I read the Harris Poll on ‘time spent online‘ with some interest a few weeks back. The average Web user spent 13 hours per week online in 2009 – nearly doubling the average from the beginning of the decade.
That same week E&P reported via Nielsen the top newspaper site in November for time spent per visitor was about 6 minutes per week (AJC.com). Skip the math – that is less than one percent of the average netizen’s total time online.
To be fair six minutes is the average for all visitors including fly-bys which skews the results a bit low. So, taking those industry reported averages, along with the reader cohort behaviors we see on our own site:
Click to see a larger version of the chart.
These numbers are rough guesses but I don’t see any scenarios that change the result substantially.
The bottom line is that even your most loyal readers, those who likely visit your site every day, are only worth a half-hour per week. That is three percent of their overall 13 hour web use window.
Is three percent enough to convince most people to pay for your news? No matter how unique it is or expensive to produce, readers right now are voting with their mice.
Great post Damon. I sometimes wonder how much affect the printed newspaper has in the local market. if your print penetration is 40-50 percent, are they using the Web site as a “resource” with the printed paper instead of the primary way they get information. But maybe that's just an excuse to explain away low numbers. I'd be extremely interested in your thoughts on what it will take to move that number up?
Jack -We are still working (who isn't) to figure out how print interacts with online readership in our market. Totally anecdotally it seems like a third of our online readers are former print subs, a third never were and the other third still are.The engagement question is at least another full post – but it requires creating digital-native tools and features on our Web sites that are the analog of what we used to offer in the print news bundle. Stories and comments are not enough online just like they were never enough in print.
I think we journalists tend to think news is much more important than the average person. I'm not saying they aren't interested, but compared to checking their email and interacting with friends on Facebook or wherever, news on media sites is somewhere down the list.That said, I think you are right, our current products are too one dimensional in a three dimensional world.
[…] This post was Twitted by dkiesow […]
Great post Damon.
I sometimes wonder how much affect the printed newspaper has in the local market. if your print penetration is 40-50 percent, are they using the Web site as a “resource” with the printed paper instead of the primary way they get information. But maybe that's just an excuse to explain away low numbers.
I'd be extremely interested in your thoughts on what it will take to move that number up?
Jack –
We are still working (who isn't) to figure out how print interacts with online readership in our market. Totally anecdotally it seems like a third of our online readers are former print subs, a third never were and the other third still are.
The engagement question is at least another full post – but it requires creating digital-native tools and features on our Web sites that are the analog of what we used to offer in the print news bundle. Stories and comments are not enough online just like they were never enough in print.
I think we journalists tend to think news is much more important than the average person. I'm not saying they aren't interested, but compared to checking their email and interacting with friends on Facebook or wherever, news on media sites is somewhere down the list.
That said, I think you are right, our current products are too one dimensional in a three dimensional world.
[…] media possess only a small portion of the digital audience. But more importantly, we still have a three percent problem. That challenge has more to do with competing against Google and Facebook for attention, not […]