The number of Facebook Live videos produced by paid partners more than halved by the end of 2017—and in one case fell by as much as 94 percent—as once guaranteed payments ended and Facebook deprioritized the product, new Tow Center research suggests. In an analysis of 17 brands that were paid by Facebook to make […]
Many publishers have wrung their hands over being at the mercy of Facebook’s algorithm changes. Rarely are the details made public, though. As a public company, Salon Media Group has to report its financial results.
In its most recent full-year fiscal results, published on June 23, it disclosed its revenue fell 34 percent to $4.6 million year over year and traffic dropped 23 percent, declines it pinned on the twin forces facing media: Facebook and programmatic advertising.
How it dealt with the blow from Facebook sheds light on the risks publishers face as they grow increasingly dependent on algorithms outside their control.
Jordan Hoffner had been CEO of Salon for just a month when Facebook announced it would alter its algorithm to favor posts from users’ friends and family over publishers’ posts in June 2016. Before then, Facebook was doing well for Salon, said Annemarie Dooling, a former community manager at Salon. “We were putting extra work into figuring out how to moderate better and make it a safe space,” she said. “There was a lot of political debate.” Salon was getting about one-fourth of its visits from the platform and roughly one-third each coming from search and direct traffic. But that was enough to ding its traffic significantly, according to the company.
Salon’s average monthly traffic fell 23 percent to 12.7 million uniques for the full year, versus 16.6 million the year before, even as other publishers were seeing their traffic soar on Trump news. The low point was September, when the site had 9.6 million uniques. (According to comScore, traffic has been coming back up, to 9.3 million in May, up 4 percent year over year.)
“It was pretty dramatic,” said Hoffner. “But at the end of the day, what are you going to do? … Life is not fair. Being entitled is not going to get you anywhere.”
Hoffner was brought on to replace Cindy Jeffers and bring the struggling progressive news and commentary site to profitability. Salon had the added pressure of being a single-title company that’s publicly traded. As a vet of Google and YouTube as well as a former NBC News producer, Hoffner said he wasn’t a stranger to the thinking at platforms.
“I come from a platform, so I understand what Facebook is trying to do,” he said. “Generally speaking, and it’s not limited to social media, if you’re running a business, you have to be very careful about building your business on top of other platforms. At the end of the day, something can happen that’s out of your control.”
Like a lot of publishers at the time, Salon started wading into Facebook Live and on-demand video. This played into Hoffner’s strengths, as he has a TV and video background. Salon posts a live video every weekday, often an interview with a celebrity or politician, which Hoffner said has helped Salon grow traffic on Facebook. But there’s no monetization there yet. So at the same time, he put more resources behind video, building a video team of six. Text is still Salon’s backbone, with about 45 pieces a day, but Salon now also produces four to six videos a day, often featuring its writers interviewing newsmakers, and increasingly, mini documentaries. Salon has been shifting its revenue focus to programmatic because as a small site, it’s hard to sell direct and native advertising, and it can sell more programmatic with fewer staffers. The video effort has helped improve programmatic pre-roll ad rates by 25 percent over the past year.
One trend Salon hasn’t chased is Facebook Instant Articles, the fast-loading mobile pages initiative that requires publishers to post directly to Facebook. It’s widely believed publishers that get on board would have an edge because Facebook rewards publishers that post directly to the platform. Salon implemented Instant Articles a year ago but stopped after finding it could make more money by selling advertising directly on its own site.
When Hoffner arrived, staffers were concerned that he’d water down its progressive bent and cut staffers to boost the company’s performance. Under Hoffner, Salon has cut staff to 40, down from 51, and it’s lost several high-profile writers. Salon is posting more images and polls on Facebook, the sort of content the algorithm wants. But Hoffner, who’s also filling in as Salon’s acting editor-in-chief since Dave Daley’s departure in June last year, insists Facebook isn’t driving the editorial strategy and that the fundamental editorial approach is unchanged.
“It’s one of probably 10 data points we look at,” he said of Salon’s performance on Facebook. “The question is, what is it that we’re best at covering, what kinds of angles can we provide that are interesting and how do you best distribute that.”
The post ‘Life is not fair’: How Salon regrouped after Facebook decimated its traffic appeared first on Digiday.
THE NUMBER OF LIVE VIDEOS posted to The New York Times’ main Facebook page has consistently surpassed regular videos in the 12 months since Facebook began paying select media partners to use its nascent streaming platform—yet viewing figures for Facebook Live lag far behind. The Times is one of about 140 media companies and celebrities the platform giant enticed to produce content for Facebook Live through deals totalling a reported $50 million last year. According to The Wall Street Journal, the 12-month deal signed by the Times was worth $3.03 million, a figure surpassed only by the $3.05 million Facebook paid to BuzzFeed.
“The first year of Facebook Live epitomizes why social platforms are centerstage in the existential crisis around journalism. Despite the fact publishers are fighting a losing battle for digital advertising revenue, most feel unable to disregard the eye-watering scale social platforms can deliver. In the case of Live, publishers create content that not only directs users to Facebook but keeps them there, further strengthening Facebook’s hand with advertisers—all, presumably, in the hope that they will eventually benefit from a share of the spoils. Yet it remains a relationship premised on potential: the promise of jam tomorrow”