What we're seeing, before our eyes is digital media's role in fostering social change.
Protestors around the country are using social media to galvanize support to protest the recent deaths of unarmed black men --- and children --- at the hands of police.. In addition to protests in NYC, DC., Berkley and other major cities, prominent professional athletes have taken up the cause by wearing "I can't breathe" shirts, or striking a “hands up, don’t shoot” pose.
Social media has galvanized protesters of all races and cultures who have come to a very scary truth --- if a man can be killed for simply protesting, maybe I can be killed, too. Social media has quickly moved the issue of police conduct to a mainstream issue --- not just an African American one.
And this movement is not so much about Michael Brown as it is Eric Garner. The wide-spread video of his interaction with NYC police shows Garner protesting what he considered to be unfair treatment before he's grabbed by the throat and gasps "I can't breathe" multiple times . And then dies.
His case has galvanized so many because the narrative --- right or wrong --- is so different. Conservative news outlets have painted Michael Brown as criminal who robbed a store, got into a fight with an officer, was shot by an officer, and that's that. That's why a grand jury refused to indict the officer involved.
There is no such narrative with Garner. He was standing on a corner, protesting, and died at the hands of police. The Garner case is also different because a majority of Americans --- and even conservative commentators --- believe the grand jury in this case got it wrong by not indicting the officers involved.
The narrative no longer belongs to just the legacy media. It is shared by those savvy enough --- and those numbers are growing rapidly --- who can use social media to put forth an alternate narrative played out in protests that are becoming more common.
These protest are not the work of malcontents who don't respect the rule of law. They want the law to respect them --- and that message is coming from people of all races and colors scared to death that they could be killed for simply protesting --- and that if you're non-white those chances increase exponentially.
Such protests we're once far more difficult to carry out because it was so much harder to disperse information. No more. Digital media has made it far easier for people or protest what they see as injustice, and demand change --- peacefully.
We’re in the midst of watching the next evolution of social media, from a breaking news tool to a tool for social change. I wonder if we realize it.
We’ve read, repeatedly, about how legacy media continues to evolve to meet the new digital media demands. Newsrooms are hiring all-platform journalists who can write for multiple media; they’re restructuring to add more muscle to their digital reporting teams and they’re putting more emphasis on using metrics to determine what gets covered and what gets pushed to their audiences.
All of that is well and good, but it still means publishers are behind, since all of those steps should have been taken more than a decade ago. Would real digital change in a more aggressive manner have stemmed the advertising, circulation and ratings point losses suffered by legacy media?
Who knows? It’s more than fair to say that earlier action wouldn’t have hurt.
As legacy media makes its structural changes, it’s forgetting a major component. It needs technologists, and it needs them fast. The science of content delivery is evolving, and there are few people — if any — in traditional news operations that have a firm grasp on what’s happening.
Content delivery involves using available devices to get content to users when they want it. In order to be successful, newsrooms need people who not only understand how these devices work, but how they can more effectively use them to push out the content their users want.
I encourage you to read Quartz’s outstanding story on how smartphones are changing the way content will be produced and consumed. Content is no longer a story written by a journalist because he or she thinks the topic is relevant. Content will be topical based on where a person is at any point in his or her day, whether it be stuck in traffic, emerging from a subway platform on the way to work, or drinking a nice cabernet at the end of the day.
For example: Who, in your organization, knows how to use location data to pinpoint where your audiences are, and deliver information based on that knowledge? That, to me, is the single most important issue content producers face. It’s no longer good enough to simply produce the content; you have to get the content to audiences where they are.
The paradigm has long shifted. People no longer find the news — the news finds people.
What do I mean by that? In the long, distant past (like, 15 years ago) audiences still, by and large, waited for their newspapers to be delivered to their doorstep, or turned on their radio for the morning drive, or went home and waited for the local and then national news to be broadcast in the late afternoon/early evening. People had to go find the news. Now, with push notifications becoming ubiquitous, news finds people based on their content desires.
Instead, many publishers are still experimenting with content in a 2010 way (I say 2010 because that’s when the tablet era began). Many are still trying to determine what works best on mobile vs. tablets, what works best at what time of day and whether certain content should be long-form, short-form, or strictly graphically displayed. Instead, they should be focused on the impact technology has on content, and react with the speed of a technology company — not a legacy media company.
That’s why every news organization needs a technology guru who understands the latest technology and content’s relationship to it.
