Why The Associated Press plans to hold some web content off the wire
In a break with tradition, The Associated Press plans to prevent members and customers from publishing some AP content on their websites. Instead, those news organizations would link to the content on a central AP website — a move that could upend the consortium’s traditional notions of syndication.
That’s one revelation from a document we obtained (labeled “AP CONFIDENTIAL — NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION”) that offers new insight into how the AP is planning to reinvent itself on the Internet.
The seven-page briefing, entitled “Protect, Point, Pay — An Associated Press Plan for Reclaiming News Content Online,” was distributed to AP members late last month. It provides greater detail about the tracking device that will be attached to AP content and describes their plans to create topic pages around news stories to rival Wikipedia and major aggregation sites. And in an hour-long interview last night, the AP’s general counsel, Srinandan Kasi, also shed light on how the consortium views reuse of its material across the Internet.
I’ll be wading through the document and what we’ve found in a series of posts beginning today. (You can subscribe to our RSS feed or follow us on Twitter if you don’t want to miss anything.) We’ll eventually post the full document, too. And as we go, feel free to comment and ask questions so we can flesh this out. I think you’ll find this stuff applies to all news organizations, not just the 1,500 newspapers that own the AP.
“Utility” vs. “unique” news
There are several intertwined issues to address, but the first bit of news that caught my attention was this passage, which refers to a previously described program they’re calling “AP Protect, Point and Pay,” or AP3P:
The AP3P plan involves segmenting AP’s online products to broaden redistribution of what we call “utility” content, i.e., the type and amount of news that is quickly and easily available from other sources, to limit or prevent redistribution of the kinds of information AP provides uniquely to ensure that hypersyndication does not drive down its value, and to create a “news guide” in the form of landing pages to serve as a focal point for discovery of authoritative sources of news.
That distinction between utility and unique content immediately made me think of fair use. The AP’s position on copyright has recently been the subject of heated debate — get a flavor for it here — and this seemed like a new wrinkle in their thinking about the issue than hadn’t been previously voiced.
So was that a fair read of the passage? No, said Kasi, the AP’s general counsel, “it’s not to suggest that there’s a legal distinction.” (Though the AP has generally stopped granting interviews about their copyright stance and wouldn’t speak to me about it last month, Kasi got on the phone after I informed them we were writing about this document.) It’s less about law than search engine optimization and the link economy.
Keeping “unique” content in one place
Utility content, Kasi told me, might be your traditional breaking-news story: “So a headline item that says, ‘Mid-air collision outside of New York and tourists die,’ let’s say. You can imagine, in the New York area, there are lots of media covering that story.” The AP would treat that content as it always has, putting it on the wire for members and customers to publish on their own sites. But other pieces of content — say, an infographic or a sidebar documenting the history of similar collisions — would be held off the wire and published only on a central AP site, Kasi said.
The plain-vanilla wire story, meanwhile, would point to the more in-depth material in the form of a link. He explained: “We have unique pieces of data, maybe, or we have a unique visual narrative, a graphic. We have unique photos, a photo gallery, and so on. How can you use some pieces of content to drive traffic to other pieces of content? That’s really what’s being addressed here.”
I should note that this has nothing to do with the AP’s print offerings, and the AP has various online feeds for customers that could see different changes. It’s a work in progress, and the document notes, “We are now in the process of defining a new online product set segmented for different customers and licensed uses.” Paul Colford, director of media relations, told me today that the state wires would not be affected.
The link economy
Plenty of people have observed — and the AP surely understands — that the consortium’s 163-year-old, print-centric methods of syndication don’t really make sense online, where a link can do the work of distributing content. That sounds like the impetus for this rethinking, but it will surely raise hackles among AP members accustomed to publishing that wire content on their own sites (not to mention selling ads against it). Kasi said members will appreciate the change because keeping unique content in one place will, among other benefits, improve its position in search results and maximize traffic. Here’s the key part of our conversation:
…the ability now to be able to make a decision that says, this is not something we want to generically put on the wire and send to everyone to publish everywhere. We instead think this would be useful for people to use as supplemental, to enrich their storytelling. But it’s available for them to be able to point to. And the reason to do that is, then you have a bunch of links that point to a particular piece of content. You have better search outcomes. You have better exploitation of the link value, if you will, to that piece of content. So there’s an ability to think of that piece of content differently because you’re trying to maximize traffic as compared to other content where the benefit is really about getting the initial engagement.
