The Use of Twitter by America’s Newspapers December 17, 2009

Posted by Allen Rindfuss in Bivings, Newspaper Study

Twitter was seemingly everywhere in 2009, with sports stars, celebrities, politicians and journalists using the micro blogging platform to promote everything from themselves to their employers to the issues they advocate for.    After several years of assessing the general online presence of the top 100 U.S. newspapers, this year we decided to produce a study specifically about how newspapers and journalists are utilizing Twitter as a way of promoting their content and interacting with readers. Frankly, this was a daunting task.  There are thousands of newspaper-related Twitter profiles, from official accounts of the paper overall to more personal profiles maintained by individual journalists.  Given the pure volume of accounts, we decided to closely analyze 300 profiles from the top 100 newspapers in the country as a way of getting a sense, in aggregate, of how the media is utilizing Twitter.  Among the things we look at in the study are whether newspapers link to their Twitter accounts from their website, how often, and in what manner, the accounts are updated, and whether newspapers are using their Twitter profiles to interact with readers or to simply promote their site content. While the study isn’t perfect, the results provide a compelling jumping-off point for additional thought and discussion.  Following are some key findings and a link to the full study. Top Line Stats

  • We were able to find multiple Twitter accounts for all of the top 100 newspapers using common sense searching techniques. However, only 62% of the newspapers included links to at least one of their accounts from their website. In many cases, these links were buried on the site and difficult to track down. In addition, this means 38% of the newspapers are actively using Twitter, but haven’t yet integrated their presence with their website in even a minimal way.
  • 56% of newspapers maintained a directory of their Twitter accounts on their website. This directory from the Los Angeles Times is a good example of the form these listings usually took. Many of these directories were quite extensive, listing dozens of accounts.
  • Of the 300 Twitter profiles we looked at in depth, the average account had 17,717 followers and followed back 1,470 other users. However, if you remove the four accounts we looked at that had over 100,000 followers, the average number of followers drops to a much more modest 3,447 users.
  • The Twitter profiles of the newspapers send out an average of 11 tweets per day. Tweet frequency varies from 1.1 (The Boston Globe's Big Picture, The Denver Post's Woody Paige, and The Akron Beacon Journal) to 95.5 tweets/day (The Boston Herald).
  • 51% of Twitter accounts were updated primarily through Twitter’s web interface. The next most popular method with 28% was Twitterfeed, which is a service that automatically posts updates to Twitter accounts via RSS feeds. The remaining 21% of accounts were updated via a variety of other Twitter tools such as Tweetdeck and Hootsuite. This indicates that the vast majority of Twitter accounts (around 70%) are updated by staff members as opposed to a simply being an automated feed.

Replies and Retweets While these core statistics are interesting, we wanted to take things further and see how exactly the Twitter accounts were being used. Were the accounts simply linkbots highlighting newspaper content, or were they being used to by the paper to hold a conversation with its readers? Were newspapers simply talking, or were they listening, too? Some key findings on this front:

  • Many of the accounts we looked at rarely if ever interacted with other users by replying to tweets. Indeed, 33% of the accounts we looked at replied to users in less than 1% of their tweets. 15% of the accounts we looked at had never replied to another users tweets. This suggests that these papers are rarely reading or reacting to the updates of people they follow.
  • On the positive side, 37% of newspaper accounts we looked at replied to users in more than 10% of their tweets. 5% of accounts replied to other Twitter users in over 50% of their tweets.
  • Similarly, many of the accounts we looked at rarely retweeted other users. 43% of the accounts we looked at retweeted others in less than 1% of their tweets. 23% of the accounts we looked at never retweeted another user during the time period we considered.
  • 16% of the Twitter accounts we looked at retweeted other users in more than 10% of their tweets.

