Mar 01 2009

Why SEO is still job #1 at news sites

Published at 7:54 pm

Newspapers have done a crappy job of getting and keeping an audience which it could then sell to advertisers.

Newspapers could have had an easy time of it. Because they produce tons of text about their communities as part of daily operations, they had a leg up over everyone else in their ability to dominate a community online. Even the simple practice of shovelware combined with basic SEO got some of them a long way.

Of course, that’s not far enough. The type of traffic you get from organic search results on Google can’t be monetized to the same extent that an engaged local community of site users can. News sites need as well to provide areas where users can interact with the news – discuss, participate, enhance, share. Allowing comments on stories is just the beginning. A news site can develop communities around those discussions.

By doing that a news site develops strong pull. And the resulting engaged readership can be sold to local advertisers. (Assuming, of course, it has good salespeople.)

Alas, even that’s not enough. Anybody can start communities and if they are dedicated enough and have enough online personality they can make them work. Those can compete with the newspaper’s.

Hell, Facebook and Twitter can compete with the newspaper’s. Attention is scarce.

“Community” is just another word for “network.” Networks derive their value from the number of participants and the number of connections between them. The value of a network increases exponentially with its size. Small networks are not valuable, have no pull, and can be easily replaced and die. Large networks have staying power, momentum, and can survive most anything.

The effect of network competition is a fractious set of small networks with some overlap but no cohesion. All are vulnerable. To succeed, a newspaper must build a strong network, a stable community, that can thwart the dissolving effects of smaller networks that spring up around it.

Luckily, newspapers have some advantages in this regard:

  • Content – almost by definition, community newspapers have the kind of content that interests the members of a community.
  • Credibility – people tend to trust the content and the communities that develop out of that content.
  • Expectation – people expect that local community newspaper sites will most likely have the information they seek
  • Brand

But even with all these advantages, newspapers can fail to create the dominant network in a community. Because the key ingredient missing above is local search dominance.

Principle: Local search dominance is the key to the success of a newspaper site. Because it is the key to developing the largest and most resilient community.

Go to Google and type in the name of your city or town (or if you live in a really big city, your borough or neighbourhood or whatever). Also type in another term, like “mayor”, or “shoes”, or “restaurant”, or “policy”. Do this for several terms.

If your community newspaper is not at least on the first page of search results for the vast majority of those searches, your community newspaper is FAIL.

And any websites that did show up on the first page for a large percentage of those local searches have a better chance than the community newspaper does of creating the dominant local community, despite all the paper’s natural advantages.

Why? It’s in the nature of networks. Bigger ones grow faster. If you can get all the lost souls into your community early enough, then in the absence of more compelling alternatives they will join it.

But there’s the rub, the compelling alternatives. If Jim builds a network over here on the basis of being discovered during searches for “Yourtown mayor” and “Yourtown politics”, but Bob builds a network over there on the basis of searches for “Yourtown restaurants” and “Yourtown clubs”, then we have two compelling alternatives and one of them is weak.

For community newspapers, practicing healthy SEO was never about getting cheap traffic. It is about dominating local search.

By dominating local search, a newspaper maximizes the number of opportunities to get people to join their network and not some other. Almost as important: by dominating local search, you create the impression that you are the dominant force. You live up to the expectant promise inherent in being the voice of the community.

Not unimportantly, you also give your salespeople a hell of a thing to sell when they make their rounds. “Type ANYTHING into Google about Yourtown, and there we are,” you can hear them crowing.

Of course, all this is predicated on the idea that you properly SEO’d every page on your site, and that you have provided the tools – comments, forums, galleries, whatever it is – to allow communities to form, and that you have ALL the data about your community too – like the business directory.

That is why SEO is still the basic, fundamental job at news sites. It ain’t about the traffic, although that can be part of the measure of success and the sales pitch. Instead, it’s about growing the community as fast as you can, and not giving other fledgling networks a toehold.

And it’s about leveraging what you’re already good at: content, credibility, expectation, brand.

In yesterday’s diatribe about how newspapers have failed to implement a good advertising strategy – which includes gathering the audience as well as selling it – I made reference to Howard Owens’ news website normative: a website strategy based on pull, not push. To help explain that, I asked him a few questions on Twitter, and included his responses in my post.

But there was one tweet I left out. I had asked him whether SEO was an important part of a pull strategy. He said:

@howardowens SEO important, but irrelevant to point I’m making. You want money making site? You need high-repeat regulars, addicts.

I respectfully disagree, Howard. SEO is not irrelevant, it is key to gathering those high-repeat regulars.

10 responses so far

4 Tweets 7 Other Comments

10 Responses to “Why SEO is still job #1 at news sites”

  1. Howard Owenson 02 Mar 2009 at 1:52 am

    Excellent post, Mark.

    And today’s the day I officially start my new full-time job of running The Batavian alone. I’m equally excited and scared as hell.