Well, that’s fascinating, and “link value” is exactly the term here. The AP would essentially be relying on its vast network of members to provide search engine optimization for its most unique content. (I’ll have more on that in the next post about the AP’s plans for standalone topic pages.) The plan is much more in the spirit of the web than traditional AP syndication, but I wonder how members will react. If you’re an AP member reading this, I’d love to hear your thoughts — in the comments, by email, or at (617) 496-6595.
It also raises the question of what a wire service should like 200 years after the invention of the telegraph. As Kasi told me:
Publication is not in isolation. It’s in the context of a vibrant ecosystem, platforms that are evovling all the time, consumptive patterns that are being defined and redefined dynamically…So utility content is simply saying there are forms of content or pieces of content whose utility would be to be able to drive pointing value, meaning directional value, to say, here’s a deeper story that has more of the story. It could be a link, it could be a tweet.
Clearly, the AP’s plans for fitting into that ecosystem are still a work in progress, so here’s your chance to offer feedback. And as I’ve been saying, more to come.
Nice reporting, Zach.
For me, the instant question is: how much “unique” content does the AP produce? I just took half a second to look at there archive on a random day; of the 999 stories there, maybe 5 I would call “unique.” 1/3rd to 1/2 the 999 were sports box scores. Of course, plenty high value websites make money on less unique content, so that’s not an automatic disqualifies.
My other question, though, would be: aren’t AP members going to be the ones producing this valuable content? Am I wrong about how the AP works? Why would any news org. remain a member of an organization that is going to take their reporting and claim it exclusively for themselves? Or does stuff come out of the AP as an organization on its own?
Chris
This doesn’t entirely answer your question, Chris, but in March, AP spokesman Paul Colford told us: “A tiny fraction (less than 2 percent) of the AP news content licensed “to web sites, to TV, to other people” (your words) comes from AP member papers — typically scoops attributed to the papers that generated them. The rest of the AP news that you see on Web sites, the portals, etc. is reported and written by AP staffers. The state wires — in Ohio, New York, etc. — contain a higher percentage of member contributions, but these state wires are not and never have been licensed to Web sites and other commercial customers.”
On the other points you raise, I’ll have to come back to them as I’m writing post #2, but if others have some perspective, have at it. Also, I’m collecting the early reaction on Twitter here. —Zach
@C.W.Anderson
Maybe I didn’t got that right. But to me it seems taht this is kind of a graduation in depth. The obvious things go everywhere and the hard stuff for ppl really interested in stays within the AP area.
So if I’m a newspaper that subscribes to AP, and I publish some of their ‘utility’ content and that includes some links to the ‘unique’ content on AP’s site, against which the AP is selling ads– do I get a cut of the revenue from that, since I’m driving web traffic to that site?
If that’s the arrangement, and I don’t get a cut, AP can **** my ****. But I’ve been telling them to do that for years anyway.
Chris:
As a former AP news editor, let me correct this impression that AP is largely member content.
Trust me, I’m the last one to shill for AP. But the wire service has long had a vibrant graphics department and multimedia operation that produces lots of original content. And if you look on the AP wire, there are lots of bylines, especially from Washington, Wall Street and overseas — that’s not member content being rewritten.
It’s easy to come away with the impression that member content predominates if you look just at the state wires. That was always AP’s business model at that level (it would have been impossible to adequately staff those state offices without the large injection of member content).
Even there, you’ll still find a substantial number of bylines, though editors in several states I’ve talked to recently feel the AP’s state efforts, overall, are weaker than a few years ago. I know that view is very prevalent here in the Carolinas.
The plan is a work in progress, Joey, so I suppose anything is possible. But I did ask Kasi: “Is that attractive to members that they would not be able to host that content on their own site and would have to link to it?…I could see members not particularly appreciating the idea of new content that is not, that they have to point to.”
His response focused on the idea of “new content” and came back to the example of “unique” content that I mentioned above, of a sidebar explaining the history of previous air collisions: “You’re now connecting the past to the present in a way that is different, and so it’s curating and storytelling that is different. And so members and licensees who otherwise get the rest of the content should be very excited because it gives their audience an ability, at no additional cost to them, deeper engagement.”
And, Doug, thanks a ton for that explanation. —Zach
We appreciated the chance yesterday to answer Zach Seward’s questions about the document he had — a document circulated among any number of AP executives, AP board members and newspaper executives.
To clarify: This is not about AP vs. its members. This plan is being developed with our members.
This is one of several concepts under consideration as we explore the best ways to display content of AP and the industry and to drive traffic.