Please also check out this post, which goes into detail about Twitter IQ, our ranking of the level of interactivity of the Twitter accounts. The Full Study The full study is available for download here and is also embedded below for your convenience.  You can also view the back up data for the study at the URLs below:

We would love for readers to use the data as a jumping off point for additional analysis, and just ask that you reference The Bivings Group in whatever you produce. The Use of Twitter by America's Newspapers

Share

Trackbacks/Pings

  1. +2 Vote -1 Vote +1Twittertips voor nieuwssites « Toekomst van de Journalistiek - December 17th, 2009 at 6:42 pm

  2. Vote -1 Vote +1Ranking the Twitter IQ of Newspapers - December 17th, 2009 at 7:07 pm

  3. -1 Vote -1 Vote +1How Newspapers Use Twitter | Google Adsense - December 17th, 2009 at 7:13 pm

  4. Vote -1 Vote +1How Newspapers Use Twitter | webmarketingexperts.com.au | webmarketingexperts.com.au | - December 18th, 2009 at 1:21 am

  5. Vote -1 Vote +1Twitter and Newspapers « Wir sprechen Online. - December 18th, 2009 at 6:49 am

  6. Vote -1 Vote +13 reasons why I'm ambivalent about social media in 2010 | Blunt - The Conversation Agency - December 18th, 2009 at 1:15 pm

  7. Vote -1 Vote +1enumID - your global telephone number — Blog — How Newspapers Use Twitter - December 18th, 2009 at 1:44 pm

  8. Vote -1 Vote +1Uso de Twitter en medios de EEUU — Sicrono - December 18th, 2009 at 8:11 pm

  9. Vote -1 Vote +1Veille technologique du 11 décembre au 19 décembre - December 19th, 2009 at 1:16 pm

  10. Vote -1 Vote +1This week in media musings: The Demand Media invasion, and ‘objectivity’ trumps transparency | Mark Coddington - December 19th, 2009 at 7:37 pm

  11. Vote -1 Vote +1| BrettSinclair.net - December 22nd, 2009 at 11:24 am

Comments

  1. +1 Vote -1 Vote +1Robert Quigley - December 17th, 2009 at 5:04 pm

    Very interesting report. It’s good to see so many newspapers using it for interactivity (it’s more than I expected). There are some really useful numbers here. Thanks!

    Robert Quigley
    (@statesman)

  2. Vote -1 Vote +1Allen Rindfuss - December 17th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    Appreciate the comment, Robert. We, too, were happy to discover the amount of interactivity out there. Let us know if you have any other thoughts.

  3. Vote -1 Vote +1Barry - December 17th, 2009 at 5:54 pm

    Are there some best in class accounts you can point out? People/papers you think are doing a good job in particular?

  4. -1 Vote -1 Vote +1Allen Rindfuss - December 17th, 2009 at 6:32 pm

    The rankings are intended to provide a sense of that, Barry, and we’ll be highlighting those in a follow-up blog post tomorrow.

  5. Vote -1 Vote +1Libby - December 17th, 2009 at 6:34 pm

    Thanks for the report. I’m interested to know, perhaps in a future survey, how many papers are tracking their own social media efforts and how.

  6. +3 Vote -1 Vote +1Kim - December 17th, 2009 at 8:06 pm

    I must question the methodology here. How does The Salt Lake Tribune rank among the bottom of newspapers when our main account – sltrib – gets a .409 score, which should put us at #3?!

  7. Vote -1 Vote +1Anita Harris - December 18th, 2009 at 6:48 am

    By newspapers…do you mean the corporate entity or individual reporters or editors who tweet and respond to tweets?

  8. -3 Vote -1 Vote +1Doubledown Tandino - December 18th, 2009 at 7:50 am

    Newspapers have sour grapes.

    Let’s take a peek at how newspapers operate:
    They overcharge for small square spaces for ads, usually charging by the line. Newspapers try to convince ad buyers that their ads are actually effective. They are not.
    Twitter charges nothing. Craigslists charges a small fee.
    Both twitter and craigslist are targeted ads to the right people that are trying to read those ads. The back pages of newspaper ads look like garbage.

    Newspapers are in black and white.

    Newspapers are smothered with more ads throughout, and are usually local restaurants, car sales companies, lawyers, and jewelers. All worthless over paid-for ads.

    Newspapers have the comics and games section… the most unfunny drab boring comic strips that no one reads. The games are a crossword puzzle, a search a word, and a sedoku. Obviously, the best games are on the net.

    Newpapers have idiotic sections like weather. We all know we can get up to date weather on the net. Weather printed at 4am is always inaccurate.

