Clickbait culture: why rugby league readers, not just writers, are to blame

[ATLANTISMAN]

90% of rugby league fans care abut their club and not the game at large.

Simple as that (99% on this forum the opposite:)

 

Paul

[John Drake]

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

Does anybody actually read stuff on this website? Often I don't bother clicking links as I will be told I don't have access.

We introduced a paywall on here so we could publish more of the content from League Express and Rugby League World online on our own website, without (a) having it nicked by other websites without accreditation and passed off as their own work and (b ) so those who were paying to read it in the print and digital editions of those titles weren’t being ripped off by allowing other people to read the same content for free online.

As well as generating news stories for League Express, Matt also produces a lot of original content for the website that isn’t published elsewhere, which is also paywalled because, basically, the guy needs a wage, and journalists earn money from people being required to pay to read their work.

If LPL didn’t generate revenue by asking people to pay to read its products, none of those products, including this website and (free to use) forum would exist. 

Our traffic has gone up since we introduced the paywall, because it allows us to publish far more content online than we ever did before, and there is an audience out there willing to pay to read it, for which all of us employed by LPL are truly grateful.

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, John Drake said:

We introduced a paywall on here so we could publish more of the content from League Express and Rugby League World online on our own website, without (a) having it nicked by other websites without accreditation and passed off as their own work and (b ) so those who were paying to read it in the print and digital editions of those titles weren’t being ripped off by allowing other people to read the same content for free online.

As well as generating news stories for League Express, Matt also produces a lot of original content for the website that isn’t published elsewhere, which is also paywalled because, basically, the guy needs a wage, and journalists earn money from people being required to pay to read their work.

If LPL didn’t generate revenue by asking people to pay to read its products, none of those products, including this website and (free to use) forum would exist. 

Our traffic has gone up since we introduced the paywall, because it allows us to publish far more content online than we ever did before, and there is an audience out there willing to pay to read it, for which all of us employed by LPL are truly grateful.

Sorry if it came across as a criticism John, it wasn't meant as that, I understand why companies charge for content and have no issues with that. If I'm honest though, I don't really understand the content you offer, I didn't realise there was premium content now, I thought it was the same stuff but behind a paywall. And I still don't know whether it is the same as the print stuff, and if it is do subscribers get the online access too?

And as an aside while we are on the subject, has RLW been put into hibernation for now? I've just realised I haven't had one through the letterbox for a while!

The question about the analysis remains though, it doesn't make sense that a bit of player chat is 2.5 times more popular than an article on something as contentious as the club finances and player contracts. 

[Man of Kent]

Bit of a bizarre article really. Matt Shaw takes his ‘best ever’ article and uses it as evidence that RL fans must be some sort of idiots because they didn’t read it in much greater numbers than for transfer gossip, which is the stock in trade of a newspaper like League Express. That’s really rather arrogant!

Leaving aside the not wholly shocking revelation that players were being asked to take pay cuts as the nation and his wife were being furloughed on reduced income, I’d imagine many publications get bigger hits for tittle-tattle than for more worthy stories.

I’d bet any amount of money that national newspapers get more hits for stories about celebs bearing their breasts than a investigative in-depth piece that exposes insider dealing or some other financial story. But that doesn’t invalidate investigative journalism or justify a newspaper only publishing stories of celebs bearing breasts (Daily Sport excepted - is that still going?!) And you won’t read newspapers insulting their readers about it either. 

[RigbyLuger]

31 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Bit of a bizarre article really. Matt Shaw takes his ‘best ever’ article and uses it as evidence that RL fans must be some sort of idiots because they didn’t read it in much greater numbers than for transfer gossip, which is the stock in trade of a I’d bet any amount of money that national newspapers get more hits for stories about celebs bearing their breasts than a investigative in-depth piece that exposes insider dealing or some other financial story. But that doesn’t invalidate investigative journalism or justify a newspaper only publishing stories of celebs bearing breasts (Daily Sport excepted - is that still going?!) And you won’t read newspapers insulting their readers about it either. 

Used to be decent RL coverage in the Sport!

[Cliff Promise]

It can't have come as a suprise that transfer stories get the biggest hits. Someone sees their club is linked with a new player, they take the link to the story and send it to their friends/family who take a look and pass it on themselves = more clicks. 

[Matt Shaw]

9 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

Bit of a bizarre article really. Matt Shaw takes his ‘best ever’ article and uses it as evidence that RL fans must be some sort of idiots because they didn’t read it in much greater numbers than for transfer gossip, which is the stock in trade of a newspaper like League Express. That’s really rather arrogant!

Leaving aside the not wholly shocking revelation that players were being asked to take pay cuts as the nation and his wife were being furloughed on reduced income, I’d imagine many publications get bigger hits for tittle-tattle than for more worthy stories.

I’d bet any amount of money that national newspapers get more hits for stories about celebs bearing their breasts than a investigative in-depth piece that exposes insider dealing or some other financial story. But that doesn’t invalidate investigative journalism or justify a newspaper only publishing stories of celebs bearing breasts (Daily Sport excepted - is that still going?!) And you won’t read newspapers insulting their readers about it either. 

