How publishers should respond to declining Google traffic
PLUS: Another Substack writer joins the $1 million club
Welcome! I'm Simon Owens and this is my media industry newsletter. You can subscribe by clicking on this handy little button:
Let’s jump into it…
How publishers should respond to declining Google traffic
The Verge published an excellent deep dive on how Google — through its collective ability to send billions of clicks in web traffic — has reshaped the web. In some ways, the changes it’s induced have improved the internet. For instance, we largely have Google to thank for why most websites are mobile friendly and have quick load times.
But in other ways, Google has incentivized the widespread creation of bland, unoriginal content that prioritizes the Google algorithm over human utility. One of my favorite passages from the Verge article is when the author feeds one of her previous articles into Semrush, an SEO tool that suggests search-friendly changes to website copy:
Among its suggestions: write a longer headline; split a six-sentence paragraph up because it’s “too long”; and replace “too complex” words like “invariably,” “notoriety,” and “modification.” Dozens of sentences were flagged as being confusing (I disagree) — and it really hated em dashes. I rewrote my prose over and over, but it didn’t seem to satisfy my robot grader. I finally chose one thought per sentence, broke up paragraphs, and replaced words with suggested keywords to get rid of the red dots signaling problems.
The result feels like an AI summary of my story — at any moment, a paragraph could start with “In conclusion…” or “The next thing to consider is…” The nuance, voice, and unexpected twists and turns have been snuffed out. I’m sure some people would prefer this uncomplicated, beat-by-beat version of the story, but it’s gone from being a story written by a real person to a clinical, stiff series of sentences.
Now imagine thousands of website operators all using this same plug-in to rewrite content. No wonder people feel like the answers [to search queries] are increasingly robotic and say nothing.
It’s clear that low-quality publishers are more adept than ever at clogging search results with this kind of content, and meanwhile Google is getting better every day at delivering answers within the search results page, which in turn siphons off clicks from content creators. Most publicly-available data has shown that Google search engine traffic to publishers is down across the board.
The question is: what should they do about it, especially when there are an infinite number of publishers out there with access to the same SEO tools and the ability to churn out an infinite number of AI-generated articles?
First, I think it’s important to realize that Google traffic, compared to some other forms of referral sources, is overrated. The vast majority of visits from Google consist of drive-by traffic — they’re there to extract the information they came for and then leave. This means they’re unlikely to sign up for your newsletter or convert into a paid subscription. They’re also of less value to advertisers.
To give you an example of what I mean, here’s a screenshot of my dashboard comparing direct traffic to Google traffic:
As you can see, about 3% of unique direct visitors convert into a newsletter subscriber. For Google traffic, it’s 1.5%. Direct traffic has twice the conversion rate compared to Google, which to me means it has double the value. I get that it can be disheartening to open your analytics dashboard and see a number go down, but that lost traffic doesn’t necessarily correspond with a loss in business revenue.
To be sure, that’s not to say that Google traffic has no value, especially if you’re publishing bottom-of-the-funnel product recommendation content that’s monetized through affiliate links. And publishers with programmatic ads enabled can generate some revenue from those visits, even if they’re at lower CPMs.
So is there any way for publishers to adapt to the current environment beyond simply following best SEO practices?
Well, there’s one secret weapon a high-quality publisher has that’s lacking for every low-quality publisher: brand recognition. If you type a query into search and see two results — one from a publisher you recognize and another from one you’ve never heard of — which of the two links are you most likely to click on? Probably the brand you recognize.
And with every click within Google search results, that sends a powerful signal to Google that your site is more authoritative, and it’ll therefore rank higher in results. In fact, my understanding is that click activity within search results is one of the most powerful signals in Google’s ranking algorithm.
So in terms of long term SEO optimization, doubling down on original, high quality content is a sure bet towards ensuring that your site can compete in a sea of AI-generated crap. Not only will this reorient you toward better KPIs — things like homepage visits, newsletter subscribers, app downloads, and paid subscriptions — but it will also strengthen your position within Google search results.
In an era of limitless content, the strongest brand will always win.
What do you think?
Creators follow monetary incentives
One theme I keep hammering home in this newsletter is that monetary incentives play the largest role in driving content production from creators. Elon Musk is learning that the hard way in his efforts to convince MrBeast to move his videos onto Twitter:
Since becoming interested in acquiring the social-media platform two years ago, Musk has stepped up interacting with MrBeast’s account, including in recent days, when he encouraged [Jimmy] Donaldson to post his videos on X.
The math apparently doesn’t work for a guy like Donaldson, who at 25 years old has built an impressive business empire of his own.
“My videos cost millions to make and even if they got a billion views on X it wouldn’t fund a fraction of it,” Donaldson responded recently to Musk’s urging.
