Why doesn't good news do better?

bump

When the What's Hot system was put in place it put a hierarchy on most viewed content, putting threads, photos, videos, and news as equals when posted then elevated based on the number of people viewing it. I went through my old blogs the other day on this site. Aside from a recent Will Wesson interview (and Traveling Circus interviews always do well), the most viewed content are neither current or good content. They're from 2011, back when blogs were featured on the homepage, below the fold, and sort of hidden.

This, been using the food analogy on movies for years, some movies/ articles are just hot-dog movies, they are fine but nothing special, every once and a while you get a steak dinner article and the challenge is to balance the junk food and the fine dining. I have been thinking a lot about this as I wrote my last couple of articles and I still am undecided as to what I am shooting for. Maybe more of an upscale fast-food place, haha. Interesting stuff to think about.

But THIS is the problem.

In the print days you could just completely lie about how many people actually read something. You would sell advertisers based on an estimated number of readers, and you'd put the quality mixed in with the fluff that gets readers.

Gone are those days and the challenge is staring down the barrel of who actually - like really for real - reads stuff. The way these things are paid for is advertising, and without eyeballs even the mighty NYT could fall. You may not agree on numbers, but if you can't make enough to keep writing then sadly numbers have won and your philosophical awesomeness - even though I agree with it - has lost.

What my question is more about is why aren't people reading the big stuff? Sure there's trending towards high quality content. Even Google with their latest Hummingbird update have performed the most massive re-write of their search engine since it was created with a massive focus on long-format content.

Its too easy as a writer used to top-down media where they didn't have to take their reader into account when writing the 'good' stuff to blame the reader and the world. The reader wants what the reader wants, and its poppycock to say that simply being the 'best' will pay the bills. Sure it will, but it won't last. Advertisers are getting used to Real Time bidding, cookie matching and audience profiling. You're literally only as good as your pageviews because your readership is irrelevant in tomorrow's advertising world.

What the writers of the world need to do is stop lamenting the past and pretending like the future is too stupid to function. The writers and readers need to establish a balance between the snack food and the haute gourmet stuff that is too fucking hipster for anyone but a foodie to like. We need quality food that you enjoy eating every day, and that you even prefer to potato chips because really in the end even though they taste good they make you feel like shit.

If the old way is haute cuisine barely palatable to the average consumer and the new way is McDonalds, we need that super rad middle ground. Maybe its not a chain but its a friendly, fun local restaurant that you can dine at every day and still appreciate the art the chef put into it.

I'm sick and fucking tired of super elite top level media people that think they're way better than their readers. That shit happens way too much, and there's a balance here we can all find.

Finally, on the reader side we could also start looking at other methods of paying for content than advertising.

I agree with this, the problem is defining what people want. There needs to be variety. Comp results are boring. When I read NS news I only really read q&A's and opinion type pieces. The exception to that would be ESB's olympic stuff. I used to really enjoy reading BroBomb and wrote a piece for them but I feel like they degrade sometimes to kind of hipster fast food that isn't great quality and and isn't normal enough for people to eat anyway. I realize that is probably what they want to be but I think NS can do better.

To your last line, the "There will never not be a demand for good stories...the only thing that changes is how we deliver them" There in lies the problem. People want video now. Maybe there lies a way to get more 'news' out in an NS newscast (whatever that would cover, that would be tough to write for) but people are simply lazy. Its the same thing that happened when movies got really popular. I would guess that most people now do not read novels for fun, they wait for the movies to come out. The issue is not with NS, but with culture itself.

Yeah, I see what you are saying but I think that there will always be a place for well written prose. Yes, movies are popular but I think that especially as mass media and technology grows and matures there will be more and more of a demand for long-form writing. I could be way off on this but even just looking around me in college people are realizing that sometimes reading something longer can be more valuable and entertaining then just ingesting 140 character bites.

You know, this opens up a huge line of thought that I've had on this issue - one that is actually the reason that we decided to do the Yearbook.

To me the perfect thing to look at for digital disruption is the music industry. It was the first industry to get absolutely obliterated by the internet, and its one that is a very different landscape than it once was after the apocalypse.

However, I actually don't feel it was technology that killed the music industry. What killed the music industry was the music industry. They got so addicted to being able to sell people absolutely shit music on these handy ultra-cheap-to-produce plastic discs (which were double the price and less to produce than tapes). Then there was too many artists that were screwed up drug addicts making really good music... and they figured out how to get rid of those too by manufacturing artists. Pop music came in with boy bands, then seeped everywhere... from alternative to indie to hip hop. All of it became completely manufactured horseshit.

When the MP3 came around, you finally were able to get that totally disposable music without wasting your money on an album. When I was a teenager you couldn't get a single track easily - usually you had to fork over like $20 for the whole album even if you only liked one track. Shit I bought the 'Methods of Meyhem' album at full pop because in a brief moment I loved 'Get Naked'



After you could just steal the music you could get your rocks off with that totally shit music you had a small infatuation with but not have to get so involved and spend so much money. Instantly the massive empire of shit crumbled because no longer could they force this shit down our throats.