Never said it was my best ever article. I said it was one of my best ever pieces of journalism. That's based on the amount of information in the piece, the amount of time it took to gather that information and the further amount of time it took to piece it all together and verify it. 

Never said people were idiots, I said people much prefer to consume transfer stories than articles that cover more important topics and take more time to put together, and as a result, you'll find more journalists chasing those stories than investing time in articles covering the topics that won't bring in the same results. Why does that make them idiots? It just means writers will chase those stories that bring in results.

[Matt Shaw]

10 hours ago, Dave T said:

Sorry if it came across as a criticism John, it wasn't meant as that, I understand why companies charge for content and have no issues with that. If I'm honest though, I don't really understand the content you offer, I didn't realise there was premium content now, I thought it was the same stuff but behind a paywall. And I still don't know whether it is the same as the print stuff, and if it is do subscribers get the online access too?

And as an aside while we are on the subject, has RLW been put into hibernation for now? I've just realised I haven't had one through the letterbox for a while!

The question about the analysis remains though, it doesn't make sense that a bit of player chat is 2.5 times more popular than an article on something as contentious as the club finances and player contracts. 

Just as an example. The piece referenced went out on our social media channels at exactly the same time on our platforms as the Niall Evalds to Castleford piece, so you can directly compare the two. The Evalds story blew it out of the water.

[Man of Kent]

13 minutes ago, Matt Shaw said:

Never said it was my best ever article. I said it was one of my best ever pieces of journalism. That's based on the amount of information in the piece, the amount of time it took to gather that information and the further amount of time it took to piece it all together and verify it. 

Never said people were idiots, I said people much prefer to consume transfer stories than articles that cover more important topics and take more time to put together, and as a result, you'll find more journalists chasing those stories than investing time in articles covering the topics that won't bring in the same results. Why does that make them idiots? It just means writers will chase those stories that bring in results.

That’s the way it came across.

I’ll just put it down to lockdown & spending too much time at home and forget about it.

[Dave T]

25 minutes ago, Matt Shaw said:

Just as an example. The piece referenced went out on our social media channels at exactly the same time on our platforms as the Niall Evalds to Castleford piece, so you can directly compare the two. The Evalds story blew it out of the water.

Thanks. I must admit, I haven't seen anything from your social media for a long time, I assumed I wasn't following you, but just checked and I am and there are regular updates. Who knew!

A quick look down the LE Twitter timeline shows that most tweets get very little interactions, but there are a few notable exceptions. The tweet about the BBC showing all 61 World Cup games gets a huge (relatively speaking) number of likes and retweets far more than player signings, same with TWP/SLE international trade deal, and Moz doing a sponsored walk. These things don't appear to be clickbait and seem to have far more interactions than the kind of articles you refer to.

Now obviously these are different metrics to site visits that you refer to, but that then leads me back to this maybe isn't just a direct like-for-like comparison, or maybe it is and people just aren't turned on by pay discussions, maybe they want to read some positive news while life is hard. 

[Matt Shaw]

23 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Thanks. I must admit, I haven't seen anything from your social media for a long time, I assumed I wasn't following you, but just checked and I am and there are regular updates. Who knew!

A quick look down the LE Twitter timeline shows that most tweets get very little interactions, but there are a few notable exceptions. The tweet about the BBC showing all 61 World Cup games gets a huge (relatively speaking) number of likes and retweets far more than player signings, same with TWP/SLE international trade deal, and Moz doing a sponsored walk. These things don't appear to be clickbait and seem to have far more interactions than the kind of articles you refer to.

Now obviously these are different metrics to site visits that you refer to, but that then leads me back to this maybe isn't just a direct like-for-like comparison, or maybe it is and people just aren't turned on by pay discussions, maybe they want to read some positive news while life is hard. 

It;s fascinating really. Just as an example, the most retweets on any of our articles yesterday was a story about Calcio Storico Fiorentino. However, it brought in the least amount of clicks. The two tweets pushing out the column I put together got no retweets at all, but it was the most viewed article on our website yesterday. Figure that one out! There's more to it, obviously, that's not taking into account Facebook, which is a big one, other referrals too. Nevertheless, I guess the conclusion you can draw from that is it is very hard to draw conclusions.

[Blind side johnny]

12 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

Bit of a bizarre article really. Matt Shaw takes his ‘best ever’ article and uses it as evidence that RL fans must be some sort of idiots because they didn’t read it in much greater numbers than for transfer gossip, which is the stock in trade of a newspaper like League Express. That’s really rather arrogant!

Leaving aside the not wholly shocking revelation that players were being asked to take pay cuts as the nation and his wife were being furloughed on reduced income, I’d imagine many publications get bigger hits for tittle-tattle than for more worthy stories.

I’d bet any amount of money that national newspapers get more hits for stories about celebs bearing their breasts than a investigative in-depth piece that exposes insider dealing or some other financial story. But that doesn’t invalidate investigative journalism or justify a newspaper only publishing stories of celebs bearing breasts (Daily Sport excepted - is that still going?!) And you won’t read newspapers insulting their readers about it either. 

