No wonder Murdoch’s shitting bricks. Fairfax too. Everyone in the news business, actually. It’s not just the death of newspapers and broadcast media we’re looking at. Even the audience for online news is plummeting.
Nicholas Moerman, a planning intern with Proximity in London, has spotted a steady but solid decline in traffic to major global websites starting about September 2008. Check his presentation. News sites, video sites, blogs, shopping — even porn. Wherever you look it’s the same.
Except for social networking sites.
Sceptical? I certainly was. So here’s the chart for some key Australian mastheads.
Every site has a spike for the 2007 federal election, seasonal slumps across December-January, a spike for (presumably) the Black Saturday bushfires — and a year-long relentless slide down and to the right.
I’ve plotted news.com.au rather than dailytelegraph.com.au or heraldsun.com.au here because most of the pages on those sites are served out of sub-directories such as news.com.au/dailytelegraph.
Here’s some more key sites, this time filtered to show only traffic from Australia.
NineMSN, eBay, Microsoft and poor Mr Murdoch’s MySpace — all down and to the right.
Even Crikey and our friends over at The Punch show the same decline, though perhaps it’s less clear. Down and to the right. Down. And to the right.
By all means make your own chart pr0n over at Google Trends. Alas, you can’t chart Google’s own sites, including leading video site YouTube. Sekrits!
At many social networking sites — and especially Facebook — things are very different.
Facebook continues to grow. MySpace continues to collapse. Yes, well. No wonder, as Crikey reported yesterday, Murdoch is keen to renew Google’s advertising contract.
Twitter has grown to what appears to be a plateau. However, most serious Twitter users migrate to third-party client software rather than use the website itself.
Google Trends charts “daily unique visitors” to a website, not the industry standard “monthly unique visitors” — or “monthly reach” in old media terms. It’s therefore more volatile. If someone visiting a site five days a week drops back to only two days, the daily unique figure drops more than half while the monthly unique is unchanged.
However, advertisers are interested in eyeballs multiplied by time. Fewer visits means less advertising revenue. And certainly fewer click-throughs.
So why the traffic drop?
The start seems to coincide with the global financial crisis, but surely we’d have seen a recovery by now, especially in Australia?
Could it be an artifact of Google’s methodology, a change in technique perhaps? Google couldn’t answer that by our deadline this morning, but it seems unlikely. A change in methods would surely show as a sudden change in numbers, not a steady decline.
No, I reckon this is what those annoying social media experts have been predicting all along. People are passing news directly among themselves. They’re bypassing the traditional news outlets — whether online or on sliced tree.
They’re more interested in news from their friends and family than manufactured celebrities, too. There’s only so many minutes in the day. They’re spending more of them on Facebook, fewer on news media.
If people see the headline and lead paragraph passed along via Facebook, or exchange a few snarky comments on Twitter, perhaps that’s enough to satisfy their curiosity. Who needs to click through to the whole story anyway?
The recent explosion of traffic to URL shorteners is further evidence of a rapid shift towards P2P media http://trends.google.com/websites?q=tinyurl.com%2C+bit.ly%2C+is.gd%2C+ow.ly&geo=all&date=ytd
Hi Stil,
Are we seeing the ‘next’ great change in consumption online? From ‘Internet Portals’ – e.g. Yahoo to Trad News/Media Sites – e.g. News.com.au to now Collaborative – e.g. Facebook?
And with that in mind, why are the Advertisers not moving there as fast as they should? As I wrote just last night (http://wp.me/p1XYS-q) the model of funding ‘news’ need not change BUT the Delivery of that News must (assuming it hasn’t already). Advertisers still feel the need to advertise/market their service. Perhaps their Buyers have been talking to the wrong people all along?
Note http://bit.ly/8OQbgE for another position on this.
Gavin
I heard that Google trends is only accurate if the site is using Google analytics. Then it can follow the actual numbers quite closely. If using another tool, the estimation can be extremely different. See this post
http://dynamical.biz/blog/web-analytics/compare-google-trends-sites-analytics-18.html
I really think more work needs to go into tracking website usage. It’s all smoke and mirrors at the moment. When you add in proxies (multiple users using the same IP address) and the growth in secure browsers like Firefox that remove cookies by default, I don’t see how “Daily unique vistors” can really be tracked with any sort of confidence by a third party.
i think you might be right, Stil. since i jumped onboard Facebook a year ago, and Twitter a few months ago (having registered for both a year or two earlier but not really ‘invested’ in them ’til then), and i’ve noticed a significant shift in where i spend my time online.
my network of friends know me, and I them, so an undeniable degree of relevancy is built-in to what they post online in social media. there’s only X number of hours a day for that, so for me this has meant less time given to systematically working through online news sites, and more time on sites that talk about the news, rather than simply report the news.
god i’d hate to be a newspaper right now… we need them, but not in their current form.
Down and to the right. Down. And to the right.
I’d be very very surprised if they went to the left….