Mark Potts is underwhelmed by newspaper websites that are supposedly still stuck firmly in the last century in terms of the functionality they offer. He claims that if newspapers' online offerings are to have any hope of bailing out their print counterparts they must adopt a Web 2.0 approach.
He bases his argument on a July 19 report by the Bivings group (PDF copy here), entitled "American newspapers and the internet: threat or opportunity?" In his view, the report's findings suggest that papers have been too cautious in their adoption of tools such as social networks, user-generated content and blogs. Even when they have been taken up, Potts says "they're not being used to the full extent that online visitors find on many other [non-newspaper] sites."
He concedes that the report does indicate an improvement in the newspaper use of Web 2.0 features over the past year, but says the improvement comes with caveats. Though 92% of America's top 100 papers now offer video in some form, only 31 of them actually produce it themselves. Similarly, though 99% offer RSS feeds, not one of them is monetising those feeds with advertising. And though 95% do have blogs of some sort, only 22% offer any sort of blogroll list linking to other sites. This reluctance, argues Potts, is "in keeping with newspapers sites' quaint, prudish, Victorian reluctance to link to anything they can't control", and he adds: "Get over it, for crying out loud. Links are practically the core definition of the web."
Then he cites other failures. Lists of most-popular stories? Just 51 of the 100 sites have them. Article comments? A paltry 33%. User-generated content? Only 25%. Social networking features? Just five papers out of 100, provoking him to observe: "Gee, that's smart, since those MySpace and Facebook thingies have proven to be so unsuccessful in the marketplace."
But, sarcasm apart, I think the Potts commentary and the Bivings report provide useful criteria for Britain's newspaper website overseers to consider. How does your paper's website measure up? Are you moving rapidly enough in this fast-paced revolution to ensure that you adopt the tools that web-users find on other sites?
I can understand the caution. Many "inventions" are here-today-gone-tomorrow gimmicks. But papers have to take risks, including financial risks through investment, in order to avoid falling too far behind.
I think most British national papers have woken up, as have some regionals. Note the efforts of Johnston Press, highlighted in the Independent on Sunday. But some conglomerates are refusing to allow local initiatives by forcing websites into a group straightjacket. That's the wrong approach. Now, more than ever, we must let 100 flowers bloom.