    Sports, obviously, once again, the net defeats the sports section… why have one local sports writer analysis when you can have thousands.

    Top local stories: some local guy gets murdered, some local woman gets car jacked, some local store gets broken into…

    Top world news: who needs the paper when we have CNN, MSNBC, CSPAN, HuffingtonPost…NYTimes… ONLINE!

    Teaser headlines: Newspapers are pros at writing a teaser headline that makes the reader want to read more…. most often than not, the teaser headline is embellished and exaggerated to make a bland story seem interesting. Same thing happens on twitter. There’s nothing different anywhere regarding teasers.

    Newspapers… truth be told, you suck, and it’s because you refuse to adapt. The problem is not the print media… the problem is the bosses and big whigs that think it’s wise to stick to a 200+ year old tradition.

  9. Vote -1 Vote +1@craignewman - December 18th, 2009 at 10:32 am

    Interesting analysis. Thanks for taking this on.
    A question about your interactivity numbers, though. When you break down the percent of accounts that reply, there’s no way to take into account interaction via direct message, my preferred method through the @suntimes account. I occasionally use @ replies, but try to keep the DMs as my main source of one-on-one discussion with followers and readers to keep from annoying everyone else with constant conversational updates.

  10. Vote -1 Vote +1Allen Rindfuss - December 18th, 2009 at 12:58 pm

    Libby: Appreciate the comment, and will keep your suggestion in mind, although such a study would likely require a great deal of newspaper cooperation.

    Anita: Although there may be some instances of vagueness (and we’re now looking at those), for the purpose of this study “newspapers” should mean the collective entity (in the same way one might say “Detroit Free Press” or “San Antonio Express-News”), and “newspaper accounts” should mean the individual newspaper-related Twitter accounts (maintained by reporters, columnists, editors, etc.) examined for this study. If it’s helpful, from a philosophical perspective, even when we’re referring to the collective, we’re mindful that the parts make the whole.

    Doubledown: While it’s true that newspapers are under great pressure to adapt–and some are slower than others to address the economic and technological realties, I don’t believe I’m alone in saying that I hope there’s always a place for them (if I’m not mistaken, the only non-digital segment of the music industry that grew last year was LPs). Personally, I think the two most important things they can do for their survival are: 1) time-honored, old-school investigative journalism (the results of which still drive other media) and 2) get to know their audience better (the overarching value of interactivity) and tailor their content. What’s your prescription?

    Craig: Thank you. Your point is very valid and suggests another of the study’s imperfections. For my part, while I understand the annoyance factor, I sort of enjoy being able to “eavesdrop” a bit on the interactions of people I follow. In many cases, I find that I have a similar question, or thought, and appreciate being able to see how it’s been addressed previously. At the same time, I fully believe Twitter could–and should–clean up and better organize the @ reply/RT system, creating tabs enabling one to see only tweets, only RTs, and only @ replies. In addition, it wouldn’t hurt to be able to tie @ replies to the appropriate tweet and expand them, similar to Facebook’s comment and/or wall-to-wall features.

  11. Vote -1 Vote +1Mandy Jenkins - December 18th, 2009 at 1:09 pm

    I agree with @craignewman on this. I run @cincienquirer and we respond several times a day to readers, but it is usually by direct message to keep from clogging up the tweetstream.

    Also, we have several accounts not only from reporters, but from different content channels – is that taken into account on the overall newspaper rank?

  12. Vote -1 Vote +1Allen Rindfuss - December 18th, 2009 at 2:46 pm

    As I said in my previous reply, you and Craig have a valid point, and are making me curious about how frequently DMs are used to respond to users. In many cases, of course, popular Twitter users don’t follow everyone who follows them, reducing the availability of DMs as a means of interactivity.

    As for multiple accounts, in an effort to control the scope of the study, I did my best to select the main account for each paper and the two “personality” accounts (reporters, columnists, bloggers) with the most followers. Only the three selected accounts (see raw data) were considered with respect to rankings. If the demand is there, we may explore a more complete analysis.

