Brian Abelson, the OpenNews fellow at the New York Times, takes a deep, deep dive into the metrics of the Times' website, looking at how and why stories get more traffic.
His insight is a fascinating look into how not just the Times, but all news sites promote their work and what sections get the most attention. The main takeaway is that the Times, and for that matter any organization, can selectively decide what will be popular by posting it high on the homepage for a long time and promoting it on social media. Additionally, Abelson's research shows that despite publishing less, stories from sections like dining, opinions and the magazine, tend to do exceptionally well.
The main metrics Abelson uses are whether stories were written by Times journalists or the wires (AP and Reuters), how long the story spent on the Times homepage, and whether the story was tweeted out by the Times' Twitter account to their more than 10 million followers.
What emerges from this visualization is a clear picture of four distinct classes of content on the New York Times’ site: (A) Wire articles which never reached the homepage, (B) Original articles which never reached the homepage, (C) Wire content which is featured on the homepage for a short period of time, and (D) Original content which receives promotion on both the homepage and across social media. While groups A and B encompass a wide variety of outcomes, groups C and D generally display a positive linear relationship between time on homepage and pageviews.
Abelson then goes on to try and predict how many pageviews a story will get. By factoring in whether the article was from the wires, the time it spent on the homepage, and whether it was tweeted by @NYTimes, Abelson was able to predict 70% of the time how well a story did. By incorporating the type of content (video, photo, etc), the section from which the story came, word count, promotion on Facebook and section fronts and the highest point the story reached on the homepage, Abelson was able to predict with 90% accuracy how well a story would do:
[I]n general, the Times can selectively pick and choose the content that garners the most attention by simply manipulating their homepage and principal Twitter account. This is certainly not an earth-shattering insight, but the degree to which it holds true suggests that these factors cannot be ignored.
In another part of his analysis, Abelson takes a closer look at the sections whose stories get the most pageviews compared to the numbers of stories posted to those sections as well as how much they are promoted. For example, opinions, dining and the magazine post less stories but the stories that are posted do well. On the other hand, business posts many stories, but tend to not do so well. But Reuters' Felix Salmon helps parse out how promotion factors in to this data:
Now it’s not that the NYT’s readers don’t want to read business stories. The left-right positioning of the red circles shows how well each section’s stories are doing, given how much promotion they receive. On this basis, the magazine outperforms; the dining section does the worst. And the business section is right there in the middle, performing just as well as any other section. Give business stories a bit of promotion on the home page and on Twitter, in other words, and they’ll get you just as many pageviews as anything else, on average. But it turns out that the business section is systematically shortchanged by the people making those promotional decisions.
A possible reason that the business section gets less promotion is because many of the section's stories are from the wires, which the Times does not promote nearly as much as original content. But, Salmon suggests that business stories are the most valuable in terms of how much the ad team can charge for them:
By promoting more business stories, even if they are (horrors!) wire stories, the NYT could make more money, and everybody wants that — including the readers, who have shown that they have more interest in such things than the NYT’s editors think that they do.
If you dare, check out all of Abelson's data and pretty graphs here.