The Declining Value of Redundant Web News Content

Microsoft (MSFT) withdrawing its offer to buy Yahoo (YHOO) is a sufficiently large story to demonstrate the problem of redundant news content on the web. Google News is currently tracking about 2,000 versions of this story. To get a better sense of why it’s a problem to have 2,000 stories about the SAME THING, I’ve reproduced about ten percent of them below — just the headlines and ledes. If you have the stomach to scroll through them all to see what else I have to say about it, check out the sources as you scroll:

UPDATE: The Google (GOOG) News example is reproduced here instead. You’re reading this in RSS or email a day after I posted it because this post was so large it broke my Feedburner feed. Too much content breaks the web — there you have it. Keep reading for my original argument.

If you’ve made it this far, you may have noticed the absence of blogs from the sources. So this is far from a representative sample of all of the websites that published a version of this news story.

Let’s check out Techmeme, again reproduced in its entirety, because seeing is disbelieving:

We all know how this happened, of course. All of the print publications, including non-niche pubs like the Washington Post, have to create a version of this story for their print publication, and then dump that story on the web. All of the web-native tech sites, competing tooth and nail for page views, are all obligated to publish at least one if not multiple takes on this story. Then there are all the sites that reproduced the wire version of the story.

If each site were, as in print, an island unto itself, this would make sense — if the news outlet did not cover the story then its readers might not know about it. But seen as a whole on the web, which connects each and every one of these websites, and especially seen through the lens of an aggregator like Google News or Techmeme, this huge mass of content about the same story doesn’t make much economic sense.

I am purposely choosing not to write about the story itself, finding it much more interesting to make this meta-observation, but if I had chosen to write about it, I could have reduced the economic value of every other version of the story.

Why? Because there is a zero sum game for attention on this story. Even tech insiders will read a finite number of stories. If I put my version in the mix, for each time mine gets read, someone else’s doesn’t. So each version of the story reduces that marginal economic value of all the others.

Here’s another way to look at it. Imagine a Midwest city where a factory that is a major employer announces that it is shutting down. Now imagine that instead of one local newspaper and one local TV station covering this story instead there are 100 newspapers and 50 TV stations. Reporters from each of these outlets file their coverage of the story. Newsstands in the local Wal-Mart display all 100 newspapers, each with the factory closing story on the cover. Anyone who turns on their TV station can flip channels at 6pm and find the same story being reported, over and over again.

Yes, that’s a silly example, but is it really all that different from what’s happening on the web?
Can you imagine a content economy five or ten years from now that supports 2,000 versions of the same story? Is it any surprise that the company that creates far and away the most economic value on the web produces NO ORIGINAL CONTENT? (Yes, that would be Google.)

Here’s the takeaway for original content creators: BE ORIGINAL

That means when you consider publishing an original news item, be aware of the larger marketplace for that news. If it’s hugely competitive, consider allocating your limited reporting resources elsewhere, and instead find other ways to create value around the story, as the Seattle Times did:

• Link to the best coverage
• Publish source material
• Ask readers what they think

Imagine how much more value local media brands, for example, might create if they did any one or more of the above rather than publish yet another commodity version of the story. Practicing link journalism could leave more time for original reporting that ISN’T being done by other news organizations.

(Of course, the Seattle Times still publishes a print edition, so they had to have their print coverage. And Microsoft is a local story for them, so the original reporting is a rational allocation of resources.)

Here’s the other takeaway: Don’t add to the noise, help reduce it.

An engineer who works on Google News said during a presentation at the NewsTools conference that Google is studying whether the amount of news on the web is actually decreasing.

So while there’s more content on the web, there may be less news.

Final takeaway: Don’t contribute to the commodification of news on the web.

Comments

[RichardSchweitzer]

In all likelihood there is a readership for, or at least an effort by each publisher (website provider) to generate a readership. It is probably more akin to radio broadcasting - which certainly would not suggest "Turn your dial from us to station XQDR for the latest on this development."

The more cogent points are "variety," and "complete" coverages that have people "keep tuned" to this website (and read our ads too!).

[Malkiel]

It's "commoditization&... not "commodification&...

The redundancy is partly because newspaper web sites figure their audience are the same people who buy their print editions or come from their location, so they feel the need to offer up a complete package because people expect it. Like many readers I don't look for news stories by search engine, I go straight to my favorite sites, where having it all in front of me is a great convenience...

[K. Lewis]

Link journalism is counter to the business model of building readership and selling ads at prices scaled up based on readership. The comparison to Google doesn't work precisely because they don't monetize original content. If I take your recommendation to heart, I go from providing insightful commentary on news relevant to my niche to competing with Google to find and sort the best stories among my competition and sending my readership there for the story. What are my credentials if I'm not actually writing? Also, how do I monetize the link journalism approach? I don't disagree with your assessment of the problem. I just don't see the business case for paid writer to change behavior.

Thanks!