  13. Vote -1 Vote +1Brian - December 18th, 2009 at 2:57 pm

    Well, you got what you wanted. You wrote an attention-grabbing headline and did 1/3 of the work required to actually support that notion.

    You’ve willfully ignored huge swaths of reporters, editors and photographers doing social media work for the newspapers and participating in numerous discussions. THAT is where the true test should be because those are the people interacting with readers.

    Your methodology is flawed, your reporting is incomplete and your conclusions are wholly unsupported by anything even resembling convincing evidence.

    To rank a newspaper’s “Twitter IQ” based on such incomplete and hack work simply betrays how low yours is. Stick to scamming companies into buying your “social media expertise” BS and leave the reporting to the big boys.

  14. Vote -1 Vote +1Allen Rindfuss - December 18th, 2009 at 4:16 pm

    That’s a fairly vitriolic post, Brian, long on accusation and short on reporting. To your points, though…

    For starters, I/we have been very straight-forward about the study’s shortcomings and pointed out in multiple places that it is little more than a “snapshot” of the paper’s personality and that the rankings, in particular, are “imperfect” and should be “taken with a grain of salt”.

    As for the scope, the limitation has nothing to do with willfulness (although I’ll admit that I can be willful), but with time/budget constraints and practicality. In addition, the idea was not so much to examine how the social media people at the paper use Twitter (OF COURSE, they get it…), but how those with a print edition presence are adapting/expanding.

    Beyond that, on a personal level, if you knew anything about me or the people at The Bivings Group, you’d have a better sense of how far off-base much of what you said is.

  15. Vote -1 Vote +1Brian - December 18th, 2009 at 4:38 pm

    “…the idea was not so much to examine how the social media people at the paper use Twitter (OF COURSE, they get it…), but how those with a print edition presence are adapting/expanding.”

    Yes, I can read. And no, you did not achieve anything close to that.

    Instead, you assigned a subjective value to newspapers based on faulty research. Nowhere do you get into details as to “how those with a print edition presence are adapting/expanding.” Where is the comparison of Twitter usage this year to in the past? Where is the comparison in the number of staffers who Tweet compared to the past? The scant statistics you did pull have zero chronological data that could indicate any “adaptation” or “expansion.”

    You have zero metrics/research/analysis that would scratch the surface as to how they are “adapting” or “expanding”.

    Here, I’ll re-list your “findings”. Tell me which of these get to adaptation or expansion:

    * We were able to find multiple Twitter accounts for all of the top 100 newspapers using common sense searching techniques.
    * 56% of newspapers maintained a directory of their Twitter accounts on their website.
    * Of the 300 Twitter profiles we looked at in depth, the average account had 17,717 followers and followed back 1,470 other users.
    * The Twitter profiles of the newspapers send out an average of 11 tweets per day.
    * 51% of Twitter accounts were updated primarily through Twitter’s web interface.

    I can’t WAIT to hear how those support your premise.

    Finally, I find it hilarious that you pull a “do you KNOW who I am?” on me. I don’t care who The Bivings Group is. It’s irrelevant and a fallacy to bring it up as if it conveys any sort of authority.

    If your “study” is any indication of the group’s work, I would fear for its future.

  16. +1 Vote -1 Vote +1Harold - December 18th, 2009 at 6:29 pm

    Wasn’t Allen Rindfuss that journalist with the Des Moines Daily Sun who got sacked a few years ago for faking GOP bashing stories? I could be wrong but the question needs to be asked.

    Great study!

  17. +3 Vote -1 Vote +1@journalistnate - December 29th, 2009 at 12:41 am

    I must admit, I was very excited when I saw this survey. After analyzing the report, looking at the data and comparing methodology to recommendations, I find that it doesn’t report anything not already known and provides a catchy Twitter IQ that is anything but.

    First, the background:

    Finding Twitter accounts for the top 100 newspapers is ambitious. The selection process of what from those newspapers to include is even more difficult. However, selecting three accounts is insufficient.

    The study claims to be based on “representative” accounts, but is quick to say that the two individual accounts were those “with the most followers.” The communication skills of the No. 3 to No. 10 most followed accounts may vary greatly, and the users with slightly fewer followers may be more effective using Twitter. The problem of a low selection count is magnified because the study ranks the combination of the three to shine a light on those with the “best balance.”

