Nieman Foundation at Harvard
HOME
          
LATEST STORY
Publishers hope fact-checking can become a revenue stream. Right now, it’s mostly Big Tech who is buying.
ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
Oct. 1, 2015, 2:46 p.m.
Mobile & Apps
LINK: www.nytimes.com  ➚   |   Posted by: Justin Ellis   |   October 1, 2015

Two reminders on Thursday that publishers face an daunting battle against ad blocking technology. First, The New York Times released its analysis of homepage loading speeds for the top 50 mobile news sites, including CNN, The Guardian, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, Gawker, BuzzFeed, Elite Daily, and the Times itself.

Not surprisingly, there’s a sharp difference in how fast a site loads if the ads are blocked or not:

We measured the mix of advertising and editorial on the mobile home pages of the top 50 news websites — including ours — and found that more than half of all data came from ads and other content filtered by ad blockers.

Our neighbors across the Charles River at Boston.com performed the worst: 8.1 seconds to load editorial content and a whopping 30.8 seconds to load advertising. The Times estimates visiting the homepage of Boston.com once a day for a month would cost $9.50 in data usage on an average American cell plan. (Boston.com’s upscale sibling, BostonGlobe.com, took a more reasonable 1.8 seconds to load ads and 4.3 seconds for editorial.)

The Times’ tests are a good example of why many publishers are anxious about the long-term consequences of ad blocking on their business model.

Reactions to the analysis were mixed, with Boston.com taking its lumps for its poor performance, while others saw the tests as another wakeup call to media companies.

Meanwhile, my hometown newspaper, the Star Tribune, has introduced its own ad-blocking counter measure:

The Star Tribune joins other newspapers like The Washington Post in trying to find a way to keep ad blockers at bay by essentially denying readers entrance to the site. Others like The Atlantic and The Guardian give readers a gentle nudge to find other ways of supporting their journalism.

Needless to say, some readers of the Star Tribune were unhappy with the paper’s decision:

Show tags Show comments / Leave a comment
 
Join the 50,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
Publishers hope fact-checking can become a revenue stream. Right now, it’s mostly Big Tech who is buying.
Facebook alone works with 80 different fact-checking organizations worldwide.
Fewer grants, more risks: Four rules for nonprofit journalism funders, from the former president of ProPublica
“Any national donor large enough to put out press releases that issues one about making a bunch of $25,000 grants is either trying to fool other people or themselves.”
As Facebook tries to knock the journalism off its platform, its users are doing the same
A healthy chunk of Facebook users say they don’t get much news there any more — an outcome to be both expected and desired.