Paul Colford
AP Director of Media Relations
This is SEO 101 circa year 2003, and I think AP needs a deeper strategy to become a news destination site in 2009 and beyond.
Is the idea that members would link directly to their stories from homepages, or that members would write derivative stories and then reference the AP originals?
I also wonder these AP original stories will have much demand once you remove them from news sites and aggregators.
I’m anxious to see what Danny Sullivan and Michael Arrington have to say, if either of them are still paying attention.
Thanks for that comment, Paul, and I very much appreciated the opportunity to get clarification yesterday. Your point about developing the plan with members is well taken, and it’ll be interesting to see their reaction.
Javuan, I think it’s not quite either of those scenarios. In the hypothetical scenario I discussed with the AP, member sites would carry the article about the collision, which would include a link to the sidebar with background history on the AP’s site. I see what you’re saying, but it’s a little more of a mix, at least as presently conceived. —Zach
The AP is a cooperative. Therefore, even if the “special information” is something they devise, sidebars, infographics, etc., it’s only made possible by the money The AP members provide. So how’re they going to justify charging member newspapers for content those members already technically own?
Um, “reported and written by” is not the same thing as “unique.” AP reporters pursuing the same stories that local papers are covering doesn’t make it unique. I think that’s what C. Anderson was getting at.
I am seriously wondering how long the AP can survive in its current form, especially since it purports to be a “collective” which is owned by member news outlets. When member news outlets see that the AP is not serving their interests (and charging them outrageous fees to do so), how long before they cut that cord?
Looks like AP is having a midlife identity crisis. Is it an agency or is it a destination site that competes with the subscriber sites for traffic? Both are not mutually inclusive and if this evolution continues AP will soon have to pick one of the two and from the looks it, they have made the choice to be a destination site.
Only trouble is, none of the destination sites are making the kind of money, even with free content, that justifies their costs.
On the other hand, agencies like Reuters already do produce unique infographics and other assets that are republished by the subscribers with due credit. Honestly, I don’t think this is going to fly.
I need to make sure I understand this — you’re “wading through” a seven-page document? That phrase makes it sound as if the Pentagon Papers landed on your desk, when it’s apparently something anyone could read in less than five minutes. Why not just post the thing and be done with it?
It has taken me hours to get through the document and figure out what it means, Dexter, but as I said, we’ll be posting the document in full, so feel free to stick around.
Shyam, that’s an interesting way to frame what’s going on here. As Bryan asks, do the AP’s members need the AP? But as you suggest, there’s an equally important issue, which is: Does the AP needs its members? This appears to be an attempt at answering both questions affirmatively. —Zach
Michel, it’s worth nothing that while AP’s ownership structure is made up of its member newspapers, only about 25% of its revenues come from U.S. newspapers. The rest comes from broadcast sales, international sales, and online sales. So AP earns plenty of money that doesn’t come directly from its members.
As a website administrator that licenses AP products, whether this is ultimately detrimental to our operations (and doubtless others) will rely greatly on the execution, but at first blush I would regret the lack of revenue for being able to get our own advertising on the pages in question. Of even more concern is the fact that unless the Unique content reflects the current method of templating the site to appear to be of the referring site’s branding (a la AP Hosted service- but if we can’t have ads, then I don’t see them allowing said templating), then each link to Unique items would actually be a loss for the referring site. Bounce rate, time on site and pageviews all would suffer. Better that we didn’t have these outbound links at all. I’ll defer judgement until I see details.
I don’t get it. What’s in it for the members linking to the AP content? Why would they want to drive readers off their sites? Will the AP sell ads against the content and share the revenue? What Is the point in maximising the SEO unless you are selling ads?
Great to get some perspective from an AP customer, Bryan. Thanks.
Richard, that’s a totally valid question. See my comment above for some early hints at an answer. AP spokesman Paul Colford also mentioned that dynamic. I think it’s clearly something the AP is trying to work out with members.
And some of these are in the trackbacks, but I thought it would be helpful to highlight a few blog posts that have been written in response to this:
Doug Fisher: “AP to withhold some content from member sites?”
Steve Buttry: “Does AP plan ‘protect’ its members?”
Stephen Arnold: “AP to Restrict Some Content”
Fredrik Strömberg: “WTF? Tänk om AP har rätt?” (translation)
—Zach
Why not post the AP document immediately? If you really want to understand it, getting as many eyes as possible on the actual text would be the best strategy. Is another consideration at work here?
Stipulated: all this is conceptual, under discussion, etc.