    The study is actually measuring the communication skills of the most followed, but not necessarily the communication skills of the best newspaper communicators or the ones with the most immersion in the service.

    Second, the methodology:

    Excluding “administrative, editorial, technical or online-only personnel” is objectionable. These staff members are sometimes the most likely people to respond to reader comments and interact online. They are likely the people who are charged with training the staff and leading by example. Community building is often one of the primary responsibilities of online producers and others with similar titles. I am one of these people.

    Allen: you later tell Brian in the comments section that the study attempted to measure “how those with a print edition presence are adapting/expanding.” The full study does not explicitly make this claim nor does the study claim to have ask the two individuals whether they are print-native or print-focused – a blogger, for example.

    I also question whether the selection time is representative of newspaper tweeters as a whole. The study pulled data from late Sunday night to early Monday morning – a time that can easily be agreed upon as a slow news period. Why was the middle of the week or the end of the week not selected?

    Third, the Twitter IQ:

    Aside from the key findings and recommendations from newspaper sites, viewers of this study are going to be drawn by the Twitter IQ. I find the term to be a misnomer as its nothing more than a measurement of the difference between equally “talking” and “listening.” The equation rewards accounts that are more likely to tweet once for every one reply or one retweet. The equation is faulty and penalizes someone who replies or retweets too much. The more questions a newspaper tweeter answers, the worse the Twitter IQ.

    Fourth, the key findings:

    I’m not sure any of these findings tell us much, particularly in light of the low sample. Yes, newspapers need to prominently promote the accounts on the Web site and in print. Yes, newspaper account directories are good. Yes, main newspaper feeds are currently followed by only a fraction of the overall readership. Yes, some accounts (especially Twitter accounts that act as RSS feed) do not reply to users. Yes, some users communicate a lot. What’s new here?

    Fifth, the recommendations:

    Improving the prominence of accounts, sorting the accounts and improving the sites internal search function are good, albeit starting-point, suggestions.

    Identifying the process for main accounts was an excellent suggestion and I did so soon after reading it. Aside from that suggestion, many of the suggestions remain entry-level and will do little to improve what the study focused on in the key findings.

    I don’t think you need to brand the newspaper staff with tacked-on letters. Staff members can provide the newspaper’s name in the bio, link to the Web site in the URL field, add customized backgrounds and possibly add a small logo to the avatar. A shorter name is better, as it allows more characters for information.

    The suggestions key in on elements of branding, an aspect that doesn’t really seem to be measured (as in, how many accounts effectively used the bio fields, how many followers are being added per day, how many tweets are being retweeted by followers, etc.)

    Finally,

    What was the purpose of the study? I repeatedly asked myself that question while reading through the full study multiple times. The sample size was small, staff members were excluded and selections were made based on popularity, not communicative-skills. The recommendations, which say nothing to encourage communication, focus on branding. The Twitter IQ is an arbitrary measure of effectiveness. In conclusion, I appreciate the attempt to “provide a compelling jumping-off point for a debate.” I just don’t think this study helps facilitate that

  18. Vote -1 Vote +1Scott - January 9th, 2010 at 5:19 am

    If you’d like examples of how big papers use social media effectively, email me at the address I entered and I’ll be happy to help you to the best of my ability.

    It pains me to see someone who doesn’t understand social media do a report on social media. So much goes into the interaction between paper and reader – none of which is taken into account here.

    I won’t bash and be negative like some other commenters but this “study” is the equivalent of the New York Times doing a story on the city’s tallest buildings and not contacting people at the Empire State Building.

  19. +1 Vote -1 Vote +1Dale Caposole - January 17th, 2010 at 4:46 am

    Sorry, aber das bezweifel ich ganz stark…Baer

About this blog

The Bivings Report (TBR) is a source of news, insight, research, analysis and conversation on web-based communications and its increasingly powerful role in the economy, politics and society. TBR content is created, posted and managed by internet strategists, media/communications analysts, web developers, designers and programmers, all of whom are employees of The Bivings Group.



Email Subscription

Delivered by FeedBurner

Search Site


Archives


Most Popular


Authors


Tags