Now, I happily spend money buying albums, collecting the box sets and want to invest in a record player to really get deep with the obsession with artists that still put out fantastic albums.

The key though is that all the shit is getting culled. Sure it doesn't completely go away, but there's market for everything. You can now get music from your favorite artists direct, and they can make a good living from it.

Print and journalism is going the same way. Massive amounts of 'quality journalism' was actually garbage filler that the old industry was used to forcing down our throats. The internet has allowed us as the consumer to have a voice, and if we don't like these 'good' articles then we can speak with our pageviews and not read them. As newspapers, magazines and other forms of traditional media fall, they're survived by only the best of the best.

Reading a beautiful printed piece is an experience. Reading a quality book grasps my attention not for minutes but for days and weeks on end. When the words are compelling enough you can lose yourself in them, and you don't have to force yourself through the first two sentences... you can't put it down.

TL;DR - There is still demand for super quality stuff - and people will read it if its right - but all the filler that has propped up traditional media for years is fucking done. The day of reckoning has come.

That just about sums up my wall of text. The fun part is going to be finding and creating that truly quality journalism. I for one am stoked!

I haven't read this whole thread, but if you ask me, readers want to see the title of the article and be done looking at the article within a minute or two and feel as though they got everything out of it. If they see a wall of text, they'll be pushed away. If they see fancy pictures and pretty font, they'll be drawn to the article.

Look at Buzzfeed, for example. Every single "article" is a stupid fucking list with stupid fucking pictures. But god damn can it be enjoyable some times. As much as I hate to say it, a news article in Buzzfeed-type style on NS would probably get great feedback if the content was there. Half of what makes Buzzfeed so dumb is that the lists are shit like "The 15 best grilled cheese sandwiches on Earth" and "The last 11 guys/girls/things Miley Cyrus has fucked".

Obviously, most articles can't be written in a format like Buzzfeed but I think what I'm trying to get at is that the news articles on this site aren't visually appealing enough. I don't know much about html but I would imagine it'd be a lot of work to add a bunch of fancy features. However, as long as it doesn't require sacrificing your first born and/or leaving your girlfriend (that you probably don't even have), I think it'd be well worth it.

I apologize if this has already been brought up and/or doesn't make much sense. In my defense, it is nearly 2 am.

But we're not talking about advertising, Doug. We have to separate two things right now—advertising in on one side and editorial is in the other. Let's disregard advitorials for a moment. First, let's talk editorial and the Internet. Quality journalism and story telling is important. It's why Evan Williams of Twitter (not Nordica, though he's a boss too) left his day-to-day at the company to found Medium. Here's a great quote from him from a recent NY Times story: “The way media is changing isn’t entirely positive when it comes to creating a more informed citizenry,” Mr. Williams wrote on Medium. “Now that we’ve made sharing information virtually effortless, how do we increase depth of understanding, while also creating a level playing field that encourages ideas that come from anywhere?” And let's be fair here. I'm not a top-down media guy. To paraphrase Drake, I started from Newschoolers.com now I'm here. And I'm still here, on NS, in the Ski Gabber, having an on-going conversation about skiing for over a decade. I knew my reader much better writing for NS than I have for Powder because of the instant feedback in comments, NS Gatherings, and IF3 facilitated a community. That being said, I've had perfect strangers, ones that don't know one ski film from another, tell me they enjoyed, hated, etc. a story I penned for Powder magazine. One is not better than the other. Hell, I left a print magazine so I could write for the Internet more. In skiing we tend to live in an insular bubble, entertaining and posturizing for one another. We claim we want to grow the sport, but as soon as we do, it gets hated on by the core. It's never been easier to create content. It's harder to get it viewed because everyone is a journalist now, sharing information in real time. I rely on doing it better, experience, and a vast network of people to make a living. I feel fortunate to have gotten in the game when I did. Now let's talk advertising and ski industry... I'm still a believer that you're only as good as your reputation built on the work you've done. Let's be real, that's why you and Jason wanted me as a features editor for the NS magazine. My page views on my blog didn't really matter, did it? I understand that money, not ideology, makes the media world work. My hope is that ad sales can find the middle ground you speak of and sell both their traffic and editorial merit provided by hard working media creators. I too am sick of any media outlet that assumes they can pull a fast one on their audience. NS has always had trouble from a consumer facing standpoint about what the audience looks like because of forums and page views. People still wrongly assume this is a site for 12 year olds. And I'm not completely against numbers. I simply don't think it's as black and white. For example, a backcountry story did 5000 less views than an urban story. That doesn't tell me that I should write more urban stories though. It tells me there's about 1400 people on NS that enjoy a backcountry story and that side of my writing could help build that side of the community up more. All this being said, we are living at a great time in skiing and I want to tell those stories to as many different audiences as I can whether it's through NS News, Powder.com/magazine, or Vice-produced documentaries for an NBC audience. Not everyone is going to love each and everything I do and I'm okay with that.

