implications for old (and even some new) media companies, who are mostly still trying to figure out what to do with all this. If the idea isn’t to be a social network, then how do they use Social OS’s to make their business more successful?
Social maven Jonah Peretti, co-founder of Huffington Post and CEO of BuzzFeed, points out that different social networks specialize in different content: Facebook users share “what you want your friends to think you like … content you can wear as a badge of honor,” while Twitter is a platform for topic curators and wholesalers in the information trade, and LinkedIn has a strictly professional domain.
For its part, YouTube has its own character: with most consumption anonymous, it’s largely an open public repository, and much of the networking that forwards YouTube videos from person to person happens via email, Facebook, and other networks.
And, as Google gets into the fray with its Google+ Project, presumably it is meant to specialize in closed groups, when full public exposure isn’t in order. If it works, it will likely find its best traction in topics like health & wellness, parenting, or certain hobbies.
For media companies, the key is knowing which Social OS’s to bet on; and then tuning content, packaging and distribution for them.
For celebrity entertainment and gossip at Wetpaint, we know Facebook is a natural match for mass consumer promotion. On the other hand, for industry analysis, like my blog posts, I’m not surprised that Facebook is relatively unimportant: for most of my readers, my posts wouldn’t fit in among family photos and Farmville accomplishments. Twitter and LinkedIn do far better for heady topics like the future of media.
High Stakes: The Future of an Industry
The last decade of audience fragmentation and content de-bundling on the Internet has ravaged media, particularly in a world characterized by fierce competition for the love of Google’s robots.
When Mark Zuckerberg recently spoke at a Facebook event in Seattle, he said:
“The last 5 years have been about connecting all these people. The next 5 years are going to be about all the crazy things you can do now that these people are connected, and I think it’s going to be cool.”
In a world powered by social operating systems, the prize is that, when we execute well, we get to be hooked into people’s lives. Media companies can earn constant places in consumers’ newsfeeds, along with a button asking them to consider sharing their experience every time they see us. I think that’s going to be cool.
One of the most important questions publishers are grappling with today is whether they oversee a media company or a technology company. In the following article, which appeared originally in my Media Success newsletter and was subsequently republished at AllThingsD, I explain why every media company has to be a technology company. Then I offer several keys to success in the current digital environment, which is dominated by the rise and evolution of the new social Web. Please take a read, and let me know what you think.
Two Truths
Let’s start with two truths.
First, publishers need cutting-edge technology to hook an audience through today’s digital media channels of the Web, mobile, social, and search.
And, second, the breakthrough technology can’t just be about product design – it’s got to go beyond to create distribution advantages on the new connected Web.
One Question
Okay, now that we have the truth out of the way, let me ask you a question:
“Is your company a media company, or a technology company?”
I love getting asked this question. And every digital media leader I know hates answering it.
Discomfort, Uneasiness, Anxiety, Fear
The uneasiness begins with the mistaken idea that the two are separable. And they were – back in the 15th century, when Gutenberg first worked his printing magic, and up until a few years ago. But we all know digital technology has inserted itself inextricably into the guts of publishing, replacing ink with bytes and paper with pipes. And now, over the last two years, technology has transformed the basis of publishers’ relationships with their audience, by connecting them through social operating systems, as we discussed last month.
And yet, our uneasiness escalates to anxiety when we realize we still don’t fully understand the new technology’s potential or impact on our business.
That is a scary thought. 
Technology Drives Media
I think we all need to collectively swallow our fear. We know every media company must be a technology company today.
In the first generations of digital media, it was easy. In AOL’s past, technology’s key role was simply to provide basic Internet access over dial-up lines. Today, while that access provides cash flow, it no longer has any strategic value in media. Similarly, Yahoo’s early technology prowess was applied to create significant products like Yahoo Mail. But while Mail still drives 73 percent of the audience to Yahoo’s media properties, it won’t secure Yahoo’s future ability to be a great media destination.
These two companies – as well as the rest of us – need to use technology for something more advanced than access and ancillary products. We need to put it right into the heart of media so that we can create breakthrough user experiences and new connections with audiences.
Millions of Ways to Engage
To do that, let’s start by recognizing what’s changed about the medium itself: In analog days, publishers’ products were two-dimensional; and all we had to work with was ink and some paper. And similarly, distribution was mostly two-dimensional; a subscription list and newsstand sales was all there was to it.
But now, consumers have access to millions of sources at their fingertips, and each one can be rich and interactive, reaching us through several different digital channels. Both our product experiences and our distribution can be much more intricate – and much more valuable. And combining the two gives media the chance to do something it’s always aspired to do before, but never been able to.
The Future Will Be Personalized
We have recently become ready for a whole new vision for media.
And that’s giving every audience member the right content in the right place at the right time.
To do this takes a combination of data – from the social operating system – coupled with media’s greatest power, that of creating experiences and distributing them.
To achieve this, though, we need technology to do more than output HTML pages; instead, it has to chaperone customized content to every individual.
This is a big change from the original Internetization of media, which was, like generations of offline media before it: “If you publish it they will come.” That worked when directories like Yahoo and search engines like Google matched consumers to content. But that attitude was passive; and today’s social Web is anything but. So publishers now have the opportunity – and the challenge – of taking charge of their distribution.
The key is using the emerging social Web to get signals from, and connect to, the audience. And when we do this, we are putting technology in the role of relating uniquely to every consumer in order to create the ultimate experiences they crave.
Now that’s a refreshing concept for media.
Three Ways to Get Ahead
But what does this mean, practically speaking?
I believe the role of technology in media success must embody these three things:
We’ve already seen this at Wetpaint, and the results are still getting better each week. Our database of everything we publish tracks all the distribution causes and effects, so we know what works. We also pay attention to who the influencers are, with technology that identifies them as well as who their influencers are; and now we’re building a “CRM”-like system to help us know more about these individuals and win them over.
Technology Changes Businesses
Let’s circle back to the discussion of whether you’re a media or technology company.
By its very nature, digital publishing is a technical medium. But, beyond that, what makes technology interesting isn’t its ability to carry bits; it’s its ability to change businesses. And we need to change our own by updating our sense of audience, distribution, and experience creation to provide thousands of times more precision than media ever has before.
When we do that, we’re making the content thousands of times more relevant. And I believe that’s how you build a thriving digital media business in the next decade.
Copyright ®2011 - Digital Quarters – Ben Elowitz - Log in
Powered by WordPress | Evidens [White] Theme by Design Disease for PremiumThemes.com