GREAT expectations attended digital journalism outfits. Firms such as BuzzFeed and Mashable were the hip kids destined to conquer the internet with their younger, advertiser-friendly audience, smart manipulation of social media and affinity for technology. They seemed able to generate massive web traffic and, with it, ad revenues. They saw the promise of video, predicting that advertising dollars spent on television would migrate online. Their investors, including Comcast, Disney and General Atlantic, an investment firm, saw the same, pouring hundreds of millions of dollars each into Vice Media, BuzzFeed and Vox (giving them valuations of $5.7bn, $1.7bn and over $1bn, respectively).

人们对数字新闻机构的期望很高。像BuzzFeed和Mashable这样的新闻网站是那些想要用年轻的、喜欢广告的用户征服互联网的新生时尚力量，对社交媒体有巧妙操控力以及对技术有亲和力。他们似乎能够产生巨大流量，并随之有广告收入。他们看到了视频的前景，预测电视广告支出将会转移到网络。他们的投资者，如康卡斯特(Comcast)、迪士尼(Disney)和投资公司General Atlantic，也看到了同样的情况，分别向Vice Media、BuzzFeed和Vox倾注了数亿美元(估值分别是57亿美元、17亿美元和10亿美元以上)。

They have had successes. Some became ninjas in “SEO” long before most print journalists knew it stood for “search engine optimisation”. They introduced “clickbait” to the lexicon. Some, like BuzzFeed and Vice, worked out that fortunes were to be made in brand-supported viral hits—or “native advertising” that looks similar to the sites’ own snazzy editorial content. They gave the internet “listicles” like BuzzFeed’s “19 Mindblowing Historical Doppelgangers” (sponsored by Virgin Mobile) and uplifting stories, like those from Upworthy, where “you won’t believe what happened next”.

这些新生代网站取得了成功。在大多数纸媒记者知道SEO代表着“搜索引擎优化”一词之前，他们中的一些网站已是老手。他们在文字里嵌入“点击诱饵”。BuzzFeed和Vice等网站发现，在品牌支持下的病毒式传播(或“原生广告”)与网站本身的时髦编辑内容类似，都是一种财富。他们给互联网上的“排行榜式文章”(listicles)，像BuzzFeed的“19个头脑发黑的历史二重身”(由Virgin Mobile赞助)和振奋人心的故事，像那些来自Upworthy的故事，在那里“你不会相信接下来发生的事情”。

But a brutal winter is setting in. BuzzFeed will probably miss its revenue target, of $350m this year, by 15-20%, and is to lay off 100 of its 1,700 staff. Vice is also expected to fall short of its revenue target, of $800m. Mashable, a once-trendy site valued in 2016 at $250m, in November agreed to be sold for $50m to Ziff Davis, a print-turned-digital publisher. Other news sites are up for sale, cutting their staff or closing shop, sending ink-free scribes in search of work. Digital media are, in other words, enduring similar woes to their print peers. “There was this hype bubble that convinced everybody that these digitally native companies are different but they are not,” says an executive at one such previously overvalued firm. “People need to readjust their expectations.”

但一个残酷的冬天即将来临。BuzzFeed今年可能达不到3.5亿美元的收入目标，差了15 - 20%，同时将裁掉1700名员工中的100人。预计Vice无法实现8亿美元营收目标。Mashable是一个曾经很时髦的网站，在2016年估值2.5亿美元。11月，它同意以5000万美元的价格卖给由印刷版转为数字出版的Ziff Davis。其它的一些新闻网站也待价而沽，或裁员，或关闭，让数字手写手们出来寻找工作。换句话说，数字媒体与印刷版的同行一样，也面临着同样的困境。“曾有一种炒作，让所有人相信这些数字原生企业与众不同，但它们并非如此。”一位曾在高估值网络媒体担任过高管的人士说道，“人们需要调整他们的预期。”

The natives have run into much the same problem as print newspapers have encountered: the duopoly of Alphabet (owner of Google and YouTube) and Facebook. The tech giants rule digital advertising in two ways. First, by dominating the business of selling and servicing ads, they take a healthy cut of those sold by publishers themselves. Second, they get advertisers to bypass publishers and spend directly on their platforms. Such is the demand that AdStage reckons ad prices on Facebook nearly tripled in only eight months this year, to $11.17 per 1,000 impressions. That is still a lot cheaper than native advertising—the bespoke ads made by firms such as BuzzFeed and Vice. Google’s and Facebook’s tools for targeting users strike advertisers as a more efficient, scalable way to reach specific audiences.

