We don’t have to do this

The clicks aren’t worth it

Last week after posting the Oingo Boingo edition of “Is This Band Good?” (which is really good and you should read it if you haven’t), someone shared the article with the insinuation that it was clickbait. They weren’t mean about it, so I’m not mad, but I think they’re wrong.

I’m no stranger to those accusations. I think anyone who writes words on the internet has committed the offense of vying for attention in less-than-noble ways. As the social media manager and web editor at San Diego CityBeat for seven years, I was always trying to think of headlines that would catch eyes. I’d read stupid SEO blogs and tips on how to create emotionally-affecting metadata or whatever. It was hell. Thousands of years of evolution and here we are, top of the food chain, exerting superior brain power in pursuit of the elusive pageview. 

But, in all honesty, a pageview isn’t worth much. Those who hurl the accusation of clickbait greatly overestimate the value of a click. During my time at CityBeat, the system of converting clicks to profit was sketchy at best. I’m not sure what ad reps told clients our impressions were, but I can’t imagine they were accurate because 1) nobody asked me to share numbers and 2) the CityBeat website never got very many hits. To put things in perspective, each AWKSD newsletter usually gets more views than the top story at CityBeat every week. I don’t say this as a flex—just the reality of online traffic at what many perceived to be a major publication. 

My guess is that CityBeat was not alone in inflating numbers to attract potential clients. Web metrics is a weirdly sensitive topic, and I guarantee that most publications fake their numbers. 

Because clicks and pageviews are tenuous measures of success, it’s strange when you see publications indulging in explicit clickbait behavior. 

Before everyone piles on the San Diego Union-Tribune, I want to say that our city would be much worse without our paper of note. San Diego Union-Tribune’s reporting is essential. I read it every day, and firmly believe that everyone should pay for a subscription. And yes, I do admire their opinions section, which somehow makes the dumpster fire of our world feel somewhat sane, even if I don’t always agree with them.

But when I saw the above tweet from the SDUT Twitter account—with the headline “Opinion: Should Joe Biden just pardon Donald Trump to heal growing political division?”—the only thought I had was what are you doing? 

Were they trolling? Was the paper pulling a NYT or WSJ by hiring a yahoo conservative to write provocative op-eds? Or had the social media manager just said “fuck it, chaos reigns!”? If anything could be accused of clickbait, it’s this tweet.

And it worked. Well, kind of. The tweet definitely got attention, but when you compare the retweets and replies to the number of hearts, it’s a straight-up hoRATIO’d Alger. 

For readers who were diligent enough to actually click—a number that I’d wager was nowhere near the amount of people that liked, retweeted, or replied—they learned that this wasn’t some commissioned op-ed, but a letter to the editor. 

It’s a small distinction, but an important one. 

I’m not here to tell anyone how to do their job, but it does concern me when publications use underhand tactics to boost their numbers—which, as we’ve covered, aren’t nearly as valuable as the public thinks. Yes, the tweet affirms that it’s an “Opinion” (twice), which is technically true, but the fact that it obscures that it’s a reader’s opinion feels gross. 

And I think I know why they did it: in an age of social media, the Letters to the Editor section is essentially space filler. Like, yeah, it’s important to provide a platform for readers to share their opinions on the content of the paper, but nobody seeks out a paper to read unsolicited opinions from non-journalists. That’s what social media is for. We swim in a world of whackadoo normie opinions on the reg.

Had the SDUT replaced the “Opinion” in that tweet with “Letter to the Editor”, do you think anyone would click? I don’t. 

Maybe I’m being pedantic, but after trying to teach 8th graders media literacy last year, I know these things matter. People don’t think about wording or nuance when they read headlines, and it’s not some insider’s secret that people don’t read the articles. During those media literacy lessons, I always used SDUT as a point of reference for reliable journalism, because it is, and because I think kids should develop an appreciation for their local newspapers. 

But how can we invest trust in a publication when it’s used to posit Facebook-level arguments? How can I show that tweet to hyper-critical 13-year-olds—a tweet that even suggests the possibility of exonerating Trump’s criminal activities—and be like, “no, seriously, it’s a good paper”?

Journalism is tough, and it’s getting tougher by the day. Nothing but respect for anyone who writes for a publication. There’s immense pressure to get more eyes on everything. I know someone at the top of every media outlet is saying something along the lines of, “We need more clicks! We need more pageviews!” It’s increasingly desperate—less of a demand, more of a plea. 

But this isn’t how we do it.    

---

FEELING SOME BURNOUT 

In the next few months, I’m going to step back a little from AWKSD. For the past three years (!) I’ve been putting out this weekly newsletter—a fact that surprises even me. But I’m starting to feel the cracks in the facade, as well as some petty bitterness, which I know is completely my fault for investing so much into something that nobody really asked for. 

But this isn’t the end of the newsletter! I love having a platform and I love interacting with readers. I love the AWKSD community. But I put so much work into this and feel now that I have to give myself some space to breathe. So if the newsletters become a little more irregular, that’s the reason. If you’re a paying subscriber, feel free to cancel your payments—no judgment!  

<3 Ryan 

---

INTERVIEW WITH WE EAT OUR OWN AUTHOR, KEA WILSON

Earlier this week, I had the distinct pleasure of talking with Kea Wilson, the author of AWKSD’s Sadistic Summer Book Club book, We Eat Our Own. 

She was a delight, and had many great insights on her novel, the film Cannibal Holocaust (which inspired the book), and writing in general. We also discussed my perennially favorite question: “Why do people like horror?” 

I recorded the discussion, so if you’re interested, here it is. 

---

Got a tip or wanna say hi? Email me at ryancraigbradford@gmail.com, or follow me on Twitter @theryanbradford. And if you like what you’ve just read, please hit that little heart icon at the end of the post.