Facebook’s “News Feed” could soon take on a whole new meaning.
The New York Times reported on Monday that large online publishers like Buzzfeed, National Geographic, and The Times itself are in talks with Facebook to host content directly within the social media platform, instead of on their own individual websites.
Given how much traffic the social media giant helps drive to news sites — Vox outlined a perfect example of this today — and Facebook’s continued interest in elevating news-y content in your feed, it’s not too surprising that companies like Buzzfeed would sacrifice traffic and valuable reader information in exchange for the reach and potential ad money Facebook could provide.
Still, it’s a little crazy thinking about this new model taking off, as it could have huge implications for both Facebook and online news organizations of all sizes. For example, here’s how the Times described a potential revenue-sharing model:
The company recognizes that the new plan, championed by Chris Cox, the top lieutenant to Facebook’s chief, Mark Zuckerberg, on product matters, would remove the usual ads that publishers place around their content. Although the revenue-sharing ideas are still in flux, one would allow publishers to show a single ad in a custom format within each Facebook article, according to one person with knowledge of the discussions.
The Times reported that Facebook will start testing this new format in the “next several months.” It also noted how stories embedded within Facebook could offer faster load times than the current model of users clicking on an external link and waiting for a story page to load.
Joshua Benton, director of the Nieman Journalism Lab, has a good quick take on the news here. From his piece:
The game for traditional publishers now is all about short-term/long-term tradeoffs. Of course, in the long run, you want to control the customer and advertiser relationships. But today, in 2015, Facebook controls a large share of your audience and has user data you have no hope of matching. Is it worth the tradeoff to get extra Facebook dollars today in exchange for a little of your independence tomorrow? I suspect it might be, in the narrow short term, a net positive for some publishers, especially those with no hope of charging for their content. But it’s also the sort of decision that one might look back on in a few years as the moment you got swindled.
Here’s some of the chatter on Twitter:
Facebook product roadmap. pic.twitter.com/st6644mfiK
— Bored Elon Musk (@BoredElonMusk) March 24, 2015
In newspaper terms, Facebook locking up newsprint, printing press, delivery trucks, subscriber list and mailing list. What else?
— Kelly Fincham (@kellyfincham) March 24, 2015
The future: Media publish platform-specific content. Build different stories for Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, etc.
— Farhad Manjoo ? (@fmanjoo) March 24, 2015
My wager: Facebook will account for a smaller share of news publishers’ online traffic in 2020 than it does today.
— Joshua Benton (@jbenton) March 24, 2015
News orgs getting ready to give away their future to Facebook. Mind-numbingly short-sighted "strategy" — http://t.co/JRISBtuUoW
— Dan Gillmor (@dangillmor) March 24, 2015
New York Times set to commit suicide via Facebook content deal http://t.co/uo2mMP12zm
— Downtown Josh Brown (@ReformedBroker) March 24, 2015
All of them RT @chadcat: I wonder how many journalists complaining about Facebook deal today will someday work for Facebook?
— Mathew Ingram (@mathewi) March 24, 2015
Hm, worried this would add to the misconception that Facebook is in the news gathering business. http://t.co/UQcDSKpZ7t
— Jonny Wakefield (@jonnywakefield) March 24, 2015
Facebook got all the major publishers to rely on it for traffic. Now phase 2 begins. http://t.co/6aGxP3UfuI
— Alex Fitzpatrick (@AlexJamesFitz) March 24, 2015
anyway, this Facebook+publishers news shouldn't be too shocking. Facebook has long wanted to be a newspaper. http://t.co/zmCCDopE4P
— ಠ_ಠ (@MikeIsaac) March 24, 2015