Chronotope’s avatarChronotope’s Twitter Archive—№ 119,183

              1. I have a question for these journalist luminaries who have been agreeing so strongly with the most recent Stratechery piece.... do they really not know that most media companies *do* pay Google and Facebook to advertise their content?
                Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ♻️ 6 Retweets ❤️ 38 Favorites Mood -1 🙁
            1. …in reply to @Chronotope
              forgetting the whole piece, but some of the reactions have been... uhhh... ill-informed?
              Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 4 Favorites Mood 0
          1. …in reply to @Chronotope
            Like, I'm not going to dive into the larger context here, but is this brilliant or is this a nonsense sentence with no clear understanding of how the media industry operates in relation to the big platforms...?
            oh my god twitter doesn’t include alt text from images in their API
            Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ♻️ 1 Retweets ❤️ 6 Favorites Mood +3 🙂
        1. …in reply to @Chronotope
          I also think the news and media industry have been poor adapters, bad at innovation, and should be more self-critical. But... the money *does* flow towards Google and Facebook from publishers in a variety of direct paths.
          Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ♻️ 1 Retweets ❤️ 10 Favorites Mood -4 🙁
      1. …in reply to @Chronotope
        90% of publishers buy ad placements from big tech platforms - digiday.com/media/buying-facebook-traffic/
        OpenGraph image for digiday.com/media/buying-facebook-traffic/
        Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ♻️ 1 Retweets ❤️ 7 Favorites Mood +1 🙂
    1. …in reply to @Chronotope
      Often they do so with the same formula as any advertiser on these platforms: arbitrage. digiday.com/media/buying-facebook-traffic/
      OpenGraph image for digiday.com/media/buying-facebook-traffic/
      Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 6 Favorites Mood 0
  1. …in reply to @Chronotope
    The traffic that publishers get from Facebook and Google isn't always free and it gets less free all the time as sponsored links take up more of the above-the-fold for both platforms. That doesn't account for all sorts of more indirect taxes both platforms incur on publishers.
    On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 8 Favorites Mood +2 🙂
    1. …in reply to @Chronotope
      SEO is a lucrative business because the requirements Google places on web publishers for success are high, difficult to keep track of, and require real work. Same is true with SMO. Same with the cost of implementing AMP or FBIA.
      Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 10 Favorites Mood +6 🙂
      1. …in reply to @Chronotope
        All it takes is working in any modern newsroom, small or large, to see how much resources and time are spent in figuring out and maintaining technology required to get that "free" traffic from big tech. And even with that expenditure, most small publishers can't keep up.
        Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 6 Favorites Mood +2 🙂
        1. …in reply to @Chronotope
          I ended up on a branch, but the rest of this thread is really over here: Chronotope/1261304168045838336
          Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 1 Favorite Mood 0
          1. …in reply to @Chronotope
            More detail in the thread above, but the idea that social/big tech gives away traffic to publishers with zero cost is fundamentally wrong, as is the idea that it would disappear without big tech and I would like us to stop using that as the basis of many assumptions. kthxbye.
            Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ♻️ 1 Retweets ❤️ 5 Favorites Mood 0

Search tweets' text