Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Inside the Media's Traffic Apocalypse
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/inside-the-medias-traffic-apocalypse.htmlMy short take: Google's pivot to AI has destroyed search-based visibility.
Even email, with Google's AI intrusion, is "enshittified" so to speak.
It would appear that what's remaining of value is something/anything that AI can't spit out instantly.
And what is that?
Traffic headwinds are not exactly a new problem for media companies, but it has only gotten worse. The problem started with Facebook pivoting away from the news in 2022 and has accelerated in recent months as Google makes seemingly corrosive changes to its search algorithm while rolling out the innovation that will one day replace traditional search results: AI summaries. “Search engines now deliver answers instead of links, while social platforms aim to keep users within their walled gardens,” a senior New Yorker editor explained. The social-media platform formerly known as Twitter, once a modest traffic generator that nevertheless functioned as a network for journalists and media organizations to share their stories and seed wider dissemination, has become virtually useless for media companies since owner Elon Musk throttled news links. “We don’t get shit from Twitter anymore,” said Tom Ley, editor-in-chief and co-founder of Defector. “You tweet out a link to an article and it just disappears.”
It all amounts to a kind of traffic apocalypse in which it seems all spigots for traffic are being turned off, affecting news organizations big and small, new and old. It hurts outlets heavily reliant on digital advertising but also those that draw revenue from product recommendations and subscriptions. The whole premise of internet publishing — that you could reach audiences far and wide — is starting to crumble, forcing publishers to reevaluate what kind of stories they produce and what kind of readers they want — and, ultimately, to think smaller and more bespoke. “The good news for any digital publisher is that the new game we all have to play is also a sustainable one: You have to build a direct relationship with your core readers,” said GQ global editorial director Will Welch. “We talk pretty much every day about the idea of ‘Google Zero.’ Honestly I love the drama of that term — it gives you a jolt. Time to take action.”
Not everyone is so excited. “I’ve never seen so much disarray in a strategic capacity in terms of where we’re all pointing the boat. No one is in alignment,” said one top magazine editor. “Right now you’re seeing literally every strategy going to market.” If there is consensus, it’s around having a diversified strategy that avoids being reliant on any third-party platform to reach an audience. But “that’s hard to do if you’re a start-up brand and don’t have 20 years of consumer memory of who you are,” said Keith Bonnici, who became COO of the Daily Beast last fall.
It’s even a challenge for the legacy organizations with the most recognizable brands. “Frankly, some of the stuff that we’re doing right now — and we have been doing over the last year or so — around establishing a direct relationship, about building in tools that help our journalism reach more people without relying on platforms — we should have been doing years ago,” said a senior New York Times editor. “But it was sort of like we weren’t forced to really contend with it.”
It all amounts to a kind of traffic apocalypse in which it seems all spigots for traffic are being turned off, affecting news organizations big and small, new and old. It hurts outlets heavily reliant on digital advertising but also those that draw revenue from product recommendations and subscriptions. The whole premise of internet publishing — that you could reach audiences far and wide — is starting to crumble, forcing publishers to reevaluate what kind of stories they produce and what kind of readers they want — and, ultimately, to think smaller and more bespoke. “The good news for any digital publisher is that the new game we all have to play is also a sustainable one: You have to build a direct relationship with your core readers,” said GQ global editorial director Will Welch. “We talk pretty much every day about the idea of ‘Google Zero.’ Honestly I love the drama of that term — it gives you a jolt. Time to take action.”
Not everyone is so excited. “I’ve never seen so much disarray in a strategic capacity in terms of where we’re all pointing the boat. No one is in alignment,” said one top magazine editor. “Right now you’re seeing literally every strategy going to market.” If there is consensus, it’s around having a diversified strategy that avoids being reliant on any third-party platform to reach an audience. But “that’s hard to do if you’re a start-up brand and don’t have 20 years of consumer memory of who you are,” said Keith Bonnici, who became COO of the Daily Beast last fall.
It’s even a challenge for the legacy organizations with the most recognizable brands. “Frankly, some of the stuff that we’re doing right now — and we have been doing over the last year or so — around establishing a direct relationship, about building in tools that help our journalism reach more people without relying on platforms — we should have been doing years ago,” said a senior New York Times editor. “But it was sort of like we weren’t forced to really contend with it.”
What good are "quarterlies" when the entire landscape has shifted?
You bet the farm on Google and Google stole the farm.
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
