[strict9]

FB has always prioritized content which doesn't lead them to see ads elsewhere (like photos instead of links), but maybe it's something else.

I live in Chicago and subscribe to the Sunday edition. I also read the digital edition, and have found it lacking, particularly since inauguration. In recent months Michael Ferro became the majority shareholder in the Tribune, a person obsessed with celebrities and not so much in local or even national news coverage. He's the guy that fired all the Sun Times photojournalists and mandated reporters use their iPhones instead.

The paper has struggled to find its place in trying to be like the NY Times or Washington Post, covering important national issues, but without the same resources. Meanwhile, hyperlocal sites like DNAinfo have filled the niche, which has strong FB engagement because it provides content people are interested in, but the Tribune isn't providing.

Instead of blaming a third party which bears no obligation to send traffic, the Tribune would be better served in providing better local news coverage and less in areas which aren't compelling (celebrity gossip) or where it can't compete (national coverage like NYT).

[padseeker]

I work for the Trib, and read it every day. While your comment about Ferro is true, being interested in hanging with celebrities, I have not noticed a change in the content with Ferro in charge.

The Trib has always focused on very local stuff - city and state politics, the midwest, local sports teams, the spike in murders, etc. I don't think that is going to change. I think the editorial board would like to believe it has a higher national profile since we live in the 3rd largest city in the country but in reality we're very regional. We also own the LA Times which actually does have a higher national profile. But I digress.

I'm not going to dispute some of your legitimate gripes. I'm not a fan of celebrity gossip either. I only know a couple of journalists but I suspect they would agree with you. Facebook or other 3rd party does not have any obligation to us.

But the simple truth is our print circulation is declining at a rate faster than our digital circulation is rising. All newspapers are dealing with this issue.

The NYT and WashPo has done much better with revenue and digital circulation, 2 papers that do an excellent job of covering subjects of substance. However those rises are directly related to Trump. Even we have seen a rise in subscriptions at the CT as well as LA Times due to Trump. And The LA Times does a really great job of the kind of coverage you are looking for.

I feel like you are missing the point of the article. More eyeballs hopefully leads to more advertising revenue, which leads to more money for better coverage, or at least pays the salaries of reporters who provide that coverage. If a third party that previously was delivering more eyeballs is declining that is a concern. All the quality coverage in the world will not change that. It's a legitimate concern for us.

[strict9]

I don't disagree with the type of local content (crime, politics, sports) you describe. But that's only a small part of what people are interested in. Though the writing is sometimes sensationalist and click-baity, DNAinfo is eating the Trib's lunch for local engaging content. The number of links to DNA in my fb or twitter feed vastly outnumber Trib ones because friends share/click articles about their city or neighborhood -- that go well beyond only the crime/politics/sports staples.

You're right in that I did miss the point of the article, but not entirely. The fb engagement on what the Trib seems to cover (national/international focus) has likely decreased because of Trump, while resulting in more clicks on WaPo/NYT. While it's likely fb changed their algorithm, content also makes a big difference in what gets surfaced. And I think the original article ignored the role that it may have played.

It sucks that journalism and livelihoods can suffer because of a monolithic walled garden, but there is probably more to the story.

[padseeker]

There is active discussion right now internally about this issue. We're not the only newspaper seeing this decline in views from facebook.

I'm not here to whine. The news business is what it is. We rely on outside sources to drive our traffic. Traffic means eyeballs which translates into ad revenue, hopefully anyway.

When google changes its algorithm that might hurt our web traffic we have to respond accordingly. SEO people have all kinds of discussions, and write articles, when google makes a change. This article is something similar.

It seems like facebook has been changing their algorithm determining what appears in a user's feed, which is effecting our traffic. The same efforts we put in 6 months ago using facebook are having diminishing returns. The point of the article is its effecting us, and apparently not just us.

Whether facebook will address this issue, either in public or private remains to be seen. However I see there is an advantage of talking about it publicly, to determine if it is just us (it's not) or if its affecting others (apparently it is) and what can be done to remedy the situation.

On a side note I like DNAinfo as their content is hyperlocal. It's probably harder for the Chicago Tribune to do that.

[zajd]

Maybe ad revenue isn't the correct way to fund a newspaper these days. Disruption!

[vkou]

Disruption - the rallying cry of an industry that is notorious for displacing working, paid products, by creating non-working free products.

The latter either start non-working, or become non-working once the money/interest runs out, and they shut down.

[shostack]

In a world where distribution is unlimited and unbounded by location, it seems unlikely that focusing on local content will continue to work for them if they want to grow.

[60654]

Yeah, the Trib has been 'meh' at national news reporting for a while now... But while they used to have good local reporting, now DNAInfo and The Chicagoist are totally eating their lunch.

There are content issues for sure, but I suspect their presentation strategy isn't helping either - the Trib reacted to the growth of digital readership by putting up paywalls and obtrusive ads, essentially driving away digital readers... straight to their competitors.

PS. But it still has to be weird for a big newspaper that owned its own distribution and sales channels, to now be so dependent on an opaque third party distributor, which is so in control that it doesn't even bother to tell them when it's altering its distribution, and they have to reverse engineer it from traffic patterns...