Jeremy Porter, over at Journalistic, recently compared the top 25 newspapers in the US with their Google PageRank, followers on Twitter, and how many likes they have on Facebook. It's a very interesting idea, but we need to redefine the word "newspaper".
Stacking up the competition by measuring each site's PageRank is something that bloggers have been doing for years. It's interesting because the PageRank algorithm is a measurement based on influence rather than traffic.
It's not perfect, mostly because it's not designed to be a stand alone indicator, but rather something Google use in relation to a search query. Also, the PageRank algorithm is logarithmic in nature. A PageRank of five isn't one-up of four; it's twice the influence of four. As a result, it is very hard to judge the real influence when we get into higher numbers. A PageRank It's not only twice as big as the last number, it is also twice as widely defined.
Still, PageRank is an interesting way to compare influence between sites, and when you look at the newspapers the result is this:
Measure news sources, not old newspaper
The thing that bugs me, though, is that they are not measuring the present. They are measuring the kings of the past. The world has changed; it did so years ago. We now live in a world where the old print newspapers are only a part of the total news industry. It is like measuring "The Top 25 Companies of the 1960s" (who are still in business today).
If you want to compare newspapers, just looking at print doesn't make much sense. If you are a newspaper, your competition isn't other newspapers. The real competition is the news industry.
When you look at the real news industry, you get something like this:
It doesn't matter if they came from the print, TV, or the blogging world, they are all "newspapers". They are just not printed newspapers or periodicals.
It is time that we stopped looking at the news industry as "only the newspapers who are doing print" - that's the old world. It's irrelevant. If you want to compare digital media companies, look at the real news industry.
BTW: There is also a trend here. Sure CNN, Reuters, and The New York Times are massive media companies. But just in their wake you have many niche online sites. mass-market news isn't the only winning strategy. Especially not when you also compare their sizes.
The real news industry is doing very well. It has never been more exciting, and it is much bigger than the old world.
Update: @noodlepie (Graham Holliday) asks: "Isn't the competition more international than that summary suggests?" Very good point, the digital news industry is no longer limited to a geographic area (like a country or a city). There is still a language barrier, though. E.g. Norwegian newspapers tend to stay in Norway.
Full access for... $9 per month
Full access for... $99 per year
Join 'The Weekly Update' to get an email every Friday afternoon with the latest from Baekdal + noteworthy articles from around the web.
What the shift in media is really all about.
Free for subscribers
$8.79 on Amazon
It is not about creating a shop in a tab. It is about turning communication into sale.
Free for subscribers
$7.58 on Amazon