Content is no longer just about writing. It’s about delivering what people want — fast.
So, we have yet another racial firestorm a brewing, this time involving Bruce Levinson, the owner of the Atlanta Hawks. He said some stupid things, and has now vowed to sell the team. The legacy media has reported the events in the standard, traditional, straight-laced way that it has reported such stories for more than a century. And soon, it will go on to other things.
And that’s the problem. Legacy media could --- and should --- just stop reporting on issues. It should take the lead in fostering real conversations about important issues in our country, and race relations could be at the top of the list. There are tons of others that are vexing, too, but this country has never really had (at least, in my time), a real sustained conversation about race in America. Instead, legacy media simply reports on events and focuses on the wrong issues. More on that later.
Look at all of the race-related stories of late. Michael Brown, an unarmed black man, is shot dead by a police officer in Ferguson, Mo. That leads to days of violent protests, and a stark split in how the populace views the events. Blacks say the shooting raises important issues on race, yet a plurality of whites say it got too much attention, according to Pew Research Center poll.
In a Dayton-Ohio suburb, a black male is shot dead by police while walking through a local Walmart carrying what appears to be a toy gun. Judging from the photos in the local media, the demonstrations on behalf of the John Crawford, the slain man, were attended mostly by blacks; the demonstrations in support of the police, mostly by whites.
And now Levinson, who, in short, said attendance at Atlanta Hawks’ games stinks because southern whites are uncomfortable around blacks. Media has reported the story, what his emails said, the NBA’s self-congratulatory back slapping, and the predictable outrage by those offended by the emails. That reporting is all good, but it leaves open a critical question that deserves reasoned examination --- is Levinson right, and if he is, what does that mean for race in Atlanta? All of the denunciations of his incredibly clumsy and offensive remarks doesn’t change that he could very well be on to something.
Then, there are all of the other race-related issues that we talk about amongst ourselves, but don’t talk about together. Whites who clutch their purses or bags tighter when a young black male draws near, or who cross the street to avoid blacks; or blacks who won’t leave a store without a receipt for fear of being accused of shoplifting, or who duck in a store to avoid balding, tattooed white guys. Those are just a few examples.
The issue of race in America lacks real, prolonged and serious leadership. There is no advantage for any elected official to make this topic a priority. Most whites don’t see race as much of a problem, and if the majority if the electorate doesn’t see something as an issue, why bother?
Well, there’s a big bother. There are plenty of people that want to pretend that the issue of race in America is exaggerated or it’s “better than it has been.” But there are plenty more who understand this is an issue that can cause immense social harm. Ferguson was a societal microcosm that should teach everyone a frightful lesson --- people who feel wronged, and reach a breaking point, will react, loud and angry. If the same had happened in St, Louis, Chicago, or New York, the proportional demonstration and violence would have made Watts look like a teeny, tiny neighborhood dispute.
And where’s the legacy media? It breathlessly covers the story as long as there are ratings to be gained. When the story begins to lose steam, the reporters disappear. It’s not like Michael Brown is any less dead, or that the people in Ferguson feel any less wronged. It’s just that the media has lost most of the interest it had at the height of a truly awful story.
This is not to say this is legacy media’s fault. It is not. Legacy media could use the examination of social issues as the niche it needs to remain relevant in a digital world. It has the reporting and editing expertise and community reach to make a real, lasting difference. What’s it waiting for?
Media can take the lead --- right now --- and lead open and honest conversations about race in communities across the country. And I mean going beyond the superficial, “I don’t like blacks,” or, “I don’t trust whites” polls we see so often. I mean a real look at how racial attitudes impact every aspect of all of our lives.
How does race impact where people live, and the ability for them to easily access city services? What’s race’s effect on the ability to secure a good-paying job with true, equal chances at promotion? What role does race play on Sunday mornings, when countless parishioners flock to churches and worship with people who look just like them?
These are powerful, important issues that need context, and, most importantly, solutions with community input. Some will argue this is the role editorial boards and best played in opinion pages. They would be wrong.
This is the role of the new legacy media, which should embrace leading a community through difficult issues.
Reporting what happens isn’t enough anymore. It’s time to become community activists that provides context and leads to solutions.
First, I haven't wrapped my brain around everything that's happening in Ferguson. Horrible doesn't come close to describing Michael Brown's death, or the nightly images pouring out of what looks like a domestic war zone. But plenty of people are writing about the long-term social issues and what this means for race relations; I could, but there are plenty of people on the ground doing excellent first-hand reporting and gathering string for more longer, thoughtful pieces.
