Why subscription publishers still engage in clickbait
Hey everyone! So this is my first attempt at the paid version of the newsletter. As you’ll see below, I leaned heavily into answering questions from subscribers, so don’t hesitate to email me at my subscriber-only email address simonowenspremium@gmail.com to send me question/comments to include in this newsletter.
This format isn’t set in stone, and I definitely welcome your feedback. Do you like this informal approach, or do you want something that’s closer in look and feel to my free newsletter? Let me know!
And if someone forwarded you this newsletter and you want to sign up yourself, here’s the link:
Ok, now on to the content:
Why subscription publishers still engage in clickbait
Subscriber Tony Mecia wrote in with this question:
I read your material a lot. I read a lot of industry trend pieces. It seems as though there is obviously this trend toward subscriber revenue, toward creating connections with loyal fans, and away from digital strategies based on clicks and web ads.
Given that that is the case and has been around for, I don’t know, a few years perhaps … why do so many media sites still follow the same old website/clickbait/catchy headline/traffic generating approach? I’m thinking of the Washington Post, which has a team that scans the web for viral stories and writes catchy two-sentence headlines. I’m thinking of the Washington Examiner, which a recent CNN story said pursues a “clicks at any cost” strategy. I’m thinking of my own hometown paper, which uses staff resources to write about mating skunks and swarming bands of sharks in the Atlantic (4 hours away).
If reader revenue is such an obvious trend, why do so many publishers still seem to pursue the old ad model? Why do we still have so much clickbait? Is there still money in it? Is attracting readers through “viral” stories the top of the funnel, and they hope they will eventually become paying subscribers? Or is it just hard to change? What am I missing?
So let me start by first addressing the two specific examples you cited, and then I’ll answer your broader question.
The Washington Examiner can be explained away pretty easily: it’s still entirely dependent on ads. At least I’m pretty sure it doesn’t have a robust subscription product. I confess to not being a regular reader, but I just went to its website and clicked through several articles, and I was never hit with a paywall. Despite an industry wide shift toward subscriptions, there are still plenty of holdouts that rely primarily on display advertising. Some are even profitable. Hard to say how the Washington Examiner is faring.
As for The Washington Post, it’s funny that you mention it, because CJR recently published a piece about how it somehow balances hard news with clickbaity fluff without alienating its paying subscribers. If I had to guess, I’d wager that editors have allowed enough customization with its paywall so that the fluffy clickbaity stories don’t actually count toward the meter. That way, WashPo gets to have its cake and eat it too, funneling readers of its serious journalism into its subscription pool while monetizing driveby readers with programmatic advertising.
But it’s worth saying that I wouldn’t advise this approach for most publishers. The Washington Post has tremendous resources behind it, which means it can assign a bunch of writers to churn out fluffy content and also hire huge teams of analytics and tech experts who can tweak the paywall just so as to capitalize on different segments of its audience.
Now, as to the broader question: why are subscription publishers still engaging in click baity journalism? Though yes, the industry has shifted towards a consumer revenue model, it’s been a slow one, with most publishers still heavily relying on the digital display advertising for the majority of their online revenue. It’s easy to give lip service to the idea that you’ll only focus on Journalism That Matters, but how many publishers actually have the guts to cannibalize their main revenue streams because of some experimental new revenue stream that won’t pay off until some unknown date in the future?
Remember, you’re mostly only hearing about the successful shifts to reader revenue. The vast majority of publishers who have launched paywalls are struggling to make them work.
How a journalism franchise model works
In my latest column on why local news outlets struggle with digital subscriptions, I wrote briefly about a company called TAPinto. I actually interviewed its founder Michael Shapiro on my podcast, and one of the most interesting things about his approach is that he uses a franchise model when launching news sites into new towns. That prompted subscriber Walter Lounsbery to write:
You mentioned the TapInto News franchise network towards the end of the article. I would like to find out more about their price structure and the capability of their platform. I know that is well beyond the subject of your post, but if you have additional information along those lines, I’d like to hear about it. The business model sounds unique, I wonder how much value franchise owners see in it.
So here’s what I can tell you about TAPinto’s franchise model: Let’s say you want to start a franchise in your own town. You’ll pay some kind of small upfront fee -- I can’t remember the exact price but it’s not an enormous amount. Then once you start generating advertising revenue, TAPinto takes a cut of the money you bring in. And once you start generating at least $100,000 in annual revenue, TAPinto takes a smaller cut, I’m guessing to incentivize you to grow your revenue base quickly.
What do you, the franchise owner, get in return? The parent company takes care of every technical aspect of the business, including a constantly-updated CMS and a suite of marketing tools. It also provides lots of editorial guidance, with a team of editors providing constant feedback and workshops aimed at helping franchise owners produce better local journalism.
Franchises are responsible for selling their own advertising, but they can also sell ads across other TAPinto sites, getting a cut of any revenue they generate outside of their own site.
As for how profitable it all is, Shapiro told me that TAPinto was slightly profitable for 2019. Also, there are now several TAPinto franchises that have been running for multiple years, so at least some of the franchise owners are likely turning a profit. A few years ago I spoke to a few who had experienced financial success. It’s hard to know, however, at a franchise-by-franchise level how well the company is doing. It has no major VC funding behind it, so it must be doing OK if it’s still operating and growing.
Ok that was fun!
I really like using your questions/comments as writing prompts, so don’t hesitate to email them in to me. Again, the address is simonowenspremium@gmail.com
Also
So as my paying subscribers, you represent my most devoted audience. As such, would you mind plugging this newsletter by posting to your social media channels? Here’s some suggested language:
I've really been enjoying @simonowens' media newsletter. If you work in the industry and aren’t subscribed, then you’re missing out.
https://simonowens.substack.com
Oh, and I don’t mind if you forward this newsletter to people who aren’t paying for it, especially if you include a gentle nudge for them to sign up.