
WaPo’s editorial page editor Fred Hiatt claimed it was low traffic which did in Dan Froomkin’s blog. The truth is still quite sketchy, but uglier and not about traffic. Jane wrote yesterday about the Washington Post’s ugly practices which squelched Dan Froomkin’s traffic; she’s also looked at WaPo’s flat traffic in comparison to the increasingly popular Huffington Post and newspaper competitor The New York Times.
And I’ve already looked at the performance of the op-ed team as well; we can rule out Hiatt’s lame excuse about traffic as the reason for Froomkin’s exit when half the team is doing badly or worse.
We might be tempted ignore WaPo’s less-than-happy performance and cut the crusty old newspaper some slack as they adapt to the internet, but unfortunately, WaPo cannot claim a lack of institutional knowledge about internet-based media.
Most of us have forgotten that WaPo’s parent The Washington Post Company owns Slate.com; in internet years Slate is older than Methuselah, neck-and-neck in age with competitor Salon.com. At the decrepit age of 13 years, Slate’s editorial and management team has seen it all and managed to survive it — and in theory, should be a deep resource for WaPo’s transition to a future based solely on the internet.
At least you’d think a rational management team at WaPo or its parent would see it this way.
If anything, Slate has floundered for the last handful of years as new competitors entered the marketplace and began eating into marketshare.
What a remarkable coincidence: WaPo’s parent bought Slate in 2004.
But here is another missed opportunity, besides the inability of WaPo to convert Slate into an effective launchpad for an internet-based future.
Why isn’t Dan Froomkin transferring to Slate, bringing with him his own dedicated fan base? Was this an option? (Somebody want to ask Dan if WaPo’s parent ever suggested this?)
Looking at the web analytics again, Salon has a more dedicated base of addicts and regulars than Slate, as well as 20% more traffic in spite of having a paid subscriber model — a model which failed for Slate. Why isn’t Slate and its owner looking at leveraging opportunities right under their noses to increase traffic and reader loyalty?
Is it because The Washington Post Company really doesn’t understand the internet and new media, and simply wants to look like it does from a distance?
And why are shareholders like Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway putting up with the financial drain WaPo places on other earnings from more profitable ventures like Kaplan, Inc.? Why aren’t they looking to spin off WaPo, Slate, and any other media components out from The Washington Post Company to another Berkshire Hathaway holding, like Walt Disney and its ABC network, or to GE and its NBC network? These firms do understand media and the internet, after all, and might be able to improve profitability through economies of scale.
Anyway you look at it, the problem with traffic at WaPo and its blogs has not been Dan Froomkin. There are a few other names we should be seeing announced as soon-to-be former employees of The Washington Post Company and its subsidiaries if the company was really in the business of increasing shareholder value.



9 Comments







What a pack of fools they are.
And what fascinating data.
By the way, the graph shows a 3-month period only as Salon.com must have recently added itself to Quantcast’s traffic survey process. Any estimated traffic numbers prior to this change are not available.
[edit: thanks, Elliott. I can’t help it but I’m a numbers freak — and I’m an investor too, looked at this from an investor’s perspective.]
Great job Rayne, recommended.
Wow, Rayne, that chart is amazing, re Huffington Post.
I haven’t yet commented on the Froomkin firing because everyone else had already said what I would have said, but this is truly eye-opening — or at least it should be if certain management people who-think-they-understand-modern-media-but-obviously-don’t-at-all were to take a look at it.
Excellent point about the possibility of transferring DF to Slate – but would he want to go?
Thanks, Boo.
tejanarusa — re: Froomkin to Slate: I think that option is toast; if I were in Froomkin’s shoes AND I’d seen the analysis here between what Jane’s pointed out and the numbers I’ve crunched, I’d run the other way. I personally wouldn’t want to work for an outfit whose stock I wouldn’t want to buy.
Slate’s fate is currently tied to the WaPo family of businesses, and it’s failing. The Washington Post Company is only spreading its toxicity around with its acquisition of Foreign Policy. Between Slate’s stale feel, missing the boat on social media’s integration with content, and the boat anchor that is WaPo tied to it, I don’t know that Slate is salvageable over the long run.
One key point of similarity between Salon and Firedoglake, for example, is the number of addicts and regulars and the percentage of traffic they bring. Both Slate and WaPo in contrast have only one percent or less of addicts, where Salon has more than two percent and FDL has six (!) percent. Somehow Slate and WaPo are going to have to realize this is a critical factor to their long-term viability on the internet — the same as it is for old-school print media. Slate may yet turn it around if it can break free of the newspaper-y pressure. WaPo, on the other hand, will become toast if another hyperlocal media outlet joins forces with a more relevant online outlet.
The one factor I haven’t yet looked into — and I have to admit it’s really nagging at me in a bad way — is the relationship between WaPo’s content generation and Kaplan. Is Kaplan, Inc.’s curriculum weighted heavily towards content from WaPo and its fellow subsidiaries?
Froomkin is bad for business.
The WaPo’s business is catapulting Versailles propaganda.
Yeah, that crossed my mind, that the real reason why Froomkin never got the same support as the rest of the stale old crew at WaPo is that he had to fail. No dirty fucking hippie blogger should ever succeed and make the old school newspaper guys look like they need to retire.
But as they surely said outside Versaille, Le roi est mort; vive le roi!
” Here’s how I see things: many people in the news media, especially at the managerial level, decided a long time ago that movement conservatism was The Future — and that the sensible thing, whether or not you yourself were a conservative, was to go with the wave. That meant treating right-wing politicians and media figures with great respect, while ridiculing the opposition as the Incredible Shrinking Democrats or the Incredibly Shrinking Democrats, or whatever.
That’s why the firing of Dan Froomkin now makes a perverse sort of sense. As long as the right was in power, he was in effect the Post’s designated moonbat, someone who attracted readers but didn’t threaten the self-esteem of the self-perceived serious people at the paper. But now he looks like someone who was right when the serious people were wrong — and that means he has to go. “
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c…..#more-2737
Which makes the relationship between WaPo and Kaplan worse; what if the curriculum for Kaplan educational programs uses content the Movement Conservatives on staff have generated, continuing to shape and influence minds for decades?
Nasty stuff; it’s the Shock Doctrine perpetuating itself.
Since WaPo’s decision-making process appears to focus more on ideology than on profits, it’s hard to see how this is not the case.