If A Story Isn’t Linked To Does It Make a Sound?

Think of this as Volume 16, Number 39 of A-Clue.com, the online newsletter I've written since 1997. Enjoy.

Since joining TheStreet.com earlier
this year, I have been struck by their 1990s' attitude toward links.
(Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

The idea is that, when you link to
something, you tell people in the text who you're linking to. Sounds
fair, doesn't it?

But what if the story you found on
Google News originated with, say, The Wall Street Journal or The New
York Times? Further, what if you found the story somewhere else, when
it was republished by an affiliate?

Who do you link to?

Well, I link to stories where I find
them. I don't have time to track down the sources, and I have no
desire to offer my readers a link most of them can't get to – one
behind a paywall. Thus, the source of the story gets no real benefit
from my linking, but on the other hand my reader can see what I'm
linking to. The story gets out – it always does. There is little
marginal utility in news, and the broader the interest in a subject,
the less marginal utility there is.

Still, it can be frustrating. Hosers in
the business press have found ways to get their links into Google
News and then, when I click onto what is essentially a press release
or analyst report, hit me with a window over the content demanding
registration before I can proceed. It's very stupid, and the
audiences these “publishers” get must be really worthless, but
there you are.

There will continue to be a fight
between Google News and fools of all kinds. They don't warn you of
the Times or Journal paywalls, for instance, because those publishers
do give a taste of free access, only hitting you with the paywall
after you reach a certain threshold of stories per month. Last year
they did deals with Google to offer links directly to stories – but
no internal links beyond them. This mean the link worked, but you
were in a cul de sac. That must have done wonders for their
reputations among readers.

Here's the deal. When you put up a
paywall, you do more than demand money from people. You eliminate
pass-along readership.You pass those benefits – which every
newspaper has depended upon since the invention of newsprint – on
to someone else.

What is happening in the financial and
general news press is not that there are new direct competitors to
the Times and the Journal. What's happening is precisely what
happened to so-called “monopoly” newspapers like The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution over a decade ago – the death of a thousand
cuts.

This happens first on high-value beats,
but in time it happens everywhere. In business, for instance, we now
have publications like Business Insider, which have figured out that
building communities around content is worth a lot more than what a
paywall might be worth. In entertainment, there are a host of small
publishers eating the lunch of old-time paywall companies like
Variety, which now can't draw a bid. (Hey, look, the story is in
Business Insider.)

Fact is, The Huffington Post has long
made more money from The New York Times' content than the Times, and
the Times pulling that content from the HuffPo doesn't mean a thing.
They can get it from somewhere else. Then, when you build community
around a story, you multiply its financial impact for you, at almost
no cost.

Even if you know who your readers are,
and can prove to an advertiser that you cover their target market,
there is still more money to be made. When I say paywalls are stupid,
I don't mean you can't have a paid tier or shouldn't have a
registration system.

A registration system can prove to
potential advertisers that you know their customers by name, and can
help you collect data on the market. Just don't demand registrations
until you've earned trust, and give trust back in exchange for the
data. This gives you a chance to engage those readers, but just be
aware you have something less than transaction permission with these
folks – you start pushing spam on them (and spam is in the eye of
the beholder), they'll toss it in their spam folders.

Publishers like TPM, originally a blog
called Talking Points Memo, have become real news organizations by
treating the Web as what it is. They let anyone in, they have an RSS
feed to all their stories, they want traffic and don't mind where it
comes from. But TPM is now in the process of creating a paid tier of
its own.

What will it consist of? Part of it
will be the equivalent of “market reports,” only from within
their political beat. Some will consist of chats with reporters, and
with newsmakers, that only customers have access to. Direct access to
the desk is something you can sell. And, just as with NPR or podcast
outfits like MaximumFun  they can sell based on the idea that you're helping something
worthwhile remain around.

For almost two decades, I have been
telling publishers that they can grow on the Internet, not decline
thanks to the Internet, by knowing their target markets, by leading
them down a sales funnel, by creating marketplaces based on the
industry, lifestyle or place where they publishe. I am gratified that
some have taken my advice, and not entirely surprised that so many
publishers declined or refused to take the leap, preferring death to
what they considered dishonor.

That's OK. Because there is still an
enormous amount of unexplored territory out there for publishers to
explore. Start with the word local. Then apply the rules outlined
above – know your audience, focus on your market, add registration
and pay tiers as you earn that credibility.