An important factor here is that very few journalists realize that writing for the Web and writing for print are different. Yes, you can simply repurpose one for the other, but this doesn't do anything to maximize SEO, etc. And most of the people within Gannett that do understand this are too busy to worry about it.
I simply don't have time to write two versions of every story. One of the reasons we're lagging in digital is that we mostly just throw printed content on the Web without any understanding of how they differ. And, of course, both sides suffer. The print products have less depth because we're so focused on getting things online and the online products suffer because they were written for a print audience.The trouble is you could have this conversation with most of Gannett's upper managers and they wouldn't even know what you were talking about.
Now, it's your turn: Top managers -- anyone, really -- please describe the difference in Web and print writing that @3:05 p.m. referenced. Post your replies in the original comment string -- or in the comments section, below.
I have to write for both TV and web. Copy and paste is usually what I will do and try to go back and fill in the details. What do you suggest?
ReplyDeleteI say this as someone that corporate would probably call a "digital native," because I have spent most of my life with online access of some sort.
ReplyDelete"Maximizing SEO" is hardly an appropriate goal for a "marketing company" that intends to provide value to local advertisers.
It's disingenuous to charge much for online advertising knowing that you're actively trying to get eyeballs from out-of-market. It also diminishes the value of online ads sold to local advertisers because it makes the ads less effective.
"Maximizing SEO" by changing your writing style means guessing at how proprietary indexing algorithms determine the meaning and relevance of your words. And hoping that those algorithms don't change over time.
There are, in fact, only two guidelines about writing that Google advises webmasters:
* Create a useful, information-rich site, and write pages that clearly and accurately describe your content.
* Think about the words users would type to find your pages, and make sure that your site actually includes those words within it.
(In other words, cover a lot of news and write with words that ordinary people use and understand, which you should already be doing if you write for a newspaper.)
There are other SEO things you can do that pertain to semantic use of HTML, and addition of appropriate metacontent. But none of that has anything to do with "writing for the web" so much as it is delivering content on the web, or writing content about the content.
Personally, I think "maximizing SEO" should take a backseat to something like "brand development," which means local people that your advertisers want to reach will think to go to your site when they want news or information, thus enabling you to charge more for online ads because they're reaching their intended audience and because readers respect your brand.
Gannett could do better at that by investing in more people to cover news relevant to local readers.
12:58 am: From your fingertips, to Dubow's ears. (I wish.)
ReplyDelete12:58 -- You make a good point about SEO optimization tactics drawing readers from outside of local markets, but from what I see most papers are desperate just to increase their hit counts and unique monthly visitors. Better SEO practices could go a long way toward that.
ReplyDeleteEven worse, though. Many Gannett sites allow online stories to die after being up for only a couple weeks. A good evergreen story can continue to draw eyeballs for months or even years after it originally published. I believe Jim saw this phenomenon with Gannett Blog when he temporarily retired it.
What's more, some studies indicate that Web readers treat material differently than newspaper readers. This is debatable, of course, but I've seen people argue that Web readers tend to scan a lot more, making bullet pointed lists and subheads valuable to Web writing. Whether we buy into that philosophy or not, it's something that a company that is serious about building Web products should be talking about.
At my site there has been zero talk about what would make a good Web-centric story, not even someone arguing that there is no need to adjust our practices. That leads me to believe upper level editors haven't even thought about it.
I've worked for successful Web-only journalism sites, and they talk about this sort of thing ALL THE TIME.
12:58 -- Gannett is rolling out platforms where national advertisers can buy ads that hit multiple markets, right? In that case there's definite value to maximizing SEO.
ReplyDeleteIf Pepsi were to buy spots on the Web sites of every Gannett paper it would be pleased with additional traffic, no matter where it was coming from.
Equally as important, and perhaps more challenging, is getting Web readers to understand the difference between Web updates, which tend to be 2-3 graphs, versus full stories.
ReplyDeleteI can't tell you the number of times I've posted a Web update, with all the basic information about a meeting or breaking news or whatever, and within a few hours there are 5-10 comments from people complaining that it's not detailed and doesn't give enough information. In certain cases, their questions may be valid, but few seem to understand that there will be a more complete version of the story available both online and in print the next day (even when we write tags at the end alluding to this.)
In all, I do believe separate print and digital staffs are needed, and I say that based mostly on my experience with our own Web editor, who only yells and dictates to others rather than work cooperatively with the staff on maximizing the site. Of course, crossover would be needed, but the print reporters simply don't have the time, between covering things, doing phone calls, etc., to be messing online all the time.