I (quelle surprise!) stand by my previous comment but something else has occurred to me that I wish to query with you.
You checked the visits with the various major news sites and found what you found which, of course, led you to your conclusion. My query is a bit long winded but, here goes. It is my understanding that many Canadian - please pardon the expression - minor sites got a lot of traffic and ultimately subscriptions due to people who started out through the major media sites. It is my further understanding from reading comments from many proprietors of such sites that they have experienced significant drops in traffic since the Facebook et al withdrawal of links So, can you comment on that?
As always, thank you for your statistical efforts on my (you are doing this exclusively for me, right?) behalf.
The fate of smaller media sites is definitely of concern. Sadly, I don't have any traffic data representing their specific relationships to social media engagement.
My reason for asking about this - and your response is precisely what I would expect, really - is that, to me, these minor sites are the actual future of media in the western world. Oh, the Globe, the Ceeb, etc. will continue but, ultimately, most of them will wither (perhaps the Ceeb will "wither" much more quickly after the next election?) and after they wither, what then? It is for that reason that I look to the minor media for ideas - some pretty silly, but some pretty good.
Don't forget the role that Substack pubs can play. There's a "chain" of Substacks in the UK that are providing first class local news in multiple communities. If things go well with The Audit, I've been thinking of opening regional bureaus here, too.
Yes, the various and sundry Substacks are terrifically important. The problem, as I see it, is that a lot of folks found a particular Substack via Facebook and that, of course, is no longer an avenue so subscriber growth is often decreased.
I highly commend the concept of regional bureaus (bureaux?). Again, however, you need some kind of buy in from your readership (I do and did!) but, if you cannot get people to hear of you via Facebook, etc. then it is a slower and harder slog to get the subscribers.
I absolutely agree that a series of Substacks, whether an actual chain or a kinda, sorta grouping of like minded folks can provide a real good alternative. In fact, that is what I was getting at by noting the issue of the "minor" media that is hurt by no longer having as many potential links with the absence of Facebook et al.
Most of the Substacks that I have seen are opinion driven simply because it is cheaper to have one "guy" provide "his" opinion than to staff up a newsroom. I suspect that many Substacks will remain opinion driven and that a reasonably successful news driven Substack will quickly migrate to their own website and thereby try to capture advertising revenue, etc.
As always, it is simultaneously really simple and really complicated.
The long-term goal of the Substack leadership is that their platform's network effect can drive an mostly independent ecosystem that's large enough and integrated enough to elevate valuable voices - and attract demanding readers.
If that pans out, then we could see some significant growth.
My understanding however is that, as far as I know, Substack publications do not have advertising. Having said that, subscription revenue is now seen as more or less the gold standard of revenue for online publications but to deny oneself the possibility of advertising revenue is potentially a difficulty, I submit.
I simply note that a news site incurs very substantial expenses what with salary related costs, news gathering costs, etc. and a pure subscription model with no possibility to "juice" revenue with advertising is rather brave, I suggest.
Having said all that, I am not in the news business and I accept that those who are in the business know better than I.
Sir, your concluding sentence is, "... I do strongly believe that it does at least demonstrate that the social media giants were never the problem in the first place."
Therefore, one could further conclude that the attempts by the federal government to extort monies from Google et al was a) silly; b) stupid; c) criminal (extortion being a criminal offence, after all); or, d) all of the foregoing.
I (quelle surprise!) stand by my previous comment but something else has occurred to me that I wish to query with you.
You checked the visits with the various major news sites and found what you found which, of course, led you to your conclusion. My query is a bit long winded but, here goes. It is my understanding that many Canadian - please pardon the expression - minor sites got a lot of traffic and ultimately subscriptions due to people who started out through the major media sites. It is my further understanding from reading comments from many proprietors of such sites that they have experienced significant drops in traffic since the Facebook et al withdrawal of links So, can you comment on that?
As always, thank you for your statistical efforts on my (you are doing this exclusively for me, right?) behalf.
The fate of smaller media sites is definitely of concern. Sadly, I don't have any traffic data representing their specific relationships to social media engagement.
My reason for asking about this - and your response is precisely what I would expect, really - is that, to me, these minor sites are the actual future of media in the western world. Oh, the Globe, the Ceeb, etc. will continue but, ultimately, most of them will wither (perhaps the Ceeb will "wither" much more quickly after the next election?) and after they wither, what then? It is for that reason that I look to the minor media for ideas - some pretty silly, but some pretty good.
Don't forget the role that Substack pubs can play. There's a "chain" of Substacks in the UK that are providing first class local news in multiple communities. If things go well with The Audit, I've been thinking of opening regional bureaus here, too.
I have a number of responses to this.
Yes, the various and sundry Substacks are terrifically important. The problem, as I see it, is that a lot of folks found a particular Substack via Facebook and that, of course, is no longer an avenue so subscriber growth is often decreased.
I highly commend the concept of regional bureaus (bureaux?). Again, however, you need some kind of buy in from your readership (I do and did!) but, if you cannot get people to hear of you via Facebook, etc. then it is a slower and harder slog to get the subscribers.
I absolutely agree that a series of Substacks, whether an actual chain or a kinda, sorta grouping of like minded folks can provide a real good alternative. In fact, that is what I was getting at by noting the issue of the "minor" media that is hurt by no longer having as many potential links with the absence of Facebook et al.
Most of the Substacks that I have seen are opinion driven simply because it is cheaper to have one "guy" provide "his" opinion than to staff up a newsroom. I suspect that many Substacks will remain opinion driven and that a reasonably successful news driven Substack will quickly migrate to their own website and thereby try to capture advertising revenue, etc.
As always, it is simultaneously really simple and really complicated.
The long-term goal of the Substack leadership is that their platform's network effect can drive an mostly independent ecosystem that's large enough and integrated enough to elevate valuable voices - and attract demanding readers.
If that pans out, then we could see some significant growth.
I accept what you are saying, however ....
My understanding however is that, as far as I know, Substack publications do not have advertising. Having said that, subscription revenue is now seen as more or less the gold standard of revenue for online publications but to deny oneself the possibility of advertising revenue is potentially a difficulty, I submit.
I simply note that a news site incurs very substantial expenses what with salary related costs, news gathering costs, etc. and a pure subscription model with no possibility to "juice" revenue with advertising is rather brave, I suggest.
Having said all that, I am not in the news business and I accept that those who are in the business know better than I.
Sir, your concluding sentence is, "... I do strongly believe that it does at least demonstrate that the social media giants were never the problem in the first place."
Therefore, one could further conclude that the attempts by the federal government to extort monies from Google et al was a) silly; b) stupid; c) criminal (extortion being a criminal offence, after all); or, d) all of the foregoing.