Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Facebook "Instant Articles" is posed to "eat the Internet"


The Facebook Instant  Articles is generating even more debate on how mainstream media outlets – and bloggers alike – can best monetize their content and maintain a presence with visitors.  Forbes has an interesting perspective (pre-Instant) from Lewis DVorkin, link here

But the Motley Fool (which I remember being very popular 15 years ago in the Web 1.0 days) says that the concept could “eat the Internet”, dragging away revenue from Twitter and Google (and Bing and Yahoo!) because it makes content-following so easy for users (and advertisers to them) on mobile devices.  The article, by Adam Levy is here.  I have a bone to pick here.  The article, at the end (with a tag “Eating the Interet”), said that Cable and Hollywood are dying, and invited the user to go to a link to identify some new hot tech companies – and I went there I got one of these endless come-ons.  When I came back, that last comment about cable and Hollywood had disappeared.  Fool considers Instant Articles as a boon to publishers, but it’ now so clear how small, indie publishers jump in.  Would instant articles change the algorithms from Friends’ feeds?  How does this affect something like Reddit?


Cynthia Cizilla, however, writes in the Washington Post Monday, “for legacy media publications, Face experiment is a tricky one”, link here

It’s a good question, too, about conventional blogging platforms (the latest advice column on monetizing blogging that I found is here), as newer media formats draw away their traffic.  That could be one reason there has been so much desperate hype about niche blogging and traffic-generating techniques in the past few months.  Not as many people hunt for their news in search engines online (the way I still do) as would have maybe seven years ago.  My own very best traffic days came during the Financial Crisis of 2008, when I really had some good numbers.  That’s a sinister lesson – disaster, along with notoriety, sells.   



No comments: