šŸˆ FoxSports.com moving in a different direction w/no articles, all video. (UPDATED with viewer numbers.)

Have to wonder what short & long term effect this will have on sports journalism going forward.
Many observers have been skeptical of this strategy from the beginning. The most extreme example in the sports world came at Fox Sports, who basically gutted any writing from their website in favor of an all video and highlight strategy. The results for Fox, at least from a web traffic point of view, were nothing short of a complete and total disaster. Fox astonishingly lost 88% of its traffic directly after the switch was flipped to video. I’m pretty sure FoxSports.com still exists, but it’s the proverbial tree falling in the woods at this point.
88%!!!

The "pivot to video" strategy was even more doomed than we thought

I've practically stopped visiting any 247Sports sites, as well as CBSSports.com because of their intrusive videos. If I'm led to an article there it's "text only."
 
I absolutely hate the current trend of everything being video. It is becoming common in every type of reporting. If you link me to a video of someone reporting on something I am very likely to refuse to go to your site ever again. Make your site useful to me and I will cut off my ad blocker for you. Make it unuseful and I will stop going.
 
Most of the pieces we publish are between the 750-1000 word article and very photo intensive. That is because the reader is more apt to enjoy photos over text.. sad but true. It has been going this way for a while these guys were just the last to realize it because they were out of touch with their reader.

I also made the statement long ago that not matter whether you were liberal or conservative that your network news of choice was not in business to report news fair and balanced or whatever. That they were only in business to sell commercials. This is a fact and proves out with the project veritas piece about the liberal media's biased attack on all things Trump. It is true for Fox too though.. they aren't in business to report news.. that is only content.. they are in business to sell commercial space.

That being said I prefer to read my news rather than watch because I more easily decifer fact from opinion.

The presentation - and the room you sit in while reading - has changed, but the assertion from the Big Chill - "you can't write anything longer than the average person can read during the average crap" was a standard view some 35 years ago.

RTR,

Tim
 
I absolutely hate the current trend of everything being video. It is becoming common in every type of reporting. If you link me to a video of someone reporting on something I am very likely to refuse to go to your site ever again. Make your site useful to me and I will cut off my ad blocker for you. Make it unuseful and I will stop going.

Same here. I can read and scan a heck of a lot faster than having it read to me.
 
Yes, a big difference of opinion on exactly how much - see below - hence the lawsuit. FB says 60 to 80%, advertisers allege 150 to 900%.

Advertisers Allege Facebook Failed to Disclose Key Metric Error for More Than a Year
Facebook knew of problems with how it measured viewership of video ads for more than a year before it revealed them in 2016, according to a complaint filed by advertisers.


Advertisers allege that Facebook knew for more than a year about problems measuring viewership of video ads before disclosing the issue.PHOTO: MARCIO JOSE SANCHEZ/ASSOCIATED PRESS


By Suzanne Vranica

Updated Oct. 16, 2018 4:43 p.m. ET
Facebook Inc. knew of problems in how it measured viewership of video ads on its platform for more than a year before it disclosed them in 2016, according to a complaint filed Tuesday by advertisers.

A group of small advertisers filed a lawsuit in California federal court in 2016, alleging the tech giant engaged in unfair business conduct by disseminating inaccurate metrics that significantly overestimated the amount of time users were spending watching video ads.

The plaintiffs later added a fraud claim, and in Tuesday’s court filing they alleged Facebook knew of irregularities in its video metrics by January 2015 and understood the nature of the miscalculation within a few months, but failed to disclose the information for over a year.

The filing followed the plaintiffs’ review of some 80,000 pages of internal Facebook records that they obtained as part of court proceedings.

The complaint, which cites the internal Facebook documents, also alleges that the scale of the miscalculation was far worse than understood.

ā€œFacebook’s internal efforts behind the scenes reflect a company mentality of reckless indifference toward the accuracy of its metrics,ā€ the plaintiffs said in Tuesday’s filing.

In a statement, a Facebook spokeswoman said, ā€œSuggestions that we in any way tried to hide this issue from our partners are false. We told our customers about the error when we discovered it—and updated our help center to explain the issue.ā€

Facebook said the lawsuit is without merit and has moved to dismiss the fraud claim.

The plaintiffs in the case include Crowd Siren, a small Las Vegas marketing agency, and Jonathan Murdough, a Pennsylvania resident who purchased Facebook video ads.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status and punitive damages, stemmed from a September 2016 Wall Street Journal report that said Facebook had vastly overestimated average viewing time for video ads. Facebook disclosed the issue in a post on its advertiser help center that August.

