{"id":641264,"date":"2013-02-05T10:21:20","date_gmt":"2013-02-05T15:21:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/paidcontent.org\/?p=223911"},"modified":"2013-02-05T10:21:20","modified_gmt":"2013-02-05T15:21:20","slug":"the-brain-of-the-new-york-times-the-body-of-buzzfeed-slates-third-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/641264","title":{"rendered":"\u201cThe brain of the New York Times, the body of BuzzFeed\u201d \u2014 Slate\u2019s third act"},"content":{"rendered":"

Slate started life as as a scrappy web pioneer under Microsoft in 1996. Since then, it has gone on to carve out an enviable perch in the liberal media establishment as part of the Washington Post Company. Now, as Slate enters its 17th<\/sup> year \u2014 a fine run for any publication, digital or otherwise \u2013- the online magazine wants to reinvent itself one more time.<\/p>\n

Slate\u2019s latest incarnation is as a data-driven social-media beast.\u00a0 The site thinks it can use viral wizardry to spray smart writing around the internet and,\u00a0at the same time, finally earn a profit from being perspicuous.\u00a0The money question has become pressing because Slate, despite its years as a high-brow conversation starter, has yet to show it can survive without the largesse of a corporate mothership.<\/p>\n

So will Slate\u2019s third act pan out? Here\u2019s a look at how its brain trust is approaching data, technology and the evolving ethics of advertising.<\/p>\n

Top drawer or traffic whore? Stats and story selection<\/h2>\n

On a cold January afternoon, I met longtime editor-in-chief Jacob Weisberg and his deputy David Plotz in the former\u2019s airy corner office on Morton Street in New York\u2019s West Village. The office has large windows and shelves of hardcovers, including Weisberg\u2019s exposition \u201cThe Bush Tragedy.\u201d<\/p>\n

The men were busy. Weisberg was en route to Davos, while Plotz had ducked out from answering questions on the online discussion forum Reddit. But both wanted to make the case that Slate has what it takes to survive in the age of analytics.\u00a0\u201cWe rely on data, not intuition\u201d said Weisberg. \u201cThe big cultural change at Slate is that it\u2019s moved from being a site driven by instinct to a site driven by evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n

The remark comes as a rebuttal to earlier observations that Slate relied on creaky technology even as its competitors shot by it with state-of-the-art tools. The New York Observer in 2010<\/a>, for instance, talked to members of Slate\u2019s staff and concluded that the site\u2019s tech was \u201cChitty Chitty Bang Bang.\u201d<\/p>\n

Weisberg says those days are done and that technology is at the center of the editorial operation. He points to a new Silicon Valley-style product team and a doubling in the amount of \u201csideways\u201d readers from social media in the last year as proof that Slate has gotten religion on the analytics front.<\/p>\n

\"Woman,<\/a>Weisberg says Nick Denton<\/a> of Gawker and Jonah Peretti<\/a> of BuzzFeed have been inspirations in the push for better analytics. The two\u00a0viral media evangelists have shaken up publishing by using social media metrics to judge what stories to promote. (Peretti will be speaking at paidContent Live<\/a> in April.)<\/p>\n

But if Slate turns to audience activity to inform its story choice, does this also mean pandering?\u00a0\u201cWe have written traffic-whorey stories here \"David<\/a>and there,\u201d admits Plotz. But these efforts haven\u2019t been particularly successful, he says. Instead, he credits editorial initiatives like \u201cBad Astronomy<\/a>\u201d (a feature for science nerds) with increasing drawing new regular readers to Slate.<\/p>\n

In this regard, Slate is like other high-minded publications navigating a tough, even contradictory mission. On one hand, they promise smart and independent ideas; on the other, they\u2019re heeding social media metrics that could tug them to the lowest common denominator. While news sites like BuzzFeed cut their teeth on silly cat photos only to climb up the intellectual and media food chain, it\u2019s unclear whether this process can work in the opposite direction.<\/p>\n

So far, Slate appears to be threading the needle by growing its readership, while also publishing thought-provoking pieces (like this one<\/a> about Palestinian versus Israeli textbooks). Slate says December 2012 unique visitors increased 33% percent from a year ago; meanwhile, comScore stats show Slate is faring well against other ideas publications. Here\u2019s a chart that shows how they compare (note QZ and theAtlanticWire are part of the theAtlantic.com) :<\/p>\n

\"screenshot<\/a><\/p>\n

Paywalls and pettifogging<\/h2>\n

The buoyant numbers are good news, of course, but do they mean Slate is finally in a position to make money?\u00a0In 2010, Plotz admitted that Slate was not profitable. Like nearly every other digital publication, Slate had discovered the hard way that great writing and a loyal readership are not the same as a business plan.<\/p>\n

Since then, many publishers have followed the lead of the New York Times<\/em>\u00a0and begun to charge for access to all or portions of their digital content. These so-called paywalls have gained acceptance after being a contentious issue for years \u2014 in part because an early effort by Slate to implement one in 1998 didn\u2019t work out.<\/p>\n

