Gawker Stumbles to Traffic Low as Political Sites See User Freefall

Nick Denton Gawker Lawsuit Web Traffic
Eve Edelheit/Tampa Bay Times via ZUMA Wire/Newscom

Caveat emptor, Gawker gawkers: Any company considering buying the controversial digital publisher should know that its namesake site has hit some serious traffic lows.

Gawker.com’s traffic in April dropped a whopping 37% from the previous month, to 7.6 million visitors — the site’s lowest mark in at least three years, per comScore. That was enough to take Nick Denton’s entire empire down to a 29-month traffic low, even though most of his other brands, including Gizmodo to Deadspin, have held up.

It’s not an encouraging sign for Gawker, which says it has refocused on political coverage rather than salacious gossip about the media biz. But if it’s any consolation to Denton, Gawker is far from alone in experiencing sudden freefall, even as the explosive presidential campaign would presumably be pushing politics-centric websites to new heights.

There hasn’t been much good news for Gawker of late. A federal judge last week upheld a $140 million verdict in favor of Hulk Hogan, who successfully sued the company for posting a sex video featuring the wrestler, and it also came to light that tech billionaire Peter Thiel had been secretly bankrolling Hogan’s legal effort. Denton reportedly had been exploring a sale before the verdict even came down — a move the company didn’t explicitly deny.

“Everyone take a breath,” Gawker said in a statement. “We recently engaged [Houlihan Lokey banker Mark] Patricof to advise us and that seems to have stirred up some excitement, when the fact is that nothing is new.”

The rumor mill churned out potential buyers ranging from Vox Media to Variety’s own parent company, Penske Media Corporation, which indicated via a company spokeswoman, “At this time, PMC has been contacted by Gawker’s banker and there are no current negotiations of any kind between PMC and Gawker.”

If the deal chatter is true, the timing couldn’t be worse, considering the number of unique visitors to Denton’s portfolio of websites has sunk to a collective 44.4 million, its lowest level since December 2013.

Regarding the recent traffic plunge at Gawker, a rep points to Denton’s previous comments that the company had expected a traffic decline as the site shifted gears. “In today’s crowded and confusing digital media world, you should focus on your strengths and have a clear message for your audience,” Denton wrote in a staff memo last November.

Gawker’s new political bent has been seen as something of a palate cleanser — and a bid to appeal to a higher-income demographic — after the Hogan affair and other scandals blackened its name, the result of the company’s vitriolic brand of journalism.

But there’s a voluminous stream of political news, opinion, and rabid journalism all over the internet, and Gawker’s snark simply doesn’t stand out as much. (One of Gawker’s most popular stories last week was speculation about the cost of Donald Trump’s hair weave.)

“This election cycle was tailor-made for Gawker-style coverage,” says Benjamin Toff, a political scientist who has been named research fellow at the Oxford University’s Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. “But the distinctive voice Gawker once had is not as distinctive now. When one of the Republican nominees is talking about his penis size, and that’s all over the news everywhere, it’s hard to be the one that’s pushing the limits of what’s deemed appropriate.”

That said, Gawker’s traffic problems may have as much to do with a mysterious malaise afflicting the entire political category as from any intrinsic deficiencies.

Millions of visitors to political websites vanished in April, after months of healthy growth fueled by the contentious 2016 election season. The drop, coming off record traffic numbers for many outlets in March, nailed political pubs of all persuasions, according to comScore data. Politico.com saw U.S. unique visitors drop 33%; TheHill.com fell 35%; Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller plummeted 43%; and ESPN’s FiveThirtyEight.com dropped 32%.

Other political sites that saw steep drops in unique visitors for April, per comScore, included Glenn Beck’s 
TheBlaze.com (-17%), Daily Kos (-24%), Talking Points Memo (-29%), DrudgeReport.-com (-25%), The Nation (-18%), and the Weekly Standard (-32%). Breitbart News Network, the conservative news and opinion site founded by the late Andrew Breitbart, saw uniques decline by 6%.

Click Dips
Politics-focused sites showed surprising traffic drop-offs in April.
-37% Gawker
-35% The Hill
-33% Politico

Some observers speculated that the shift may be partly attributable to changes in content algorithms at Google or Facebook; the latter has been in damage control after allegations it tinkered with trending-news topics to downgrade conservative viewpoints. “I don’t think you’d see that sort of drop-off in traffic just due to ‘fatigue’ with politics,” says one news-industry veteran.

