Tracking reader interest and readership
One of my favorite media thinkers, Alan Mutter, did a "quick analysis of reader reaction to the tsunami of election coverage that just crested over us. The study suggests there is a major disconnect between what editors want to print and what readers want to read."
I suggest otherwise.
He looked at the most e-mailed stories from newspaper sites on Wednesday, the day after the elections.
Of the 24 stories in the sample, fully two-thirds had nothing whatsoever to do with the election. Only five (20.8%) contained election results or analysis. Only three (12.5%) dealt with the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld in the aftermath of the vote.
The non-election fare ranged widely from a no-knead bread recipe in the New York Times to the follow-up on an investigative report in the Los Angeles Times to a USA Today story about a naked man arrested for carrying a concealed weapon.
As a journalist, I would say news selection, especially in such matters as an election changing the balance of power for the first time in 10 years, is too sacred to be affected by pandering to subscribers who are more interested in where the naked man put his gun than in the details of the Senate recount in Virginia.
As a marketing guy, however, I would say there is an uncomfortable, if not dangerous, incongruity between the intentions of the editors and the expectations of their readers.
We don't catalogue most e-mailed stories. We compile stories by traffic count, which, I'd suggest, is a more reliable indicator of what the reader may use.
Our top five stories on Wednesday were:
1. Bond vote mixed
2. Woman sues city of "intimidation" by police
3. Candidate who removed signs "feared for myself and wife"
4. Woman killed daughters injured in stabbing
5. Brand new day for Eastern High students
I'm of the school that people didn't e-mail election results because, well, the stories were such commodities that no one needed a personal invitation to read them. They were everywhere.
My personal experience with e-mailing stories is two-fold:
* I e-mail a story that tells me something I didn't know and I think the recipient should know it. That's not likely to be a story that's all over TV and the Internet.
* Just as often as I click the "e-mail this story" link, I copy and paste the url and shoot the link with a personal note myself. It's easier.
It doesn't surprise me that the bond story was tops on the list Wednesday. It was the centerpiece of the Web page most of the day. All five of the stories got prominent display in the newspaper, too, either on Wednesday or Thursday.
I should qualify my original disagreement with Alan. There may be a disconnect between editor and readers, but this doesn't necessarily show it.
Comments (2)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
"the tsunami of election coverage"
Funny, I've seen this phrase used in two other news stories, and mentioned several times on CNN's coverage. Nobody says "the hurricane" of election coverage. Wonder why that is?
Posted on November 9, 2006 7:16 PM
"Nobody says "the hurricane" of election coverage. Wonder why that is?"
Tsunami just sounds cool.
"Just as often as I click the "e-mail this story" link, I copy and paste the url and shoot the link with a personal note myself. It's easier."
I just right click on the page and click "Send link," which opens my email client.
What about a complete look at the most emailed stories plus the stories with the most page views and -- someday -- stories with the most comments creating a more comprehensive look at the most talked about/discussed. We could call it the "talk of the town square."
:-)
Posted on November 10, 2006 6:19 PM