5 ms·

I was having a conversation with an editor I work with about CNN the other day, when the following occurred to me: I feel like the root of CNN's problem is tha

I was having a conversation with an editor I work with about CNN the other day, when the following occurred to me: I feel like the root of CNN's problem is that they have more or less abandoned the pursuit of "quality" reporting in favor of "popular" stories. In any publication, there is always this tension between quality and popularity. Consider how much has been going on in the world this past week, in particular with regards to the earthquake in Japan and the uprisings in the Middle East. I've been following those stories closely on the NY Times, which in my opinion has done some excellent reporting on both topics. Now consider the "most popular articles" on the Times right now: 1. The Times Announces Digital Subscription Plan 2. The Quad: Grant Hill’s Response to Jalen Rose 3. Paul Krugman: The Forgotten Millions 4. Pogue's Posts: ‘Chimping’ and Other Photo-Taking Tips 5. David Brooks: Social Science Palooza II 6. Ex-Racehorses Starve as Charity Fails in Mission to Care for Them 7. William D. Cohan: Degrees of Influence? 8. Timothy Egan: Frankenfish Phobia 9. Letter: A Letter to Our Readers About Digital Subscriptions 10. SAT’s Reality TV Essay Stumps Some You know, I probably end up reading half the articles that appear on the Times's most popular list, and I enjoy them greatly. But if the Times just gave up on doing "real" reporting and focused instead on these kinds of "popular" topics -- well, I'm sure I'd pretty quickly lose interest in the publication and go find another source of news and interesting tidbits. Which brings me back to CNN. I just have this feeling that this is what their business team was seduced by. Somebody looked at their numbers and said, "Hey, we don't get nearly as many viewers when we run an in-depth expose on the state of women's education in Afganistan as we do when we broadcast Lindsay Lohan's court proceedings live. So let's just ditch that newsy stuff and focus on what our viewers really want." This strategy of following what's most popular probably works in the short run. But in the long run, it can be devastating to your brand if it comes at the expense of quality.

brown9-2 16y ago
I don't think many people would disagree that this strategy has already destroyed CNN's brand. You don't need to qualify that with can. The long-term implications are already here.
- jsdalton 16y ago
  Well, I think the executives who made the decision to pursue this strategy might very well disagree with me. I'm also not convinced that it's common sense to pursue quality over popularity. In general, following your metrics is the sounder strategy. If CNN were to A/B test the "education in Afghanistan" story against Lindsay Lohan, what do you think would win? I have to guess Lindsay Lohan by a mile. Unfortunately, I don't have an easy answer for distinguishing between metrics you "should" follow vs. metrics you should not.
nir 16y ago
It's easy to measure page views, hard to measure how a story resonated with a reader. Furthermore, it's now possible to measure per story, rather than copies of the whole edition (or ratings for the whole evening news). You improve what you measure.
tomkarlo 16y ago
One of the editors of a major paper once told me that they viewed their primary product as _credibility_, not newspapers. In chasing pageviews, CNN is pursuing a race to the bottom. They have to compete with HuffPo and AOL and another million sites that aggregate or regurgitate content. I stopped going to CNN.com a long time ago and I rarely see it as a linked site in any discussions online. That's not a good sign if they want to grow their business and uniques (which are a more important metric than pageviews for an advertising-based site.)
GeoffWozniak 16y ago
This sounds analagous to governing by polls.
51Cards 16y ago
With respect to CNN's loss of respectable brand image I have only two words to say: Nancy Grace.
rst 16y ago
It's not just what they present, it's how they present it. With the Japan disaster trio going on (quake, tsunami, partial meltdowns), they've replaced some of the reruns of fluff (Piers Morgan's interviews with other former contestants from Celebrity Apprentice) with the live feed from CNN International. And looking at the CNN international stuff, it turns out that they are still capable of producing a news broadcast which at least looks and sounds like it was intended for grownups (even if the sourcing is ... awfully thin). They just don't see fit to broadcast it within the US.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

brown9-2 16y ago

I don't think many people would disagree that this strategy has already destroyed CNN's brand. You don't need to qualify that with can. The long-term implications are already here.

jsdalton 16y ago
Well, I think the executives who made the decision to pursue this strategy might very well disagree with me. I'm also not convinced that it's common sense to pursue quality over popularity. In general, following your metrics is the sounder strategy. If CNN were to A/B test the "education in Afghanistan" story against Lindsay Lohan, what do you think would win? I have to guess Lindsay Lohan by a mile. Unfortunately, I don't have an easy answer for distinguishing between metrics you "should" follow vs. metrics you should not.

nir 16y ago

It's easy to measure page views, hard to measure how a story resonated with a reader. Furthermore, it's now possible to measure per story, rather than copies of the whole edition (or ratings for the whole evening news). You improve what you measure.

tomkarlo 16y ago

One of the editors of a major paper once told me that they viewed their primary product as _credibility_, not newspapers. In chasing pageviews, CNN is pursuing a race to the bottom. They have to compete with HuffPo and AOL and another million sites that aggregate or regurgitate content. I stopped going to CNN.com a long time ago and I rarely see it as a linked site in any discussions online. That's not a good sign if they want to grow their business and uniques (which are a more important metric than pageviews for an advertising-based site.)

GeoffWozniak 16y ago

This sounds analagous to governing by polls.

51Cards 16y ago

With respect to CNN's loss of respectable brand image I have only two words to say: Nancy Grace.

rst 16y ago

It's not just what they present, it's how they present it. With the Japan disaster trio going on (quake, tsunami, partial meltdowns), they've replaced some of the reruns of fluff (Piers Morgan's interviews with other former contestants from Celebrity Apprentice) with the live feed from CNN International. And looking at the CNN international stuff, it turns out that they are still capable of producing a news broadcast which at least looks and sounds like it was intended for grownups (even if the sourcing is ... awfully thin). They just don't see fit to broadcast it within the US.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]