I'm thinking about the other issues that will arise from Ferguson:
1. Will Twitter be the acknowledged 24/7 news source? The live streaming being displayed on Twitter is better than anything I've seen on TV. It's raw and powerful --- and it's real time. Instead of the Sunday night canned cable shows, I watched Twitter as the violence flared. In addition to the live streams, tweeting, photos and videos have given me more quality formation that I can keep up with. I'm using the NYT and CNN as supplemental sources of information --- and that's a first for me.
2. Are we watching the biggest American social media story to date? I think so. All of the social platforms are fairly mature, so they're able to disseminate information faster. The closest thing I can think of --- the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007,
3. Will authorities try to limit social media use in certain instances? Given the First Amendment, I don't see how that's a real possibility. But we have seen efforts by local authorities to trample on citizens' rights through intimidation and equipment confiscation. Could we see even more of that in the future?
4. Is crowdsourcing now mainstream? Seems like it, based on what's happening here.
5. Will social media engage in self-censorship? I would hope not. But --- if there is information that is knowingly incorrect, or places lives in danger real time, would a social site remove that information?
These are just a few of the things I've been thinking about. And really, none of it is as important as getting to the bottom of the events that led to a young man death's.
Just recently, a college student said to me he was reconsidering becoming a journalist. He has valid concerns about the industry. Circulation and revenue continues to decline. Publishers still insist on operating as they have for decades, instead of seriously mirroring the successes of their digital competitors. Entry level pay is low, raises are hard to by, and furloughs and layoffs continue.
While all of that is true, that doesn’t mean the future for journalists is as dark as the midnight sky. Rather, there are many more career opportunities today that there was a decade ago.
In my educational experience, young people still think of journalists as people who are employed at legacy companies --- a newspaper, or television or radio station. They don’t think of all of the other opportunities, or different types of journalism, that are available.
They don’t think of opportunities at AOL, Yahoo, Google or ESPN. They don’t think of all of the potential opportunities at digital publications such as Grantland, Vox, the Verge, Mashable, and all of the others that need outstanding journalists. (Notice I said journalists --- not bloggers, writers and essayists. They all may have excellent writing skills, but the writing styles are different. More on that another time.)
I’ve taken the position that, unfortunately, the very best in the profession should strongly consider these new digital avenues. Nothing against the legacy publishers; I still believe they’re an excellent place to start. But the legacy players are still, by in large, weak in areas that journalists now need in order to be successful, including: Understanding user engagement, and not just page views and visits; A-B testing every headline of every story multiple times, not just once; tweaks in keywords to push search engine results; innovative uses of social to drive audience; the use of gamification; and much more. All of these are skills the new breed of journalist needs, which go far beyond the in-vogue “all-media” or “all-platform” journalist. Generally, that just means a journalist who can write a story and add a photo and video to it … and that’s so 2003.
I get a nauseous feeling every time I talk about this because I grew up in newspapers when they were king. Journalists wanted to reach the top of the profession working on stories for a major metropolitan publication. They wanted to write what they were passionate about --- whether it be sports, local government, entertainment, investigations, or any of the other available topics.
As newspapers have dwindled so have many writing opportunities --- at least in the legacy world. The digital world is quite different and holds opportunities for those up-and-coming journalists.
I kept having this one thought during the recent Inland Press Association’s Mobile and Social Solutions Conference --- why aren’t there more people here?
As legacy news operations have shrunk, so have the conferences that bring journalists together to exchange ideas and discuss what’s new in the industry. Used to be I would build my yearly work and vacation calendar around the SPJ, ASNE, NAA, NABJ and NAHJ conferences. Not anymore. I stopped doing so years ago, as conference attendance began to dip as fast as circulation numbers.
But Inland keeps plugging along. The Chicago conference, with roughly 40 attendees from small to mid-sized publications, attracted an all-star lineup of speakers worthy of a conference 50 times the size (that's why you won't believe who was there). Among them (and I apologize upfront for those that I missed): Alan Mutter, the author of the widely respected Reflections of a Newsosaur; two social media experts at the top of their field, Shannon Kinney, the founder of Dream Local Digital, and Toby Bloomberg, the president of Bloomberg Marketing; Charles Laughlin, the senior vice president of BIA/Kelsey; Christy Oglesby, the Managing Editor for Engagement at Cox Media Group; Erin Dougherty Foley, a partner in Seyfarth Shaw; and Rich Forsgren, the chief technology officer at Times Publishing Company. (For the record, I spoke as well).