We heard a lot of buzz when Twitter started mailing out checks to select creators, but have we seen anything since then indicating that that Twitter users are generating any meaningful revenue? It seems likely that Musk's team utilized those payments as a PR strategy and really isn't all that serious about sharing revenue with creators.
Want to reach my audience?
My newsletter has an open rate well north of 40% and is read by many of the top executives in tech, media, and marketing. If you want to reach this audience, then check out my sponsorship page.
The perils of relying on a personal brand
I'm always amazed when a creator builds up an audience into the millions and then one day just walks away from it. It happens more often than you'd think.
Case in point, education YouTuber Tom Scott recently abandoned in channel that has six million subscribers:
So why stop? “This is my dream job and I have a lot of fun doing it,” he says. “I know I’m incredibly lucky, but a dream job is still a job, and it’s a job that keeps getting bigger and more complicated and I am so tired.
“I could keep making bigger and better things, keep climbing the ladder, build a business, hire full-time employees, and end up as a manager, and that would be great for someone who isn’t me. But I know I’m bad at that, and I’d hate every second of it.”
I often get asked which is the better option: launching a media company on the back of your personal brand or trying to build something that isn’t closely associated with your face or byline.
I think there are real benefits to a strong personal brand, especially early on. Audiences will connect more quickly with a personality, and that connection drives all sorts of positive outcomes. That’s why brands are so eager to sponsor influencers, for instance, and I think it also makes your audience more likely to convert into paid subscribers.
But there are a lot of downsides as well. A media outlet built on a personal brand often leads to creator burnout, since the creator is primarily responsible for the creative output of the channel. There’s no stepping away and handing off all the duties to one of your employees.
There’s also no meaningful chance of an exit. Given that you, the creator, are the main driver of value for your channel, that channel isn’t worth much to a prospective buyer unless you come with it. That’s why creators like Scott simply walk away from their channels rather than hand the reins off to someone else.
This is why more and more creators are launching companies that aren’t necessarily extensions of their personal brands — fitness influencer Nick Bare with BPN, MrBeast with Feastables, Logan Paul and KSI with Prime. Those companies exist outside the perpetual hamster wheel of the Creator Economy, and they’re an escape hatch for when these personalities are ready to walk away from their public life completely.
So if you’re building a media brand right now, ask yourself: what’s your escape hatch?
Another Substack writer joins the $1 million club
Axios reports that tech journalist Eric Newcomer has surpassed $1 million in annual revenue generated through his newsletter and associated events:
The "Newcomer" newsletter has more than 75,000 free subscribers and more than 2,000 paid subscribers, he said. Subscribers pay $200 annually for access to his content, up from the $150 annually Newcomer charged at launch.
In addition to newsletters, Newcomer hosts an ad-supported podcast and makes money from events tied to his brand. In March, Newcomer co-hosted his first major event with the voice AI game company Volley. His second "Cerebral Valley AI Summit" with Volley in November was sponsored by HP and Oracle.
Holy cow that's amazing. When this guy joined Substack, he had a growing personal brand, but he wasn't an A-list journalist by any means. You should definitely go back and check out my podcast interview with him last year.
Watch my discussion with Newcomer in the video embedded below:
If video embeds don’t work in your inbox, go here.
Want to pick my brain on your content strategy?
Are you contemplating a new content strategy and want someone to give you feedback? I’ve had more and more of my readers reach out and request consulting calls so they can pick my brain on a variety of issues including platform optimization, content strategy, and monetization.
You can now book a call with me directly through Substack. Use the link below to grab a time on my calendar:
Book a meeting with Simon Owens
Puck surpasses the $10 million mark
In its reporting on Puck’s hiring of a new CEO, the WSJ dropped some new stats on the company:
The two-year-old publication, whose writers focus on covering power brokers in tech, media, finance and politics, has amassed around 40,000 full-paying subscribers and surpassed $10 million in revenue in 2023, according to a person close to the company.
The piece also reports the company has 40 employees. Some back-of-the-envelope math indicates Puck is generating $4 million in subscription revenue and $6 million through a mixture of sponsorships and events.
Longtime readers of this newsletter know I’m a huge admirer of Puck’s model of hiring star writers and then giving them monetary incentives — included equity and a cut of revenue — to help grow the business.
Want a daily dose of media industry news?
I only send this newsletter out twice a week, but I curate industry news on a daily basis. Follow me on one of these social platforms if you want your daily fix:
"...doubling down on original, high quality content is a sure bet towards ensuring that your site can compete in a sea of AI-generated crap"
Fully agree. Fresh & original content as well as content about first-hand experience are becoming extremely valuable USPs for writers/publishers in the long term.
Good content is king.