Mavericks owner and telecom entrepreneur Mark Cuban has
quite an interesting rant on his blog today. The takeaway: digital media business models cannot be compared to analog media business models. Trying to carry over old media models, and/or attempting to stop digital media progress in the interest of protecting old media interests, its just plain flat-out stupid.
The music industry made the mistake of trying to destroy digital distribution in order to protect the physical distribution of CDs. Not only did they not have an answer to digitally distribute music in the Napster era, but they STILL DO NOT !. Fortunately for them, they have finally recognized that for the most part the CD is dead, but where revenue is being generated by their music, they deserve their cut. Imagine if they had established a digital distribution portal for audio and video, ala Hulu, that could at least attempt to compete with ITunes and Youtube. They would be in far better shape. Instead they are reinventing their business model. The CD was doomed to die, no matter what happened. Trying to protect it was a mistake.
The newspaper industry tried to protect the physical distribution of their papers. That was a mistake. Their problem was not only that they lost their ability to differentiate from content on the net, but they also lost their ability to differentiate their value to advertisers from the net. There is no inherent advantage to reading the news or advertisements via the paper vs the internet, it has become a personal or business preference. Unfortunately for the local newspaper industry, it doesn’t appear any of their publishers are creative enough to come up with options to attack digital.
That last bit was highlighted by me. With a recent journalism degree from Penn State coupled with a long history of both digital and print media production, the state of the publishing industry has been of keen interest to me and I have to say, I completely agree with Cuban on this point.
The key to local paper dominance in the digital realm, particularly the web, is to maintain its monopoly on eyeballs -- that is, to maintain its stranglehold on content distribution, so that it can deliver eyeballs to advertisers, who basically finance journalism. Much to the chagrin of publishers and newsfolk everywhere, the web has made content monopoly impossible.
Or has it?
Black Hole SEO employs a technique that causes the normal laws of Google Physics to break down. Link juice flows into a massive body, but can never escape. When employed on a massive body, it tends to dominate the SERPs.
A black hole site is created when an tier 1 authority site ceases to link out to other sites. If a reference is needed, the information is rewritten and a reference page is created within the black hole. All (or virtually all) external links on the site are made nofollow.
The first example of a black hole site was the wikipedia. The internal links formed a network that passed link juice from one page to another allowing obscure articles with no external links to rank number 1 in the SERPs. This #1 ranking begets natural links from external links. When a webizen wants a quick reference, they consult Google and link to one of the top results. This causes more link juice to flow into the black hole and the body’s trust becomes more and more massive over time.
- Link juice flows in, but it can never escape.
- External Sites lose link juice at the expense of the black hole.
- The relative link juice mass of the black hole expands exponentially.
Other Google Physicists realize what is happening and are now modeling their sites and networks to become black holes as well. One example of a burgeoning black holes is The New York Times. They will not link out even when relevant to the article. All links in any of their articles will go to a “Times Topics” page.
Business Week is following suit and their practices will soon mirror the New York Time’s. However, because Business Week is not yet massive enough, they cannot yet be classified as a black hole.
Now, hard-core SEO is not my forté but in general I have found local SEO to be considerably easier and more effective than global or national SEO. This is due mainly to lack of local keyword competition -- within a geographic area, the number of business competitors willing to even think about SEO is rather small. The smaller the geographic area, the easier SEO. Given the 'black hole' effect of Google's current algorithm, local newspapers should, theoretically, not have such a difficult time turning themselves into local content black holes.
The primary #1 thing every local paper would need to do to regain monopoly of local content is to
stop outsourcing important information to other domains. Just to test this theory, I ran a few stats comparisons through
Compete.com. Using the keyword
jobs, I compared a few local papers' traffic with that ubiquitous devourer of classifieds revenue, Craigslist.
Ouch! Craigslist is stomping the shit out of the P-I in traffic. How do they compare in the Google SERPs for the keywords
seattle jobs?
As of this writing, on page 1 of the SERPs, Craigslist shows up in the #6 position and the P-I doesn't show up anywhere. I searched the first 10 SERPs and the P-I is simply absent. Why is this? Well,
the P-I's "jobs" navigation link leads to a subdirectory --
http://www.seattlepi.com/jobs/ -- which promptly redirects the user to HotJobs. The landing page is not even co-branded! The P-I could easily partner up with one of those other local jobs sites on the SERP front page to keep jobs content under the P-I's domain. Both companies would dominate the local keyword "jobs" and increase their traffic, which increases their ability to sell ads.
The AJC is holding its own in traffic against Craigslist. What does Google return for the keywords
atlanta jobs?
What do you know... AJC holds the #1 spot, while Craigslist is down at #3. What's interesting about this is that AJC is also partnered up with HotJobs, but the landing page title bar includes the keywords atlanta and work, as well as being co-branded, which allows it climb the Google SERP ladder and thereby generate more traffic.
Here's one I really like -- The Los Angeles Times:
If other local papers could figure out how to do this, they'd be in a lot better shape. Why is the LA Times doing so well against Craigslist? Well,
the paper's domain leads Craigslist in the Google SERPs by a pretty wide margin. The title bar is great, the domain includes the keyword "jobs," and the landing page includes -- get this --
content that links back into the main site. This is definitely a step in the right direction for creating an LA-based content black hole, and in my opinion contributes to the LA Times' excellent keyword positioning.
I know there are folks out there who focus exclusively on newspaper SEO. My own take on this is surely rudimentary compared with those who work on this issue day in and day out. But journalism is something I actually care about, and if we can get the analog newspaper curmudgeons to start paying attention to how the digital ecosystem works maybe we can save a few local papers from
the Rocky's fate.
Comments