Among the subjects covered --- eight tech trends changing newsrooms; the content challenges publishers face in the digital world; how to use video to increase audience; new ways of showcasing content; a vendor showcase that highlighted some cutting edge digital work (I found Matt Voight’s Saambaa and Tony Wills’ Local Yield Mo presentations fascinating); and much more.
Inland (and its partner, the Southern Newspaper Publishers Association) are filling a huge void in the industry by providing valuable low-cost training and conferences to its members. And it bears repeating --- Inland brings in speakers who are the top of their game, speakers who could demand fees just for showing up, but don’t. That’s a testament to Patty Slusher, Karla Zander, Mark Fitzgerald and the rest of the Inland staffers who have built strong connections throughout the industry and have a wealth of experts they can call on to help educate their members.
Inland, SNPA, and other small associations are showing that you can help your members thrive during tough industry times. They’re not flashy, and that’s a real good thing. They just do good work, and it would behoove publishers to support them.
Why? We all know associations are in trouble. Dues and memberships are often the first budget items slashed, and even if they’re not, there’s no travel budget to pay for transportation and hotel (often the most expensive parts of any conference).
But staying away falls under the penny (un)wise, pound foolish. Yeah, it costs to attend, but you’ll learn more in two days that you will all year. And really, it’s incredibly economical. You can’t get all of these experts in one place and have a chance to pick their brains. Yeah, you can save a few pennies now, but that won’t help you in the long run.
You can get more information about Inland and SNPA at:
The American education system will soon undergo the type of disruption legacy publishers have already been though.
We all know the college debt crisis is crippling our economy and placing an overwhelming burden on recent graduates. The numbers tell the story --- $1.2 trillion in total college debt, with seven of 10 students carrying an average debt of nearly $30K. That’s the average debt. Students who go to higher-priced colleges, or go for advanced degrees, carry a much higher debt load.
The combination of a tough job market and stifling college loan payments means 36 percent of adults between the ages of 18 and 31 are living at home. That’s the highest since 1969, when the U.S. Census Department started tracking that data. We haven’t even touched on the stranglehold private lenders have on borrowers, or the cost of serving the debt, or how that debt means graduates have less money to help fuel a consumer-based economy. Just a mess all around.
Then, I read this piece about nano degrees. In short, AT&T and Udacity are teaming to offer online courses in basic programming skills for entry-level positions as a data analyst and other like positions. AT&T it setting aside 100 jobs for these trainees, and Udacity is working with other partners.
Oh, the AT&T program costs $200 a month. Yeah, two hundred.
Now, some may dismiss this as an online trade school that has limited applications. I disagree. Think of all of the skills that can be learned online. In addition to almost anything programming based, English, journalism, math, social work, criminal justice, and marketing are just a few of the classes that can easily be taught outside of a traditional classroom using the same method. I’m not talking about online institutions that teach many of those classes and charge tens of thousands annually. I’m talking about the kind of “targeted education” being pioneered by AT&T and Udacity.
Those companies are showing us all the future of education, and this roadmap can be replicated by others. A public relations group, for example, could partner with the largest employers in its networks and offer a low-cost option for those interested in marketing work. A journalism organization could do the same for legacy media. Technology companies could ban together and offer similar programs with similar benefits.
OF course, this won’t work for all degrees. Aspiring neurosurgeons or bio-chemists need lab time and hands-on training. But there’s a whole swath of educational training that can be done, and it can be done a lot cheaper while maintaining quality.
A university simply offering online courses --- at its existing rates --- won’t be enough to compete. It could be those institutions will have to target what they offer and gear their business (yes, education is a business) aligned with specialized fields, especially in medicine.
This targeted education is the wave of the future, and higher educational institutions should start thinking about how they’ll deal with the disruption that will occur.
Old-school journalists have been trained to be unbiased in their reporting and objectively report both sides of an issue. That creed has been eroded by the Fox and MSNBC’s of the world, which have ushered in the age of polarization by sticking to conservative or liberal agendas that pander to a specific audience.
There is, finally, a news organization that is leading the way in meaningful explanatory journalism with limited bias (more on that later).
