News Publisher Quit Facebook. Readership Went Up | Hacker News Reader

News Publisher Quit Facebook. Readership Went Up

npr.org

61 pointsthejteam11 comments

It's something I learned to be true on a personal level, and I'm sure it applies to many other levels - giving yourself away for free on Facebook and other social media devalues your social contributions and presence as a human being.

Gaining quality readers by ditching a quantity aggregator makes sense. But the only proof we're given that Stuff's readers valued them more was a single donation spike.

Interesting. I have a blog. I deleted my Facebook presence in July 2019. Readership went up, same as sales of my books.

Is it possible that Facebook sells you an audience that would have found you anyway?

Genuinely curious: What other ways would your audience have found you?

I’ve given thought to how a new web site or business quickly grows an audience without social. With search engines, the site still needs to be “seen” by the engine and compete with more established sites.

I have a free reprint policy, so my texts are often reprinted elsewhere with attribution and link to the original version on my site. Also, some people have the habit of sending links to interesting texts (or what they deem to be interesting) around by e-mail.

There are many spontaneous undercurrents in the pond of the Internet. It is also the reason why fake news are so hard to root out.

Thank you! This is actually very helpful to know. I’ve been talking with someone about using a Creative Commons model for sharing content to gain attention/traffic, but I wasn’t sure if it worked in the wild.

>But Boucher says her experience suggests publishers should prioritize a different relationship: the direct one they have with their audience.

I feel there's quite a bit to unpack here. Social media was sold to us as being a way to engage your users more closely... yet it seems the opposite is true.

“Sold as” != “proven as”

"Last year, in the middle of the pandemic, Sinead Boucher offered $1 to buy Stuff, New Zealand's largest news publisher... The punt worked. The Australian company accepted the offer of 1 New Zealand dollar, worth about 70 U.S. cents."

Explanation? You expect that the economy will eventually recover--so why essentially give the company away? [The only thing which comes to mind is a very heavy debt load which the new owner assumes.]

> "If we had remained on Facebook, we might have had another 5% growth,"

You may have accidentally submitted too quickly.

As it is, this quote is a little misleading. Additional context from the article:

> "If we had remained on Facebook, we might have had another 5% growth," she said. "But even if we throttled our growth ... it's brought us a lot of positives."

> Donations from readers went up, for example, once word of Stuff's decision leaked out. Boucher said the company's newsrooms felt the impact, too.

> "We can definitely see a change in the way people react to us and talk to us" she said. "Hearing anecdotally from journalists, they feel like they've been able to get interviews they would not have got before. They feel that it has really has contributed to people trusting us more, thinking about us as an organization with a clear set of values."

Based on the rest of article, sounds like they value being a trusted source more then getting more eyes. Given that Facebook and the like are a firehose of truths and lies, I wish more news sources would take this stance. (And do deep dives.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com