    You let out verticals. I know everybody thinks the classified categories are dead for revenue, but what I’m finding is interest among advertisers in these categories. Yes, they know what they can do on their own, but they’re also still looking for a local solution than can help deliver a concentration of local eyeballs.

    And thanks for the link!

    This comment was originally posted on http://recoveringjournalist.typepad.com/recovering_journalist/)“>Recovering Journalist

  2. Dan Woogon 02 Mar 2009 at 4:56 am

    I can do without most newspapers (including the one I write for, may God and my employer strike me dead). And, Mark, you’ve laid out an excellent analysis of what will come next (very, very soon).

    But I don’t think I can live without the New York Times. It stands head and shoulders above all other newspapers; it can’t be replicated, and it can’t be enjoyed nearly as well online (though its many online tentacles are impressive). Do you (or any other posters) see a future for the print Times?

    This comment was originally posted on http://recoveringjournalist.typepad.com/recovering_journalist/)“>Recovering Journalist

  3. Mark Pottson 02 Mar 2009 at 5:13 am

    Dan: I’ve been looking for an excuse to talk about the survival of The New York Times for a while now, and you’ve given it to me. Clearly, the Times Co. is under duress, like other big publishers, and the Times itself faces additional challenges because of its national scope and circulation–unlike most papers, it can’t retrench into a local strategy for survival. And printing around the country ain’t cheap.

    That said, I think the Times will last in print longer than most large papers, just on traditional and gumption alone. If you ask me what the very last printed newspaper will be, I’d say it will be the Sunday New York Times, which I think is a very different product from any other daily paper. The Sunday Times is more of a rich, magazine-like leisure read than any other paper (including the daily Times), and I think that unique attribute will help it survive for many years.

    I stopped subscribing to print papers in favor of online versions years ago, without any ill effects. But you’ll have to pry the print Sunday New York Times from my cold, dead hands. It’s not the same as any other newspaper, and thus the exception that proves the rule.

    This comment was originally posted on http://recoveringjournalist.typepad.com/recovering_journalist/)“>Recovering Journalist

  4. Dan Woogon 02 Mar 2009 at 12:21 pm

    From your lips to god’s ear.

    This comment was originally posted on http://recoveringjournalist.typepad.com/recovering_journalist/)“>Recovering Journalist

  5. Dave Molloyon 02 Mar 2009 at 3:51 pm

    A wonderful summary of the current opinions held by every educated professional, with some interesting personal insights.

    Declaring the death of newspapers is a strong statement, though. And the idea that the Sunday New York Times will be the last? Maybe in New York, it will be the last paid-for paper. But the college press will live on, as will the free sheets (public transport will see to that) and the print media will still have a place in low income nations where access to technology and infrastructure is limited. As you said, big press organisations will continue to live on as a shadow of their former selves for a while, but I’m not sure the same applies to niche markets.

    This comment was originally posted on http://recoveringjournalist.typepad.com/recovering_journalist/)“>Recovering Journalist

  6. robbmontgomeryon 02 Mar 2009 at 9:01 pm

    Local search dominance is the key to the success of a newspaper site. Explains easily community vs. network http://bit.ly/QwPgB

    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  7. ehelmon 02 Mar 2009 at 9:11 pm

    “Net result of tweeting journosphere— that makes conversation an integral part of journalistic mandate—is transparency.” http://bit.ly/QwPgB

    This comment was originally posted on Twitter

  8. RickWaghornon 03 Mar 2009 at 4:56 am

    Bang, bang, bang. Nail after nail hit on the head. Top man. You should never have run out of track, fella…

    Anyway, who knows, someone might, somewhere, come up with [part of] the answer… but it ain’t going to come from the top down. IMHO.

    It’ll come from the people up; from the Pizza Parlour on the corner of EveryBlock being able to find a way to advertise his wares to his customers on that very same EveryBlock…

    http://outwithabang.rickwaghorn.co.uk/?p=254

    All the best, etc

    Rick

    This comment was originally posted on http://recoveringjournalist.typepad.com/recovering_journalist/)“>Recovering Journalist

  9. Justin Carderon 03 Mar 2009 at 4:07 pm

    Thanks for saying hey for the upstarts! Some of the best 3-people-and-under news staffs are piecing your list together using free, cheap and open source tools and many are pretty good sites. We’ve put together a service that gives new efforts one solution to accomplish most of the things in your list including the community and self-serve advertising elements. You can see it in motion on sites like http://centraldistrictnews.com, http://thesouthlake.com and, my site, http://capitolhillseattle.com

    Anybody interested in learning more should visit http://neighborlogs.com — btw, we’re advertising supported so Neighborlogs costs nothing but your time and effort. We also believe that independent efforts are best in this space so all the sites are independently owned and operated. We provide the service. You build your new era news and information business.

    Thanks again for the inspiring post.

    Justin Carder, Neighborlogs
    206-399-5959

    This comment was originally posted on http://recoveringjournalist.typepad.com/recovering_journalist/)“>Recovering Journalist

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Additional comments powered by BackType