Vox has been around for just a few months, and it’s already one of my three daily must-reads (behind the New York Times and now just ahead of the Verge). Ezra Klein and his crew have so far done a masterful job writing for the digital age. It’s a model all writers should look at closely.
It’s really a simple plan that old schoolers (like me) have scoffed at for years: Take the most interesting issues of the day and explain them --- don’t just tell me about them.
I find myself going there to read the analysis of some very smart people. The “explained in two minutes” feature is tailored for the time-pressed, limited attention span generation that wants everything fast and now. I sought out Vox when I wanted to know more about the Islamic State of Iraq (ISIS) and the current crisis there. Same when I wanted to know more about Boko Haram. I looked for information on Vox.
I sought out Vox because I knew I would get context --- a missing element in most legacy journalism writing today. People just don’t want to know that something has happened. They want to know why and what it means, and they want the information in an easily digestible format. Regardless of what you think of BuzzFeed, it has shown us the wisdom of lists. Vox has picked up on that.
Earlier, I said Vox is achieving its goals with “limited” bias. I don’t think you can write in an explanatory way without your own biases --- conscious or otherwise --- seeping in. For example, in an excellent explainer on health care, the author noted one out of every six dollars is spent on healthcare, and “that’s a lot of dollars.” Well, maybe some people don’t think it is, or maybe it’s just right.
But that doesn’t bother me. Vox, it seems, is smart enough to realize that non-bias and objectivity have always been a journalistic fantasy. It’s something that legacy journalists strive for but is rarely attained. Just check some of the wording and cues in news story sentences. Journalists often write that an incident is horrific, dumb, questionable, etc. That’s certainly leading. Vox also realizes its audience is smart enough to form its own opinions, despite what it writes. Vox’s job, it appears, is to explain and inform, and then let its audience make its own decisions. Love that approach.
Vox is not perfect, and no one should expect a venture so young to be even close. For example, I could do without the opinionated headlines (Israeli’s occupation of the West Bank is wrong), but hey, maybe that’s an experiment. I generally ignore that anyway.
The Vox way is something that all legacy newsrooms should pay close attention to. Don’t just tell your readers that something has happened. Tell them why it did, why it’s important, and why they should care. Otherwise, your audience declines will accelerate as other digital platforms mirror Vox’s model.
Check out this interview with Ezra Klein for more information on his vision for Vox. For the records, I don’t know anyone associated with the publication
In my latest blog post, I wrote that core media is now niche --- and that caused a bit of a stir. But it’s really a very good way for legacy operations to view their business because doing so will help them survive long term.
Let’s take newspapers. It the glory years, newspapers were fat with page count and large staffs that could bring readers all types of news --- national, international, local, sports, lifestyle, entertainment, health --- and list went on and on. Of course, in those pre-internet glory days, the competition consisted of other legacy media outlets operating in, more or less, the same way.
We all know that things have changed and had a devastating impact on legacy media. (The latest big story --- Time Inc., the once-former publishing powerhouse, has been spun off into a stand-alone company that some analysts are questioning can survive long term.)
Meanwhile, there are dozens of excellent digital publications staffed by seasoned journalists that, from all indications, are doing extremely well. In my view, Politico has surpassed the Washington Post as the politics must read inside the Beltway. Vox is showing legacy companies why explanatory journalism is the future, Fivethirtyeight.com’s data brilliance is pioneering is changing how journalists look at data sets. River Avenue Blues combines insights, sarcasm, and excellent reporting and is now the must read in a competitive New York media marketplace. These are just four example of hundreds of sources that have found the Holy Grail --- they are relentlessly focused on one topic area, reporting the hell of it, and gaining readers and fans by the boatload.
So what can legacy media learn from this? First, admit no newspaper, TV or radio newscast can be all things to all people. Those days are long over. Think about how people consume news nowadays. Looking for sports, entertainment or health information? There’s SI.com, TMZ and WebMd, and hundreds more specialty sites where those came from.
Each legacy media company needs to really understand what its community hungers for, and use its full-time staff to exclusively focus on those limited topics. And, knowing what the community wants goes far beyond marketing surveys that are by in large still given by phone. Guess what? One in three Americans don’t even have landlines, and not everyone that has one even uses it. How can such a survey even approximate a reliable result with actionable information?
