Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Document reveals traffic impact, post-GO4 design

Gannett Blog readers have said the switch to the GO4 website template last spring sent traffic tumbling for some newspapers.

So, you can imagine my interest in a company document just sent to me, showing that traffic actually rose a fraction across the papers, two months after the new design roll out was mostly completed.

Now, the data covers just one month -- July. I wish it were more current. Still, it offers a revealing snapshot of how the community newspaper division's websites performed after the new template's high-profile roll out.

The document shows that page views across the 84 community papers rose 0.24%, to a combined 576.9 million vs. 575.5 million in July 2007. In two other big divisions, the document shows, results varied widely:
To be sure, these are just snapshots of a single month. Plus, they're three months old. If I had more current data, I'd certainly work with it. Nonetheless, my gut instinct is to say these figures across the community papers aren't bad, for several reasons:

Several papers didn't make the switch until May, so their readers were still pissed off by July -- when this data was gathered; readers' initial reaction to any change is usually negative. Plus, there's simply more competition for readers today than there was in July 2007. For the community papers to stay even is itself an accomplishment, no?

Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write gannettblog[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the green sidebar, upper right.

[Image: today's Reno Gazette-Journal front page, Newseum. It's one of the 84 dailies in the community newspaper division]

14 comments:

  1. USA Today numbers are impressive. Frankly.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Is anyone reporting figures for non-US news organizations that post world, including right here in the good old USA, news?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jim:
    Does the report mention "Unique visitor" numbers which are the real measure of a site's success?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I report online traffic for a few newspapers. The new design slowed the growth down but we did not drop in MUV or PV. IN fact the time spend on the site per visit sky rocketed.
    So the new design took some getting used to but does make the whole online interactive experience better.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Readers -- online or print -- don't like change. Once they get used to the change, they usually forget about what came before. So I'm not surprised by the strong numbers, either.

    ReplyDelete
  6. USAT's numbers are not impressive. Look at the numbers for its competitors and you'll see it is growing much more slowly than all but one or two. The Washington Post has passed it on a month-by-month basis and it's now the No.3 newspaper-based website. It also does poorly in 'stickiness' -- the amount of time people spend on the site -- although it is doing better than it used to do. It is losing ground in this marketplace.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jim, can you provide a newspaper-by-newspaper break out of the numbers?

    ReplyDelete
  8. There was a time perhaps 5-6 years ago when USA Today's total page views only slightly lagged the combined traffic (measured in page views) of all the community papers.

    Now Gannett has has fewer community papers, but the page views seem to have blown far past USA Today.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Time spend can be a deceiving stat if a site is so poorly designed that visitors waste precious minutes looking for news items that are poorly labeled or organized.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Usat numbers could be even better, but things are positive and should get even better as the considerable energy at the site beguns to bloom.

    The Wash. Post surge is likely politics-oriented and once the campaign is over, should return to normal.

    Usat's website is a positive still.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 11:28 AM said: "Time spend can be a deceiving stat if a site is so poorly designed that visitors waste precious minutes looking for news items that are poorly labeled or organized."

    My theory about GO4: That's half the point. Give so many options that it's hard to find stuff, so users need to surf more to find the same amount of info.

    Maybe I'm just a conspiracy nut.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If a site is hard to use; i.e., it takes longer to find stuff -- people will eventually give up and go elsewhere for their information. If that's NOT the case with USAT and other Gannett sites, it means readers quickly get used to the new interface and are sticking around because the sites have material they want to see.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 11:03 am: The data is in a spreadsheet that I can't easily post. Also, the person who supplied me the spreadsheet asked that I not forward it. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 9:38 a.m. Yes, the document DOES list unique visitors.

    ReplyDelete

Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.