4 ms·
If the time taken to read the buzzfeed article is the same as the high quality report, it is worth the same to an advertiser. The high quality report does good
by anilshanbhag 9y ago
If the time taken to read the buzzfeed article is the same as the high quality report, it is worth the same to an advertiser. The high quality report does good for the organization in terms of retention, a reader is likely to come back and read it if he finds good content.
- sirtaj 9y agoMarket segmentation also routinely leads some advertisers to target the kind of people who prefer high quality reporting. Economist vs Daily Mail, as an analogy.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- BoiledCabbage 9y agoWhat you're describing is exactly the problem. The high quality report has to hope to survive on secondary effects (which don't work), unlike the junk-food reporting whose cost is paid for by the single viewing. This is what every online newspaper has been saying for over a decade as they saw this problem approaching and didn't have a way to solve it. You can't survive this way in the extremely efficient web. Either top quality content needs to be able to pay for itself (ie charge more), or you're left with only two successful business models: make junk-food content, or off load your content creation to people willing to do it essentially for free as a hobby. Neither of those are good destinations for the web. They work in niches, but not across the board. Ex. I don't want my newspaper to consist of only volunteer journalists doing a bit here and there in their spare time.