Pondering Web traffic
You might think that the big news story of the day yesterday -- Duke lacrosse charges dropped -- would drive high online traffic. And that story, coupled especially with the mayor's decision not to run for re-election, did. The mayor story actually got more views. (They both had video, too!)
But we got more traffic by 10 a.m. today on these two traffic accidents than we did all day on the Duke and Holliday stories.
Conclusions? Duke was all over the Web; people didn't need to come here? They already knew what the headline in the Duke case and didn't care to read deeper. The big newspaper stories aren't always the big Web stories? Mayor who? We love us a wreck story and if someone is dragged down the street, so much the better? Web traffic is a magical, serendipitous thing and you go nuts trying to figure out a one-day swing? All of the above?
Comments (6)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Actually, none of the above. I go to traffic accident stories to see if I know who was injured (or worse). That's something I can find out only in the N&R. BTW, I read the Mayor story in the paper. The update email gave me the instant details.
Have you considered "breaking news" alerts via email? That's what drives folks to national news sites on big stories (I got 3 of them on the Duke case, but never get them from the N&R, even when they're deserved).
Posted on April 12, 2007 5:10 PM
Maybe there are a few issues at play here. In no particular order:
1.) I think people do, in fact, tend to gravitate toward "mayhem" stories: shootings, car wrecks, fires, etc. I know that in a lot of reader surveys, respondents try to distance themselves from such gore, but let's face it... we all hit the brakes whenever we pass a bad accident, we all whip out camera phones for large fires, and CSI is one of the most popular shows on television. It's been a few years since my communications theory course in grad school, so the details escape me, but my professor's explanation was this: the news of death and destruction, on a very basic level, is something humans need for adapting to our environment and by extension -- our survival.
2.) These also tend to be stories that are very easy to write with almost no turnaround time between the moment we get a press release, and the moment we post online. When possible, we call police and witnesses and victims... And even when we can't find people right away, it's common to update stories throughout the day. Fast turnaround, plus ease of writing, and you post more of these mayhem stories, which frequent Web site visitors will click on first because it's fresh content.
3.) I agree with Sue. You DO want to see if someone you know is either killed in a car wreck or left homeless by a fire. "There but for the grace of God go I." Or something like that.
Posted on April 12, 2007 6:10 PM
I first want to know where exactly the wreck happened, and then to see if it involved anyone we know. We can get our share of icky crime/death/gore stories on any news channel, news Web site, etc., but the N&R tells us what many want to know -- does this story (such as an xdent) affect me? Especially on a local, personal level. That's why I check 'em out.
Posted on April 12, 2007 9:43 PM
Yep, look for both mobile and e-mail alerts soon, Sue. Setting up the system right now.
Posted on April 13, 2007 8:48 AM
If it bleeds, it leads. I can get major stories from any of the 24/7 cable news outlets.
I like Keith Holliday but I've been seeing him all my life and watching video of him offers no thrill. In his case the headline tells the story, "Mayor Won't Seek Reelection" so I don't need to read the story. Who cares why? If you headlined that story, "Mayor Makes Reelection Decision" then you'd force people to open the story and see whether it was to run or not to run.
I read stories of local interest, the national/world news I can get anytime on TV.
Posted on April 13, 2007 10:20 AM
Ooo! Ooo! N&R SMS! KEWL!
Posted on April 13, 2007 3:29 PM