Slate recently floated the idea of a future \u201cmembership\u201d scheme for some readers, but Weisberg is adamant it won\u2019t involve charging for content. The topic is sensitive enough to have produced a bizarre Twitter spectacle in which Weisberg\u2019s Mr. Fox avatar berated a respected Forbes reporter as a \u201cpettifogger\u201d (and worse<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\n

@jeffbercovici<\/a> Jeff, that story doesn’t say that! It calls membership a “model,” not a “pay model.” Quit pettifogging.\u2014
Jacob Weisberg (@jacobwe) December 14, 2012<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

So what exactly does the membership involve? Weisberg didn\u2019t elaborate beyond saying it won\u2019t be unveiled until at least the end of the year and that it will be \u201cmore akin to a public radio-type membership model \u2014 you give a contribution and in return you get benefits.\u201d<\/p>\n

As Slate hashes out these details behind the scenes, it\u2019s also trying to cultivate another revenue stream, in the form of an expanded events business. These include loose mixers that let readers mingle with Slate writers; Weisberg says more than 700 people recently bought tickets one of its \u201cgab-fests\u201d in Washington. Slate is also hosting small, more formal events hosted by advertisers. One example is a UBS-hosted panel at which Weisberg hosted a discussion on exports with political poohbahs.\"Slate<\/a><\/p>\n

Other media outlets have run into ethical challenges with custom events like this \u2014 most notably the Washington Post<\/em>, which in 2009 proposed hosting private \u201csalon events<\/a>\u201d at the publisher\u2019s house for powerbrokers and journalists. It sparked a newsroom revolt, and the paper ditched the idea before it ever became a reality. Weisberg says Slate, which is independent but shares a corporate parent with the Washington Post<\/em>, won\u2019t run into similar problems because its events are all public and on the record.<\/p>\n

All this still doesn\u2019t answer the question of whether Slate is now profitable. Asked directly, Weisberg said he can\u2019t say because of Sarbanes-Oxley disclosure rules that require companies like the Washington Post Co. to disclose material information through broad public channels.<\/p>\n

Ads, yes \u2013 but not for the Church of Scientology<\/h2>\n

Digital publications these days need multiple revenue streams to survive, but their core remains advertising. And here Slate, which has recently built up its own sales force outside of the Post<\/em>, and others face the same dilemma: an increasing amount of web traffic comes in through mobile devices (about 30% now, and 50% by 2014 is probably a safe bet) but ad rates are low and no one is sure what to do about that.<\/p>\n

\u201cI don\u2019t think we\u2019ve figured out anything other people haven\u2019t,\u201d says Weisberg. \u201cYou have a rapidly expanding audience but CPM\u2019s that are much lower. The key is distinguishing how and when people are using different types of mobile devices. \u00a0Between tablet and mobile, those two will diverge rapidly over time. Tablet ads will become more valuable while handsets gravitate to a performance model.\u201d<\/p>\n

While publishers wait for the right mobile ad models to emerge, many are seizing on so-called \u201cnative advertising\u201d as the secret to juicing ad prices. It\u2019s debatable whether it\u2019s really new but the basic idea is to produce ads that mimic the editorial content around it \u2013 ads that resemble nearby stories, tweets, pictures, etc. It may or not be novel, but for now it is clear that native advertising can go horribly wrong such as when the Atlantic printed a \u201cstory\u201d<\/a> about the Church of Scientology replete with gushing \u201creader\u201d comments about the cult\u2019s virtues.<\/p>\n

Weisberg says the Atlantic tripped up by violating three principles: printing ad that confuse readers; tampering with the editorial process; and accepting an ad from someone the publication shouldn\u2019t have done dealt with in the first place.\u00a0\u201cThey are enemies of free speech, they are persecutors of journalists, they\u2019re litigious. They\u2019re a crazy cult who\u2019s made life hell for journalists who\u2019ve tried to do their job. Why do business with them at all?\u201d<\/p>\n

In terms of Slate\u2019s own advertising, the publication says revenue in 2012 grew 26 percent from the previous year. Its advertisers include , most recently, Coke, Lexus and Samsung. As for the ad opportunities offered by\u00a0aggregation tools like Flipboard, Weisberg is skeptical and says they are \u201ctoo passive\u201d and less useful now that \u201cTwitter has cracked the news personalization process.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Slate<\/a>Slate has also built a strong lineup of videos and podcasts that Weisberg says are lucrative for the site. Slate is now producing nine separate podcasts<\/a>, some of which\u00a0rate highly on iTunes; one episode of the show Lexicon Valley recently notched up 650,000 downloads. Slate would not disclose how much ads, which are read by show hosts, bring in but said \u201cadvertisers pay some of the highest rates in the industry\u201d for the podcasts.<\/p>\n

This podcast and other non-print revenue will help determine whether Slate can join an increasingly data-driven media world while still remaining an influential liberal publication. While the verdict is still out, Slate\u2019s confidence remains high.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe have the brain of the New York Times and the body of BuzzFeed,\u201d said Weisberg as he prepared to dash off to Switzerland \u2013 where he would later tweet, \u201cWish Pussy Riot was in Davos instead of so many Russian oligarchs & kleptocrats.\u201d<\/p>\n

(Images by Slate and\u00a0Kletr<\/a>\u00a0via Shutterstock)<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:<\/strong>
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial<\/a>.<\/p>\n