Clickbait & Negativity - The Modern Advertising Model
Photo by Nijwam Swargiary on Unsplash
News used to be consumed via newspapers and a small amount of TV news channels. But with the rise of the internet in the 90s and 2000s and then social media in the last ten years, there has been a huge sea change in how we learn about important news stories that affect us and the world.
There are some positives in this as people receive news faster and it is consumed by a larger proportion of people than ever before. For example, a study showed that of 2.4 billion, almost 65% of people learned of breaking news stories through social media platforms.
But there is a dark side to the consumption of news on social media and other online platforms and that is largely due to the need to stand out in a crowded market. The symptom of trying to grab the attention of readers is the rise of clickbait headlines and negative journalism.
“Another unfortunate stat is that the average amount of time a reader spends reading an article on a major publication is less than 60 seconds - with a 70-90% bounce rate... This is because the vast majority of publications monetize through advertising. Their entire model is to shove as many ads down the reader’s throat before they run away.”
The rise of clickbait
Clickbait headlines are designed to shock, promise a juicy story, and are more often than not negative in their tone - all in the pursuit of clicks. Many readers find themselves drawn into this style of headline because they shout the loudest and prey on their emotions and fears.
The danger with negative clickbait headlines is that while people are reading more news stories, they are reading less of the actual content of those stories. On average people will only read an article for 15 seconds before moving on and many people are only reading the headlines.
That is precisely why negative or sensationalist headlines are dangerous - They aren’t telling the full truth and can cause the spread of misinformation.
An example of this is the recent headlines following the sudden popularity of AI tools in the last year.
Many sensationalist headlines have been written about how AI will take everyone’s jobs, and on the face of it it does sound scary. But if people dig a bit deeper they will read that yes, some jobs can be replaced by AI, but many jobs will be enhanced by it and created by it.
Mechanization has already reduced US labor in agriculture more than AI ever will. AI is expected to impact white-collar jobs and the legal profession the most over the next 5 years.
For example, the agricultural industry can use AI to maximize crop yields and streamline processes based on gathered data and workers’ knowledge.
The President of Spectra Markets, Brent Donnelly, has noted that negativity bias in the media is well documented by recent headlines shouting about mass layoffs destroying the US job market. But he goes on to say that the data being used for these headlines isn’t being used in conjunction with other more positive hire rate data and that the US job market is actually stronger than the fear-mongering headlines allude to.
The effect on people’s decisions
The gut reaction when people digest misleading headlines leads to implications when they make big decisions. A person may be led to make choices about their health, careers, or how they vote but without having full and unbiased information – and could make a poor decision for their situation without knowing it.
These decisions can have knock-on effects for those in the food production industry. For example, an anti-salmon farming group in Canada was found to have released a radio advert that falsely claimed that ocean salmon farms were pushing wild salmon to extinction.
However, research has proven this claim to be untrue, with record numbers of wild Pacific salmon being recorded. Speaking to Sea West News, Brian Kingzett, director of the B/C Salmon Farmers Association, said: “False advertisements by Wild First mislead the public, particularly consumers who rely on accurate information to make informed choices about their food.”
The radio advert was pulled from the airwaves in the aftermath, but this highlights exactly how misinformation can affect the livelihoods of food producers – and if played out on a greater scale, could negatively affect whole sectors.
In the case of farming, poor risk management decisions arise from knee-jerk reactions to sensational headlines. Analysts do not stand out by saying, “Yes, the crop has a problem, but it’s not a big deal.” If farmers miss opportunities to market their crops or lock in profits, they may not get that chance again.
This is what the permabulls on social media offer. This should NOT be part of your marketing plan.
Declining trend?
Clickbait was added to the Merriam-Webster dictionary in 2018, which shows that consumers have been in its grip for quite a long time.
But today the tide may be turning against misleading headlines, as many social media and other online news platforms head towards a crackdown on sensationalism.
Many are starting to roll out subscription models that offer incentives to journalists to write less antagonizing headlines and promise the reader news content that they can trust.
By relying less on advertising revenue and offering an add-free experience to subscribers, it could also mean that the news content is less likely to have been swayed by wealthy companies with their own agendas.
But where does that leave people who can only afford to subscribe to one news outlet? Or to the people who just don’t want to subscribe?
There is hope that the new diversified way of delivering news means that journalists will create more unbiased and truthful headlines, no matter where it is consumed.
Will consumers finally demand media to be better?