The error, and Facebook’s handling of it, became a critical moment in the relationship between the social-media giant and marketers who pay its bills. Many brands already were skeptical of the practice by Facebook and other tech giants to closely guard their internal ad data—one top executive likened it to ā€œgrading their own homework.ā€ The incident fueled renewed calls for Facebook to allow independent measurement and auditing.

Damping marketers’ concerns is important for Facebook as it seeks a bigger piece of U.S. spending on online video ads, which is projected to grow 30% this year to $27.8 billion. Facebook is expected to account for almost 25% of U.S. video ad spending, eMarketer estimates.

For two years, Facebook had counted only video views that lasted more than three seconds when calculating its ā€œaverage duration of video viewedā€ metric. Video views of under three seconds weren’t factored in, thereby inflating the average length of a view.

Facebook replaced the metric with ā€œaverage watch time,ā€ which reflects video views of any duration.

After disclosing the issue in 2016, Facebook said in a statement that it had ā€œrecently discoveredā€ the error.

Facebook told some advertisers that it likely overestimated average time spent watching videos by 60% to 80%. The plaintiffs alleged in Tuesday’s complaint that the error was much larger and that the average viewership metrics had been inflated by some 150% to 900%.

Facebook also said at the time that the error didn’t affect billings. However, in their complaint, the plaintiffs claim Facebook’s misrepresentations ā€œinducedā€ advertisers to purchase video ads and to pay more for Facebook’s video ads because they believed users were watching videos for longer than they actually were on average.

The claims that Facebook failed to act when it discovered the video metric error were in an August filing, but were heavily redacted at the time. In the latest version of the complaint filed Tuesday, those claims were unredacted.

The plaintiffs allege the Facebook documents show that by July 2015 the company had received inquiries from several advertisers about video metrics that appeared suspect, and had essentially determined the cause of the issue.

In June 2016, nearly a year later, a Facebook engineering manager, following up on advertisers’ complaints, discussed the issue internally, writing, ā€œsomehow there was no progress on the task for the year.ā€ The plaintiffs also allege the company developed a ā€œno PRā€ strategy to avoid drawing attention to the matter.

Facebook decided to ā€œobfuscate the fact that we screwed up the math,ā€ the complaint said, quoting the Facebook documents.

After the video-metric error, Facebook disclosed other errors in its measurement practices on several occasions and came under renewed pressure from the ad industry to make changes.

The Association of National Advertisers, a trade group that represents top marketers including Procter & Gamble Co. , General Electric Co. and Verizon Communications Inc.,called on the company and other major digital ad-sellers to allow independent verification of their metrics.


Facebook has worked to address the matter by allowing more third-party measurement companies to validate its data, and by undergoing audits by the Media Rating Council, the media industry’s measurement watchdog.

Jason Kint, chief executive of Digital Content Next, a trade organization that represents online publishers, said Facebook’s measurement practices have been detrimental to the digital advertising marketplace. ā€œFacebook needs to lead with radical marketer and consumer transparency to get past this. We haven’t seen it yet,ā€ he said.

—Aruna Viswanatha contributed to this article.

Write to Suzanne Vranica at suzanne.vranica@wsj.com

Appeared in the October 17, 2018, print edition as 'Advertisers Allege Facebook Put Off Disclosing Error.'
 
Have to wonder what short & long term effect this will have on sports journalism going forward.
Many observers have been skeptical of this strategy from the beginning. The most extreme example in the sports world came at Fox Sports, who basically gutted any writing from their website in favor of an all video and highlight strategy. The results for Fox, at least from a web traffic point of view, were nothing short of a complete and total disaster. Fox astonishingly lost 88% of its traffic directly after the switch was flipped to video. I’m pretty sure FoxSports.com still exists, but it’s the proverbial tree falling in the woods at this point.
88%!!!

The "pivot to video" strategy was even more doomed than we thought

I've practically stopped visiting any 247Sports sites, as well as CBSSports.com because of their intrusive videos. If I'm led to an article there it's "text only."

That's actually shocking to me with how many people I see get irritated with "too many words" or "just want a video." That actually warms my heart lol

As far as the intrusive video, that's not just sports either. Go to TheHill and try to read an article without a stupid video playing. Some of these sites even make it impossible to kill the video, it just keeps playing.
 
I'd be pissed if I had to fire everyone prior to my own firing.

Back in '07 a place I worked started suffering from the downturn quicker than most. Corporate had the HR manager working on severance packages practically under cover by himself to keep it hush-hush. Almost a month of it and then corporate came in, fired him and proceeded to terminate people.
 
So, FOX has nixed their "all video" idea and have revamped their site. At a glance it's all written prose now and looking at this from our end (RTB.co) it appears video embeds from Fox will no longer work here (or are available from there according to what I can see.)
 

Similar threads

Replies
0
Views
300
Back
Top Bottom