“Did the Internet Save Marriage?”
“Are Methane Hydrates Really Going to Change Geopolitics?”
“Does Anyone Trust the Chinese Red Cross?”
“What If We Never Run Out of Oil?”
“Why Does the Right Think the Left Is Morally Squishy?”
–A sampling of headlines questions TheAtlantic.com is asking right now on its homepage.
I don’t know, TheAtlantic.com, did the internet save marriage? Are methane hydrates really going to change geopolitics? (and thank you for asking, I thought I was the only one for whom this was a burning question!). Does anyone trust the Chinese Red Cross? These are tough questions; why are you asking me? I came here for you to give me the rundown on topics such as these. As I recall, you used to do a first-rate job analyzing the American intellectual and political situation. Now I’m not so sure, because you seem unsure yourself–why else would you be asking me? Or did you just want my opinion?
—
There’s no doubt The Atlantic is a success story in an embattled industry, where digital revenue makes up about 5 percent of the magazine industry’s total revenue. After its site paywall came down in 2007, it began turning a profit for the first time in years. Since then, its growth has been meteoric: from 72,000 monthly unique visitors in 2006 when the paywall was up, to 308,000 in 2007 immediately after the paywall came down, to 4.8 million in 2010, to 13.1 million in 2012, to a record-setting 16.1 million this past April (plus it hit 20 million uniques across all digital platforms in February this year). An unprecedented 65% of its revenue comes from the digital side, that being mostly from online ads.
These figures are even more impressive when you consider that The Atlantic has a print circulation of around 480,000, yet its site draws traffic approaching that of People and Time, among two of the largest consumer magazines with a 3.6 million and 3.2 million circulation respectively. So, begging your pardon, how did they do it?
I can’t answer any better than the above links already did. A combination of management changes and forward thinking of the tech startup variety, spurred by an aggressiveness brought about by desperation, turned TheAtlantic.com into a traffic juggernaut. At least, that’s the top-level view of it. What it means on a practical, granular level, is optimization.
Web-savvy editors know that a clever or opaque headline won’t do, because what works in print doesn’t necessarily work so well online. Unless you are the New Yorker, in which case you will still insist on titling an online article something like “Blessed Are the Mapmakers” (any guesses on what this article about? Hint: not mapmakers.). On the internet, an article is behind the headline: on a front page with limited real estate or in a “Most Emailed” list or in a digest newsletter. Readers don’t know what the story is about unless they click and read. And what is your average reader more likely to click: “20 Insane Kentucky Derby Hats” or “Hats, Not Horses”? What about “This Sneak Attack Reveals Some Scary Things About Facebook” or “Facing Facts about Facebook”? Or how about “Did the Internet Save Marriage?” or “Study Finds Marriage Rates Rise with Broadband Access”?
Hot on the Atlantic
In order to make digital ads pay, websites are running a headline-clickbait race where the winning strategies are hyperbole, “listicles” (an abhorrent word), cliffhangers, out-of-context demonstrative pronouns (“This…”), and TheAtlantic.com’s obvious favorite, disingenuous rhetorical questions. I’m tempted to call this the “Buzzfeedification” of online content: manufacturing virality with web hyper-optimization. Making things short, sensational, and shareable.
There is nothing wrong with this for what it is. Buzzfeed and similar sites have many merits, including the increasing clout to conduct serious journalism. In my opinion, this is infinitely preferable to what I see happening at The Atlantic. It is admirable for a meme factory to transition into journalism, but it is despicable to see an intellectual institution morph into a sensationalist time-suck.
Not that this is exactly what’s happening to The Atlantic, yet. They still produce incredible, interesting journalism, but I think they are beginning to cede their soul to web analytics. My evidence is a site full of sensationalist half-true headlines and TOO MANY DAMNED RHETORICAL QUESTIONS. (Now we get back to the pet peeve that inspired this post). Rhetorical questions are an excellent device that we use all the time in writing and speaking. But can we all agree that TheAtlantic.com overuses and abuses this device? (That was not a rhetorical question). When an editor repeatedly and ham-handedly uses a device the way The Atlantic does rhetorical questions, the device is actually a crutch.
Perhaps it’s an overstatement to allege a deal with the web analytics devil. Maybe what I’ve described is simply offense against my taste. But consider the Scientology sponsored content flap and Atlantic Media President Justin Smith’s announcement that the company would launch paid content. Sponsored content has been a major source of online revenue for TheAtlantic.com in recent years, and native ads are seen as more promising way to monetize traffic. However, while they are a way to get higher digital ad rates from advertisers, they also come with the added danger of editorial fiascoes and potential reader deception. The move towards paid content is only a revenue diversification strategy, but it’s a hopeful signal that the clickbait race is one they don’t wish to run to its conclusion.