I didn't read it in that way at all. It was neither arrogant nor insulting, simply stating the issues facing journalists who try to produce more informative and in-depth copy, as distinct from uncorroborated "click-bait".

Maybe lockdown has made us all just a bit too sensitive?

[John Drake]

22 hours ago, Dave T said:

Sorry if it came across as a criticism John, it wasn't meant as that, I understand why companies charge for content and have no issues with that. If I'm honest though, I don't really understand the content you offer, I didn't realise there was premium content now, I thought it was the same stuff but behind a paywall. And I still don't know whether it is the same as the print stuff, and if it is do subscribers get the online access too?

And as an aside while we are on the subject, has RLW been put into hibernation for now? I've just realised I haven't had one through the letterbox for a while!

The question about the analysis remains though, it doesn't make sense that a bit of player chat is 2.5 times more popular than an article on something as contentious as the club finances and player contracts. 

TotalRL.com Premium is explained here:

https://www.totalrl.com/about-total-rugby-league-premium/

Regarding RLW, have a look at page 2 of issue 468 which explains what's happened to it (for now) or if you've not got it handy, the same message was uploaded to Pocketmags for digital subscribers and can be downloaded free here: https://pocketmags.com/rugby-league-world-magazine/suspension-notice

[Man of Kent]

9 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

I didn't read it in that way at all. It was neither arrogant nor insulting, simply stating the issues facing journalists who try to produce more informative and in-depth copy, as distinct from uncorroborated "click-bait".

Maybe lockdown has made us all just a bit too sensitive?

Maybe, Johnny, I’ve just got an aversion to people who take my custom saying - in essence - I’m to blame for their product/service being a bit rubbish, particularly when I continue to buy their product/service out of a sense of benevolence during these difficult times

[meast]

On 09/07/2020 at 16:20, gingerjon said:

TBH, I don't read a huge amount of RL news for much the same reason I read less and less of my local paper: the content just isn't there. And in both cases I know that's not because the people who are writing the content are idiots, far from it. But something has gone wrong in terms of what's being passed on. It's mostly so passive, so insubstantial. And that's before you get to the issues about why is it saying I've not registered, or why is it laid out in such an unfriendly way etc etc

I'm a bit the same, I suppose these days you can consume so much so easily that you eventually get full, the same stories, regurgitate around various platforms and websites.

I do have sympathy with Matt over it, most "local" papers, and websites just copy and paste the same things, very little 'real journalism' these days it seems, unless they are pushing agendas and/or to be controversial, but equally, all probably to count the clicks sadly.

I have been an avid reader of league express from the early days but find myself less bothered about it as you can get a lot of content online immediately now.

[Clogiron]

All a bit 'Man bites Dog' to my mind, just substitute writer and reader.

[Man of Kent]

2 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

If I were Matt, I would not beat myself up about it and just think "Ok, 9 and of 10 stories are going to be the transfer stories, the bread and butter of what pays the bills and the other 1 can be my deep dive piece that I am most proud of, regardless of clicks"

I agree totally.

I have enjoyed Matt’s longer reads. His RLW article where he joined in with pre-season training with Huddersfield sticks in my mind. That was excellent journalism

[Dave T]

11 hours ago, John Drake said:

TotalRL.com Premium is explained here:

https://www.totalrl.com/about-total-rugby-league-premium/

Regarding RLW, have a look at page 2 of issue 468 which explains what's happened to it (for now) or if you've not got it handy, the same message was uploaded to Pocketmags for digital subscribers and can be downloaded free here: https://pocketmags.com/rugby-league-world-magazine/suspension-notice

Thanks John, I did see the update post you did on this forum after I posted this, appreciate the response!

Here's to a speedy comeback and a long and successful future. 

[redjonn]

Isn't it more about why one users certain media.

I am normally doing something else on-line and when I want a short break I look at other content on the web, in this case I'll pop into this web site.  I am only going to be browsing for a short, very very short time, so I'm expecting click-bait and its that which will pull me in to a particular thread or  headline.

When I want a longer read or opinion pieces I go to other media, here the more traditional print media. That is Sunday newspapers or it could be in the middle of week newspapers if a big story blows and I want more information than watching repeat newsreels on 24hour news.

I use web based media for click bait snippets, I use other media for other type of journalism.

[Hela Wigmen]

41 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Isn't it more about why one users certain media.

I am normally doing something else on-line and when I want a short break I look at other content on the web, in this case I'll pop into this web site.  I am only going to be browsing for a short, very very short time, so I'm expecting click-bait and its that which will pull me in to a particular thread or  headline.

When I want a longer read or opinion pieces I go to other media, here the more traditional print media. That is Sunday newspapers or it could be in the middle of week newspapers if a big story blows and I want more information than watching repeat newsreels on 24hour news.

I use web based media for click bait snippets, I use other media for other type of journalism.

Exactly this. There’s a hell of a lot of algorithm to look into and things to consider when analysing strength of articles. 

[unapologetic pedant]

I don`t know if we`re allowed to make references like this, and I`m only posting because this thread mentions Clickbait.

Is everyone else getting the advert for "breasts and booty lifting". Bit distracting when you`re trying to think.