4 ms·

But users don't want to visit Axios for only Axios news, or Buzzfeed for only Buzzfeed news. People turn to specific sources because those sources provide cove

But users don't want to visit Axios for only Axios news, or Buzzfeed for only Buzzfeed news. People turn to specific sources because those sources provide coverage over hot issues, but what people are interested in are the hot issues, not Axios or Buzzfeed. Google and Apple's content aggregation is giving customers what they want.

reaperducer 6y ago
But users don't want to visit Axios for only Axios news, or Buzzfeed for only Buzzfeed news. Says who? People have been picking their brands for hundreds of years. Some people would watch CBS News. Some would watch NBC News. Some would read the Houston Chronicle. Some would read the Houston Post. Then when they wanted to drill down into something more specific, they'd look at Gardener's World, Birdwatching, Sky & Telescope, etc... The all-you-can-eat buffet of information is a recent invention promoted as the be-all and end-all of "choice" by the people who make money off of low-quality information gluttony. Drinking from a firehose is not the best way to slake a thirst.
- threatofrain 6y ago
  The only way for NYT/WSJ/Buzzfeed to have an edge on curation and relevance is if they became more specialized; otherwise they are aiming to be as general as Apple or Google News but not as good. I'm not sure people appreciate the balkanization of TV content either. The problem isn't that HBO does or doesn't make great hits, the problem is that the hot original content can randomly pop up in another content kingdom, and HBO doesn't have a stranglehold on relevance or hotness. The same is true with all these news outlets wanting individual subscriptions and "brand loyalty". I think what people want is one Apple TV to rule them all.
- drivingmenuts 6y ago
  I’d say the majority of news consumers get by without getting the details behind stories. They want to get a sense of what’s going on and drill down on a few items of interest. If I read sports (which is almost never), I want the scores, to know who won or lost, but the details of the game or games are unimportant. The same with politics or local news - I don’t need the details, my mind is already made up. Note, I’m not saying this is a good thing, just using myself as an example. And I am guilty of just skimming headlines most days. But this is the problem publishers face. Facebook and Google, et al, provide news from publishers in a format that is good enough for most people. I don’t think they’re wrong for doing this. In fact, I think the onus is on publishers to be compelling enough to draw people in further. They may have one or two good writers, but they’re hidden in a pile of manure and ads.

reaperducer 6y ago

But users don't want to visit Axios for only Axios news, or Buzzfeed for only Buzzfeed news. Says who? People have been picking their brands for hundreds of years. Some people would watch CBS News. Some would watch NBC News. Some would read the Houston Chronicle. Some would read the Houston Post. Then when they wanted to drill down into something more specific, they'd look at Gardener's World, Birdwatching, Sky & Telescope, etc... The all-you-can-eat buffet of information is a recent invention promoted as the be-all and end-all of "choice" by the people who make money off of low-quality information gluttony. Drinking from a firehose is not the best way to slake a thirst.

threatofrain 6y ago
The only way for NYT/WSJ/Buzzfeed to have an edge on curation and relevance is if they became more specialized; otherwise they are aiming to be as general as Apple or Google News but not as good. I'm not sure people appreciate the balkanization of TV content either. The problem isn't that HBO does or doesn't make great hits, the problem is that the hot original content can randomly pop up in another content kingdom, and HBO doesn't have a stranglehold on relevance or hotness. The same is true with all these news outlets wanting individual subscriptions and "brand loyalty". I think what people want is one Apple TV to rule them all.
drivingmenuts 6y ago
I’d say the majority of news consumers get by without getting the details behind stories. They want to get a sense of what’s going on and drill down on a few items of interest. If I read sports (which is almost never), I want the scores, to know who won or lost, but the details of the game or games are unimportant. The same with politics or local news - I don’t need the details, my mind is already made up. Note, I’m not saying this is a good thing, just using myself as an example. And I am guilty of just skimming headlines most days. But this is the problem publishers face. Facebook and Google, et al, provide news from publishers in a format that is good enough for most people. I don’t think they’re wrong for doing this. In fact, I think the onus is on publishers to be compelling enough to draw people in further. They may have one or two good writers, but they’re hidden in a pile of manure and ads.