When people say things like :
"Major news outlets won't leave #Twittter for #Mastodon because they won't have the same reach..."
..they may be right.. but truth is, not one major #news org has tried to run their own #fediverse instance and post their articles across both networks...yet.
So while the Twitter numbers are obviously larger, there are no real "reach" metrics to compare.
..maybe it's a good time for #NPR and #NewYorkTimes to fug around and find out...
@sharearea True. All assumptions at the moment.
Besides, even if their reach is lower in the #fediverse, they have to admit that there are people they are reaching for the ‘first time’ in the fediverse, or those who stopped using Twitter and were part of their reach. Don't they want to reach them again?
In addition, it is not like they have to manually post. They have tools. If it is lacking, they can tell the developers to support the fediverse. Or, tell their in-house devs to add a plugin or something. So, in the end, one tool posting to multiple networks, like how it was in the 2000s (remember #PingFM).
They can even just set up an #Atom or #RSS #feed. Or, if they're using #WordPress or #Drupal, install a fediverse plugin. After setting it up, announce it, and forget about it. If their news is worthy, it will be reshared.
I think the problem is, they are still thinking in the old way: most users + ads + algorithms. They've forgotten the power of #WordOfMouth, and in the digital landscape, that's reshare/reboost/retoot.
I myself, even though I don't follow major news bots, I see news shared by real people, because for them, it's worth sharing.
@youronlyone you say," Or, tell their in-house devs to add a plugin or something," but I think you overlook just how difficult a thing like that can really be.
In fact, I suspect it's a major roadblock to news orgs coming to #Fediverse.
Not only do these outfits have potentially very complicated, customized, maybe outdated, maybe outsourced systems handling their posting, all of that being hard enough to modify, but news today is notoriously struggling with resources without devoting even more to this one.
AND THEN you get the administrative issues of workflow. Even if internal devs manage to hack Fediverse support into their systems, now they have to explain it to their line management, business back offices, maybe even having to get salespeople to explain to sponsors how the tools are posting to somewhere new, to calm concerns.
And then legal...
It's no simple thing to just tell someone to write a plug in, in a professional news environment.
@volkris All very good points! But, at the end of the day, if reach is their goal, then limiting themselves to a platform that is, to quote Bridgy, “burning”, is contradictory. In the first place, many of them joined because it became popular. But, now, even with the growing popularity of the fediverse, and other platforms, they don't want to.
Think of it this way. Majority of Facebook and Twitter users joined these platforms because knowing that they will have to start from scratch and convince their family and friends to sign-up. They knew they have to sacrifice their existing #Friendster and #Myspace connections. Yet, they did.
Years later, these same people are refusing to create an account in other platforms (not just the fediverse), and the most frequent reason given is “lack of connections”.
Or, an example from the business side, #IE6 in South Korea. The financial infrastructure there was heavily dependent on features only available in IE6. For years, they refused to leave IE6. They cited most, if not all, of the things you pointed out.
Eventually, Microsoft called it quits and killed IE6 for good. Probably got tired of waiting. IIRC, SoKor had to pass a law to force their banks to move away from IE6 and to guarantee there won't be an ‘apocalypse’ once IE6 is gone for good.
I think a combination of both is happening with many of these companies. They've forgotten how they started, and why they have those accounts. They went through explaining and convincing, they went through trying to get their projects signed-up, trained people, and so on. The difference is, today, they don't want to do it because… for those reasons. Are they going to wait until the other platforms turn into ashes?
I do understand your points, very valid, I've been through that myself, chased their signatures, prepared presentations, but at the end of the day, it all comes down to our target market. That target market split into various platforms. Just like ten or so years ago, we followed where they were flocking. We should be ready for any changes in the landscape. If the other platform turn into ashes, we are already set up and running in other platforms. Otherwise, a lot of projections and targets will go into red.
Then again, if someone is already pushing for these things and kept getting refused no matter what explanation they gave, someone is going to enjoy an #IToldYouSo moment. ^_^;; (LOL. I also experienced that moment once.)
Again: resource limitations. If a news room only has $10,000 to spare and they think it would cost $20,000 to join the Fediverse, then it's not even a choice. They can't no matter how much they'd like to.
They aren't limiting themselves. The real world limitations of resources impose the limit on them.
I don't mean to repeat myself, but I don't think you did understand my point after all, as I was referring to a stark reality that can't be reasoned away, no matter the preferences.
@volkris @youronlyone
I agree that news orgs are jurassic in regards to change.
But at the end of the day it is risk vs reward...
..and an entire pipeline isn't necessary to prove viability. Heck - interns posting sporadic stories can confirm that.
Twitter is a great use case : if you were an early, successful adopter you reaped the rewards.
Legal issues? Large news orgs have that under control already if they have already have websites.