Sorry my spacing was all jacked on that last post. I'm typing this from a super elite journalist iPad mini.

as a member that has posted a number of stories (all for free, by the way), i just wanted whoever was interested to understand my certain point for the respective story... i was never in journalism, creative writting classes, or anything like that, just really passoinate for those i chose to write about... i know how much a story about pekka hysalo was able to help change his life, and as a result, change and inspire many others... that is what is important to me, not all this cheesy tmz crap that has started to spring up since sochi... people will always view what they want to, but its the articles that make people think, laugh, cry, and take something back with them that will always mean more than views... but, just as in life, we need both the good and the bullshit to remember what the good really stands for... at least there is a passionate community of us that has an opinion... no matter what that opinion is!

damn ipads!! my spacing didnt catch either... pfffff

AYO BISHOP


Thanks for noticing.

I think that ski journalism is often overlooked because it can be really monotonous. "Dude stomped trick" "dude skied line" "Dude got hurt", etc. It's quality writing and it's good journalism, but our sport really doesn't look very diverse until you are fully immersed in it. I think that the modern skier would identify more with watching people ski than with reading about it, because they identify more closely with the subtleties of tricks, vibes in edits, and overall messages in movies than they do with a writer describing the weather or the skier's disposition.
What I'm getting at is that ski journalism needs to seek out roots in storytelling, not reporting. This industry sees too much repetition to captivate its community with a breakdown of a comp run. Did you read that Dalai-Lama story? That was amazing! And I think it was such because it was written as an experience, and you could strongly associate with the general vibe that the writer was experiencing. His piece was built around the emotions that he found to be most poignant in the experiences, not the chronological order or minor details of his holiness's trip to Taos. That's what ski journalism needs. Interviews with old heads on how the sport got to where it is, and what they want to see most out of it. Stories about video trips that focus less on the fact that it was difficult to get from spot to spot, but centered around the actual getting to of the spots. Ski journalism doesn't need news. I can get a lot more out of a video recap of a comp than a written breakdown. Ski journalism needs style. Stories that bring the reader into the comp, the spot, whatever it may be.

If you put the power in the hands of the people then this is what happens (think X-Factor, etc). Ditch the system and put the articles that you want at the top of the homepage. What do you want Newschoolers to be?

Got to say I agree with this. This is an interesting thread though for once in ski grabber. I do agree with rogge though about quality of content. I read powder articles all the time as they are interesting and well written. It's that sort of news I think tht coul get people reading again. And as for video content I agree it has its place but unless I'm sat at home I'm much more likly to read an article then watch a video so I feel written media still has its place.

"Ski journalism doesn't need news. I can get a lot more out of a video recap of a comp than a written breakdown. Ski journalism needs style." -[hank] with the quote of the year.

Thanks Rogge!

>implying X Factor is chosen by people

I have to say I agree with this, and also a lot of what Rogge is saying.

I love Powder mag and, though it isn't widely available in the UK, when I can pick up a copy from a news stand I always jump at the chance. When I do have a copy I read it cover to cover, and the best articles I read more than once too. I can still remember an amazing article about some ski bums who bought an old cop car from years back.

There are some awesome articles on NS but I can't think of many I have read multiple times. Partly that is a difference between print and online media. I suppose it's my job as an NS journalist to try and write stuff that is so good that people want to read it multiple times but, with the way the site is laid out at the moment, I do think it is an uphill battle.

People like to think that numbers never lie. But while they are hard to argue with, they often hide the truth rather than reveal it. Especially when things that require different inputs from the end user are compared. Reading articles requires more effort than looking at a picture or watching an edit, so obviously the picture/edit will get more views from the casual visitor. But that doesn't necessarily mean it has more value. The users that do bother to read an awesome opinion piece or interview will, in my opinion anyway, gain more from the experience.

If NS does want to be the home of quality written content then it needs to factor in the differences between written word and 'instant gratification media' either by adjusting the whats hot algorithm or returning to something more like the old homepage.

Solid point Doug put out. Why isn't the news getting more attention? Why am I not reading the news on the site? Other than feeling bad for not even going through most articles, I simply dont care about most of them. It's not because they are bad journalists, I am sure a lot of work has been put on them, but I feel the article don't connect with me.

All the ones that I looked at in the past were all ripped off another site. It provided 2 lines and looked more like a drunk tweet than a full article. I do have an interest in pro's lives and companies, but getting amped about a link to [insert pop site here] and only finding out it lacked coverage.

There are golden articles in the news; dont get me wrong, but with the search era; I only look for keywords that attract me. The golden nuggets are the long ones, but when they resemble party articles and rip offs; I just give up.

-So first, I suggest a new way to sort the news. Maybe a rating that will put the article front and center stage.
-Make the homepage necessary to access before going to the forums. People might read.
-Ditch the site rip offs.
-Incorporate comments into the article and not in a separate section of the page. BRING BACK FIRSTSSSSS!
-Make a "discussion in threads" button in the article so the article can get publicity.

Sitting in class and the girl in front of me is browsing buzzfeed. Reminded me if this thread.