BuzzFeed and like offerings are free to fail despite a strong following

The journalistic frippery of its roots has weighed on BuzzFeed News.

Because of its ubiquity and our utter dependence on what it enables, we often forget that the internet is only a couple of decades old. It is not yet a fully formed, mature utility. It is still a work in progress.

Experimentation continues, especially in the internet-delivered digital media space. What works? What doesn’t? How do you monetise it? What’s the best model for profit?

The announcement of cutbacks to BuzzFeed’s global workforce — including a 25 per cent reduction in staff at its Australian operation — is a pivotal moment in the development of digital media. About 200 staff, mainly journalists, are being made redundant, 11 of them from the Australian workforce of about 40.

The purpose is to save money — a move necessary to save the business.

BuzzFeed is only a dozen years old. It was established in 2006, designed to be a source of “alternative infotainment”. It quickly caught on with its quirky “listicles” of useless information, wittily presented, and lots of funny pictures of cats in hats.

It fulfilled the theory behind its model: put up clickbait and people will click on in sufficient numbers to attract lots of ads, which will in turn fund the business and make a profit. Its early success in building traffic brought big-bucks support from Wall Street entrepreneurs looking for the “next big thing”.

Seven years ago the BuzzFeed bosses decided to build a serious newsgathering and publishing business called BuzzFeed News. They managed to break some serious stories and even were nominated for a Pulitzer Prize in the US. They established local operations in seven countries.

The Australian outlet has broken some middling stories but most of its content is
spin-offs from straight news reported elsewhere, reworked to appeal to younger audiences.

This sits alongside the tried-and-true lists, such as yesterday’s “Nine things all girls secretly do but don’t talk about”.

The journalistic frippery of its roots has weighed on BuzzFeed News. A recent poll of alternative news sites in the US shows they attract audiences because they are seen to be more entertaining (47 per cent), less political (26 per cent) and highlight more good news than bad (15 per cent). Credibility did not rate.

BuzzFeed’s theory of a virtuous digital circle copped a setback last year when Facebook (along with Google, a major supplier of programmatic advertising to the site) changed its algorithms, which led to a reduction in posts appearing in its feeds.

Audience numbers dropped, ads fell and revenue contracted. Suddenly, BuzzFeed found itself in the same territory as its rivals, such as the Huffington Post and The Guardian. Being free sites, they attract a lot of traffic but find it very difficult to monetise their web pages.

Providing a deep and credible news service is a costly business. The Guardian has found a lifeline via the begging bowl, receiving millions each year by soliciting gifts.

As the internet ecosystem develops, it is becoming increasingly clear that if you aspire to provide a serious, credible news service, cats in hats won’t cut it.

The only workable model is subscription. Here, it helps to have a long-established brand as a masthead, a place where people can be confident they will get value for their money.