We interrupt this week’s fashion report to bring you this crazy post. The fashion report resumes Thursday.
Oofah! The Twitterverse was buzzing Tuesday afternoon about Yahoo! News’ acquisition of Associated Content for $100 million. My initial reaction was an apathetic “So what?” Associated Content’s sloppy editorial practices would only dilute Yahoo’s wire content, and its contributing writers probably won’t see much difference in their paychecks.
But then I read this very good article by Michelle Rafter, whose blog focuses on freelancing in the digital age. In it, she points out that Associated Content’s buyout signals Yahoo’s entry into the war for local ad dollars. (AOL and Google are already in the ring with their own products.) Rafter says straight up that “local content [generated by Associated Content's writers] gives Yahoo access to local advertising that would otherwise go to those hyperlocal news ventures that have been cropping up everywhere.”
That’s when my apathy turned into complete panic. I’m one of “those” hyperlocal news ventures trying to crop up. Those are my ad dollars Yahoo, AOL and Google are taking! Motherfuckers!
Once I pulled my head out of the oven, I refocused and took an inventory of what makes independent hyperlocal news outlets the better deal in local advertising. The bottom line: Yahoo, AOL and Google don’t stand a freakin’ chance. Here’s why.
Hyperlocalists have the inside edge on what’s happening in and around their beats. Where content farms like Associated Content and AOL’s Seed spin press statements into content (don’t expect peanut-earning writers to put too much effort into their reporting), hyperlocalists fill in the blanks with strong local flavor and details that larger outlets can’t and won’t detect. It’s the difference between having an embedded journalist and reporting from amalgamated wire stories.
That flavor gives the hyperlocal outlet an “emotional value” with its audience. As I wrote Tuesday, consumers do more than just consume a successful hyperlocal outlet’s content. They incorporate the information into their decision making and allow it to influence their lives. Yahoo, AOL and Google don’t have that kind of hyperlocal clout — perhaps they never will. Score a big one for hyperlocalists!
Also, hyperlocal news outlets are more likely to have access to charitable contributions from homeowners’ associations, chambers of commerce and local professional organizations than Yahoo, AOL and Google. Sure, the big guys have investors to fuel their efforts, but investors are interested in only one thing: a big, fat return. It was the drive for profit over quality journalism that took down print newspapers, and it has the potential to undo Yahoo, AOL and Google. Slightly different business model, same outcome.
On the other hand, local donors have other interests in mind. Homeowners want their property values to rise (or at least not fall), chambers of commerce and professional groups want publicity for their businesses. Having a locally owned news outlet in the neighborhood goes a long way to advancing these donors’ respective goals. It’s something that generic news coverage from content farms can’t offer.
I really don’t mean to knock those hyperlocalists who choose to work with these larger organizations. As I’ve said previously, if a hyperlocal news organization stands to benefit from some kind of arrangement with the big guys, then do it. Surely, well-versed and justly paid hyperlocalists can only enrich the news landscape with their content, regardless of who’s doing the distributing.
But if writing for a content farm leads to nothing but pennies per click and “exposure,” then one would be better off in the trenches, digging graves in which to bury Yahoo, AOL and Google.
Photo courtesy of Flickr user godutchbaby.