But if AP is going to:
1. leave member websites with only with lower-value commodity spot news;
2. reserve to itself higher-value supplemental information;
3. reap the SEO juice of a thousand member websites linking to No. 2 above;
4. Sell ads against their own supplemental content to the exclusion of member ad sales (i.e., abandon the hosted-news model)
Then AP should be prepared to:
1. Radically reduce AP assessment rates to members, or
2. Send pro-rated checks to members for their respective fraction of traffic sent to AP’s supplemental content via member links (reverse syndication), or
3. Both
I also wonder why you don’t post the AP document. That’s the journalistic thing to do: pass along the facts you gather to your readers.
Unless you’re holding it back to verify or authenticate (seems unlikely given two days of debate) the we have to presume you’re doing it to build interest and traffic.
You’re a Nieman site, for Christ’s sake.
Zach,
To give them due credit, I don’t think AP’s current model is going to last for too long, they are trying to change when it still has some legs left on it.
Does not mean what they are attempting is great, but at least they are not waiting until the wolf is sipping a cuppa in their living room and eying tasty meal to come.
More on it here: http://bit.ly/apmadness
We just posted the document as planned, but I wanted to address the concerns about not posting it immediately. (The most stinging criticism for me came from John Temple, former publisher of The Rocky Mountain News, who said we were “practicing ‘old’ journalism.”)
Look, I completely agree with the notion of posting raw material, which we do here all the time. And I totally support the notion that a thousand eyeballs looking at a document is far more powerful than me trying to decipher it on my own. So I get your concerns.
But while I had no fundamental objection to posting the AP document right away, I didn’t really see the advantage in this case. There weren’t pages and pages to sift through, there wasn’t a breaking-news imperative, and most of the document wasn’t particularly significant. Whatever might have been gleaned yesterday by posting it in full could also be gleaned today.
There were advantages, meanwhile, to holding off: I think that got me the interview with the AP’s general counsel, which produced, among other things, almost all of the information in this post. It also gave me time to look into a few other threads of the story that contributed a ton to what I wrote today. I can’t really explain why because, obviously, confidential sources were involved, but it did help to have some time without competition. (I know, I know: why view other news outlets as competition? I don’t, really, but it’s complicated, and I can’t talk about it.)
Plus, even without the full document out there, I could make sure to quote extensively from relevant portions such that I wasn’t really leaving anything out. For instance, there’s nothing about withholding content from members in the document that I didn’t quote in this post. Or another way of putting all this would be: The document wasn’t the story; it led to each of these stories.
So, sure, we could have posted it yesterday. It seemed, given everything else, like a good opportunity to build audience, which is something that all news sites, even non-profits with no ads, should strive for. We give these things a ton of thought: The line in this post suggesting that people subscribe to our RSS feed and follow us on Twitter in order to stick with the story was influenced by a fascinating study of user engagement. So like everyone else, we’re experimenting. In the past, we’ve posted documents immediately. This time, we waited 24 hours. I don’t know what’s best, but it doesn’t feel like old journalism to me.
I guess, mostly, I just wanted to make it clear that we think about these kind of things a lot, completely understand your points, and will give it even more thought next time. —Zach
I trust you and accept your explanation.
I do hope you realize how lame and “old media hierarchal” this sounds: “I don’t, really, but it’s complicated, and I can’t talk about it.”
No, I mean, I think you’re making a false distinction. If you asked me how we obtained the document, I’d also have to say, Sorry, can’t talk about it — right? I’ve told you what I know, what I don’t know, and now even what I can’t disclose. And here we are talking about it, too. —Zach
Weaver is right — your explanation is about as old media as possible. Just because you couldn’t see the advantage to posting the document immediately is a poor excuse. Others might be able to find things you’ve missed. But you wanted to keep control.
Also, the supposed benefit from holding off just doesn’t make sense, at least in terms of advancing the story.
“There were advantages, meanwhile, to holding off: I think that got me the interview with the AP’s general counsel, which produced, among other things, almost all of the information in this post.”
Your “information” was the same self-serving AP spin we already know about from Chittum’s dutiful stenography. What you should have done was get Curley on the record about the control-freak things he was described as saying in the New York Times. Were his views accurately characterized?
Either Curley was mischaracterized about the AP’s intentions, or he really does intend to exercise control over use, down to headlines and links: http://bit.ly/euqaT
This line of inquiry would be standard for any other company whose top exec said something extremely controversial. Does Nieman or CJR have any reporters willing to tackle it?