Own your audience: Don't give it away
As I've mentioned before, I spent a few years in newspapers. Literally in them - writing, editing, compiling obituaries and police blotter.So when I was invited to deliver a 10-minute "Bold Talk" at Hubspot's Inbound conference, I knew what I had to tackle as the subject: How news organizations had held their audiences at arm's length (at least) for so long that they'd basically driven them to Facebook, Twitter and elsewhere. It's a conversation I've had with friends, colleagues, and pretty much anyone else who would listen many times.It's part of why I stayed independent for most of the years since my first layoff from my last newspaper, in December 2008. Going back into the industry that continued to be its own worst enemy seemed somewhat counterproductive. Only in the last year or so have I felt any desire to go back into the field, albeit in a different role. My last job was as a metro editor (and blogger, and education editor and jack of all trades, all at the same time, of course). Now I'm in what's euphemistically called "audience development" or "audience engagement".In other words, my job these days is to help news organizations figure out how to properly develop their audiences instead of hoping that Facebook will continue to send great traffic just because they're nice like that.Ahem.Bold Talks are supposed to be on a subject we feel passion about. This certainly fit the bill. I do, however, wish that Laura Fitton had told me the backdrop was going to be red, 'cos I kinda blended in there. Ah, well. I know to ask next time.In case you don't want to watch a 10-minute video, I'll give you the 50-cent version here.The fact is, human beings have been developing audiences for thousands of years. Go back to 59 B.C., and the Romans used the Acta Diurna. That was when they'd inscribe the news of the day in stone or metal and hang it outside government offices. People went to the horse's mouth to find out what was going on. They'd gather outside the offices and whoever could read would share the news with others.You can fast-forward to the birth of the printing press, which was initially developed to help the church spread its word further, so long as you could read Latin. Before this, all Bibles had been hand-written and only churches and the very, very rich could ever hope to own Bibles. Of course, the first printed Bibles also were rather expensive, just like the first VCRs, DVD, and Blue-Ray players were. Or something like that.Anyway, the church's reluctance to allow translations of the Bible into other languages led to Luther and his 99 Theses that he nailed to the doors of churches. One of his big issues? No Bibles in German. So he got some translated. That, of course, helped the word of the church spread even further, though it was a splinter of the church. Think how many people might be Catholic still if the Pope had allowed the translations?Talk about losing audience.Anyway, let's fast-forward a bit to newspapers. Early newspapers were totally conversational and had tons of little items with news from all over the world and the communities they served on the front page.
The above image, from the El Paso Herald in 1916 (while not necessarily an "early" newspaper) was very much in keeping with how many newspapers looked until the late 20th Century. Note that story about the dude who got his teeth pulled so he could sell the gold fillings to buy more whiskey.As magazines, radio, television news and then cable news ate into their audiences and caused many once-mighty publications to shut down, the newspapers could have doubled down and become more vital to their communities. Instead, they became “objective” and distant. They regionalized their coverage and consolidated their companies. People in their communities still had a voice in the Letters to the Editor, but only the most motivated of readers would ever write a Letter. And it might not be published until days after the article that spurred the writer on.In the late 1990s, newspapers entered the digital age. Oddly enough, many newspapers were relatively early entrants to the World Wide Web. Predating Friendster, Napster and even Google. Newspapers created forums for their readers, and added comments to stories. Instant feedback! It was glorious. Thing is, journalists had become so distant from the communities they served (sure, not all), they didn’t really want that feedback. They refused to moderate comments and forums (for a variety of reasons, including fear of legal issues), and the loudmouths reigned.More thoughtful readers stayed away. They didn’t want to be called names or worse, just for expressing an opinion. And they weren’t going to get any backup from the news folks. At the same time that comments were becoming a cesspool on news sites, Facebook and Twitter were starting out. People started having conversations about news on these platforms. The conversations were informative and pleasant. (Yes, this has totally changed as well.)So where are we now? Circulation is declining. Advertising revenues are plummeting. And few people are willing to pay for their news. Because for all this time, so many news organizations (not just newspapers) have abandoned their audiences. They've ignored them and been offended by criticism. Basically, they've told readers not to spend time with them. Comments have been eliminated on many sites (even so-called "digital-first" news sites). Many sites are difficult to navigate and have pop-up ads with auto-play sound.I mean, the guy who invented the pop-up ad has apologized publicly at every chance he gets. That should give you a clue that it's not being used well.People will visit news sites when they see something that interests them. On Facebook or Twitter. News orgs have spent many years building audiences on these platforms, instead of their own sites, because it was easier. And the traffic was great. Until the platforms figured out that they wanted people to stay on their sites and not leave to go visit your news site.Of course, this hubris is not unique to the news media. A pioneer in social media, Digg had a huge and thriving on-site community. The powers that be grew to distrust their own community and took away the ability to talk to one another on-site. Hardcore users took to Twitter. Then discovered they preferred Twitter to Digg. And stayed there. And Digg made more changes to take the site away from the community; it slowly declined and then died.I have to give a hand to BuzzFeed for not falling prey to this syndrome. From the beginning, BuzzFeed invited engagement on its site. And on Facebook. And on Twitter. Basically, anywhere on the Internet. It was a bit easier, sure, when their bread and butter in the early days was funny cat and dog photos. But they’ve used all these platforms to build their audience. THEIR audience. An audience they can monetize anywhere.They're one of the only publishers that doesn't really freak out every time Facebook changes its algorithm. For most others, they're worried because because half the time, their audience doesn’t even think about what site they’re visiting. They saw the story on Facebook, on Twitter. They talk about the stories on social media. Sometimes they’re even reading the stories, whole, on social media.I'm heartened to see some publishers begin to embrace on-site comments again with platforms such as The Coral Project, Civil Comments and Spot.im – and therefore a place people would actually want to spend time. But this lesson should not be lost on anyone: Building community matters.We pushed everyone to these platforms, and found ourselves at the mercy of them. What we need to do is to use these platforms.Use them to build community. Use them to engage with our people. Use them to remind our audiences of how important they are to us – and we are to them.At the end of the day, we need to bring it home.Own your audience.Don’t push them away.