No, legacy companies need to go beyond those calls and employ a number of different methods to really understand what their communities want them to be. Focus groups, social media-based surveys, online metrics analytics are all parts of the survey landscape. When they really know that, they can begin the process a building a business that has a chance to succeed. It’s clear, from the continued drop in audience and profits, that the constant cutting and tweaks isn’t working.
The much discussed NYT innovation report brings into focus what still ails publishers, nearly 20 years (!) after the dawn of the internet revolution. It’s not that the revelations in the Times’ internal look at its operations is at all earthshattering. For example, an internal memo says:
"The report concludes that the masthead needs to make further structural changes in the newsroom to achieve a digital first reality, including having a senior editor focused on audience development, another group focused on analytics and an advisory strategic arm."
That’s no great shakes. Any publisher not doing those basic things isn’t pay much attention to the future viability of its business. But when the Times speaks, people listen. In this case, that’s a good thing.
The NYT report clearly shows the challenges of attempting to move a traditional, core business into a full digital operation that can be as nimble and as focused as BuzzFeed, Vox, Upworthy and the hundreds of others that have quickly changed the digital content landscape. What the Times report does is bring to light an important issue not bring discussed in a meaningful way:
Those media upstarts are becoming the new traditional media in the digital realm. The old guard --- your local newspaper, or electronic newscast --- are becoming niche.
Think about that for a second. These new media companies have a far better understanding of how people consume news, when they consume it, what they want, and what makes them read it. The have a more advanced understanding of metrics and new technologies that help them drive their business. They have identified coverage areas they can own, and they do so relentlessly and deeply. Their audience tells them what they want, and the new media companies deliver.
Meanwhile, the old guard has a group of editors or producers who have daily news meetings that determine what they think is important to their audience. Those declining circulation and ratings numbers show they’re not guessing right.
Over the course of time, I plan to write quite a bit about what the old guard can do to stay relevant and maintain a thriving and profitable business. Here are my first thoughts:
Look at different metrics. We must stop taking about page views, uniques, circulation numbers and GRPs. Focus exclusively on audience engagement. Upworthy is spot on in this regard --- it’s far more important to understand how many people are actively engaging with your content, and for how long, than to simply say someone tuned in, or turned a page, or looked at your site. The metrics train has left the station and most old guard companies are not fully onboard.
Be obsessive about metrics: It’s not good enough to simply say we pay attention to metrics. We have to obsess about them. Old guard media needs people who are relentlessly focused on every nuance of every piece of copy, and utilize the best available tools to the fullest extent. Now, we’ll hear that’s impossible because newsrooms produce so much copy. And therein lay the problem. Most old guard news sites are jammed with stuff few care about. Pare back and focus on what’s driving audience, not what someone from a news meeting thinks might do well or believes needs to have a digital home.
Perform A/B testing until your eyes bleed: One thing these new digital companies have taught us: They A/B test like crazy until they find just the right headline or phrase. Testing just a couple of headlines isn’t good enough. Testing dozens on a story might get you where we need. Check this out:
For each piece of content, Upworthy curators create at least 25 headlines. The managing editor chooses four of those and tests them to see how readers respond. Upworthy has learned that a good headline can be the difference between 1,000 or 1,000,000 people reading or viewing a story. When it tests headlines, Upworthy sees a 20 percent, 50 percent, and even 500 percent difference between headlines for the same story
There’s no such thing as a story anymore: Sorry, but stories don’t cut it. It doesn’t matter how important someone thinks a story is. A story needs to be a package with interesting elements that holds readers attention. It needs to provide context and analysis so readers learn something and stay interested in a subject. I’m an old-school journalist who has been saying this for 15 years --- simply reporting the facts isn’t good enough anymore, That is not what this generation of readers want, and it’s not what they expect.
Acknowledge the homepage is dead: Referrals send people to content, not to a homepage. People come to a homepage --- and leave. They don’t go deeper into the site. Putting so much effort into a page that, if we’re lucky, accounts for 30 percent of your traffic is a waste of resources. You can make much headway by focusing on the other traffic-driving avenues that pull in far more eyeballs.
My blog has had stops and starts over the last few months. A Fulbright Fellowship took me away for a while; preparing for retirement from Cox Media Group also diverted attention. Now, I hope to be able to devote more time to writing about subjects I’m passionate about.
Ray Marcano is President/CEO of Canis Digital, a consulting a digital consulting firm that specializes in digital audience growth, project management and market analysis. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org; linkedin (@raymarcano), or through his website, www.canisdigital.com