We don't (always) need to meet readers 'where they are'

Let’s be heterodox for a moment on two points:

1 We don’t need to meet readers where they are, we need to meet readers where we can best balance mission and sustainability.

2 The popularity of any given social media site is tangential to: “Can news and information succeed on this platform, medium, format or context?”

Those two points are deeply interrelated and which one should lead the discussion is a chicken-egg dilemma. But, the first assertion is a question of business strategy: “Can we afford to spend time producing content for this platform, and how does it serve our need to inform the community?” The second is more about content strategy: “If we invest here, how best can we design our message to reach and serve that community?”

Whenever a platform allows us to find an audience and fits into a business strategy, we should be there.* “Fits” means we can link back to our owned-and-operated website, or we can sign people up for newsletters, or get them to download the app, or sell advertising to them. Or, whatever supports your newsroom’s continued operation.

If we can reach an audience, but the platform deprioritizes news and makes links and direct access to readers difficult (like Facebook and Threads and Twitter) maybe we should be there, but it as a marketing strategy.

“Marketing” is not a dirty word, though journalists often believe it to be. In this context it means, “We should publish and engage, but our successes will not be measured in subscription conversions or ad impressions.” Perhaps better (but not newsroom-friendlier) words would be “brand building” or “loss-leader.” But the goal here still, is to inform the community and build awareness of our work. Our investment in time and other resources should reflect that goal.

In the worst-case scenario, if the platform doesn’t offer a business model or does not reach and engage readers it is at most an experiment or perhaps an executive hobbyhorse.

A lesser third point here (After #1, #2 at the top of the page) is that not all mediums are created equal. Jamelle Bouie offers his 234,000 followers the most cogent three-to-five minute commentaries available anywhere on TikTok. And, by the way he also writes 1,500-word columns for the New York Times, a fact that regularly surprises his TikTok fans. Might we say those two versions of his work have a different content and tone, and don’t serve the same information needs? But both are worth your time.

To pick on TikTok as an example of my argument:

• Is it possible for viewers there to discover the news? YES.
• Is it possible for viewers to learn important details in three-to-five minute segments? YES.
• Did those viewers come to TikTok for news? Mostly NO.
• Can news publishers make money on TikTok? Mostly NO.
• Is TikTok a good place to experiment, find new audiences and share the news? YES.

So, TikTok is best approached as a marketing strategy for news. Nothing wrong with that, unless they get shut down in a few months.

*Twitter used to be a good fit for both business and mission, then it became more suited to market the news, then it became a Nazi bar. These things happen.