数字媒体遇到了与报纸同样的问题：双寡头的Alphabet(谷歌和YouTube的所有者)和Facebook。这两家科技巨头以两种方式统治着数字广告行业。首先，它们主导了广告业务销售和服务，对媒体机构销售的内容大大折扣。其次，他们让广告商不经过媒体机构，直接在自己的平台上投广告。AdStage认为，Facebook的广告价格在今年仅8个月增长了近三倍，达到11.17美元/千次点击。这仍然比原生广告便宜得多——像BuzzFeed和Vice等定制的广告。谷歌和Facebook针对用户的工具将广告商作为一种更有效、更可扩展的方式来吸引特定受众。

The duopoly are expected to get a majority of digital ad sales in America this year, and almost all of the growth. The media firms that supply Google and Facebook’s users with content are mere “vassals”, including digital news sites, says one executive. Digital publishers often act as such, attuning their strategies to the platforms in the chase for clicks. After Facebook prioritised video content last year, so many sites made a “pivot to video” that it became an industry joke. It has not worked out well, as short videos are difficult to make and monetise at volume.

Alphabet和Facebook预计今年会将美国本土的大部分数字广告销售收入囊中，以及，几乎所有的增长。一名高管表示，提供谷歌和Facebook用户内容的媒体公司只不过是“诸侯国”，包括数字新闻网站。数字出版商在追求点击量的过程中，经常这么做，将他们的获取方式适应这几家平台。去年，Facebook将重点放在视频内容上后，很多网站就“视频转型”，却最终成了一个行业笑话。由于短视频制作难度大，很难以规模化变现，因此效果并不好。

Publishers would be wiser to get users to stay on their own sites, so that they can profit from the relationship. Some are trying to do so with their journalism. Gizmodo Media Group, a group of tech and culture sites, has an investigative team. Vox makes in-depth explainer videos on current events. BuzzFeed regularly breaks big stories. The site holds its audience: the “bounce rate” of BuzzFeed’s visitors—the share that leave after visiting one page—is 34%, which compares pretty well with 54% for the New York Times (the numbers come from SimilarWeb, an analytics firm).

出版商更明智的做法是留住用户，这样能从用户粘性中获利。一些网站试图通过新闻报道来实现。科技和文化网站Gizmodo Media Group有一个调查新闻团队。Vox会时事制作深度视频报道。BuzzFeed经常报道重大新闻。该网站的受众是:BuzzFeed的访客“跳出率”——在访问一个页面后离开的比率——34%，这与纽约时报的54%(数据来自分析机构SimilarWeb)相比，相当不错。

Advertising still provides the bulk of revenue. But publishers are also selling things to visitors, both their own merchandise and other companies’ products, on which they take a cut. The Gizmodo sites (owned by Univision) get about one-quarter of their revenue from e-commerce; BuzzFeed has started doing the same. Membership fees may be another option.

广告依然占了网站收入大部分。但出版商也在向浏览者销售商品，包括他们自己的和其他公司的产品。Univision旗下的Gizmodo网站的电商收入占到了约四分之一；BuzzFeed也开始这么做了。会员费可能是另一个收入来源。

Smaller digital operations are also using a variety of strategies. The Ringer, a sports and culture site in Los Angeles, has established a niche in podcasts, on which it generates millions in sponsorship. The Information, in San Francisco, has more than 10,000 subscribers paying $399 a year for its technology news. At VTDigger, a non-profit site started by a laid-off journalist, dogged coverage of politics and corruption in Vermont has attracted strong readership and a mix of donations, grants and sponsorships from local businesses. There are several clear paths to long-term survival, but not to billion-dollar valuations. Expectations have indeed been readjusted.

小型的数字媒体网站也在使用多种营收策略。洛杉矶的体育和文化网站Ringer在播客上开辟了一个小众市场，通过赞助方式获得了数百万美元的收入。The Information网站在旧金山有一万多订阅用户，每年的科技新闻订阅费是399美元。在由下岗记者创办的非盈利网站VTDigger上，对佛蒙特州的政治和腐败的持续性报道吸引了大量的读者，同时也吸引了当地企业的捐款、赠款和赞助。现在有多个清晰的路径能实现长期生存，但达不到数十亿美元的估值。对数字新闻媒体的期望确实在重新调整。

编译：白雪

编辑：翻吧君

来源 ：经济学人（2017.11.30）