It’s a great decision and glad they did it.
But subscription revenue is now a much bigger part of NYT’s overall revenue and ad tech CPMs are declining year over year. So it’s not a hard decision anymore.
But subscription revenue is now a much bigger part of NYT’s overall revenue and ad tech CPMs are declining year over year. So it’s not a hard decision anymore.
People are bitching about 'clickbait headlines' on the Easyjet hack post right now - and that's an article from the BBC.
Nowadays, people seem to complain about any headline that in any way has the potential to make people want to read the article.
From my anecdotal experience with editors at better publications (such as the NYT), they care far less about individual articles' metrics than people seem to believe.
At many of these publications, writers do not even have access to read metrics. (Bloomberg is the example I'm sure of, but there are others)
do the writers get to write the headlines though? i thought that was the editor's job, who surely does have access to the metrics.
Before the advent of this, most headlines tried to be relevant though with occasional good puns and pizazz.
But mostly The Enquirer and the Daily News were outliers and made fun of for their routine exaggerations.
I think the definition has expanded at the same time that the clickthrough/SEO/likes/dopamine optimization has become embraced by editors, who write the headlines. To me, clickbait is more about substance than style. It's an attentional lure into an article with disappointing substance, to varying extents. Various editors will stylize the headline for the sweet tooth of their demographic.