But there may be a more straightforward explanation: There was simply less going on in the political circus tent. In April, there were far fewer primaries (nine) and just one debate, between the two Democratic contenders — whereas in March, there were more than two dozen primaries, including Super Tuesday, and four debates.

Web traffic to political sites in April was still “at a very elevated level versus a typical month,” says Andrew Lipsman, comScore’s VP of marketing and insights. “March 2016 isn’t a fair comparison because, for a number of reasons, it should represent a major peak in activity for these sites.”

And it’s worth noting that visitors to general news websites and viewers of cable news dropped from March to April, although not quite as spectacularly. Fox News Channel averaged an audience of 2.86 million from Feb. 29 to March 27, dropping about 16% with 2.4 million the following four weeks, according to Nielsen data; CNN’s viewers fell 26% from 1.92 million to 1.43 million per week over the same periods.

A FiveThirtyEight rep dismisses the comparison, noting that March was the biggest month in the site’s history. “It’s ridiculous to suggest that a one-month reduction in our traffic has any real meaning when our long-term growth is exceptionally strong,” she says. The site claims it’s getting 30 times as many page views as when FiveThirtyEight began at The New York Times in 2012, also a presidential election year.

“This election cycle was tailor-made for Gawker-style coverage. But the distinctive voice Gawker once had is not as distinctive now.”
Political scientist Benjamin Toff

The Hill owner Jimmy Finkelstein has no concrete explanation for why traffic fell off in April. But “I’ve seen this happen before, where whole categories are down,” he says. “It’s not completely unusual.” He points out that April unique visitors were up 70% year-over-year and says May numbers for The Hill are trending toward a double-digit uptick.

Did political traffic resume an upward trajectory in May? We don’t yet know, but it’s possible the category rebounded, after Trump earlier in the month secured his status as the GOP’s presumptive nominee, and rivals Ted Cruz and John Kasich dropped out of the race.

But comScore’s Lipsman says traffic may be flat with April, and “if [sites] are down a bit, it’s probably because the field narrowed even further, and there are no more debates to drive the same intensity in the news cycle.”

Gawker, along with the rest of the players that have feasted on the bizarre turns of the 2016 election year, is banking on the prospect that the American electorate will regain its appetite through the bitter end of the campaigns.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 10

Leave a Reply

10 Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Terry says:

    It’s not just that Gawker turned political–it’s that they were pushing a Bernie agenda in the most obnoxious, sometimes sexist, and ultimately butt hurt way possible without owning it. Commenters kept threatening to leave as articles became more and more weirdly slanted, but they didn’t listen to their commentariat.

  2. WiscoJoe says:

    I used to read Gawker compulsively, like check it at least once an hour for new posts. I stopped reading it altogether a bit after they switched over to a more political bent, not because I don’t follow politics, but because their political coverage was worthless.

    Gawker was a great source for finding out what some coked-up Brooklyn hipster thinks about Beyonce.
    I really could care less what that same coked-up Brooklyn hipster thinks about the 2016 election. If I’m looking for political coverage I turn to sources that actually have more than a shallow understanding of our political process.

  3. RTF372 says:

    In other words:

    “Your website is worthless, Gawker, might as well sell to our parent company on the cheap”

    First Buffalo Beast, now Gawker.

    Looks like another great website will bite the dust. Hopefully some of Gawkers writers will spin off and start something new, and not fizzle away like the Beast did. r

  4. Gawker.com is one of several interconnected blog sites.
    I go to DeadSpin for sports news but Gawker items with overlap are also presented

  5. Ginavon says:

    Unlike television polls based on calling only people with landlines and never showing a disclaimer, the beauty of this kind of research is it is done with Internet traffic analytics!

  6. Ginavon says:

    The only reliable source that I can find on TV these days is on C-SPAN when I hear the information first directly as it is happening. The translation by the other channels is always distorted to push an agenda either right or left, depending on the channel. This is not freedom of speech it is propaganda.

  7. Ginavon says:

    Someone should do a blood pressure study on people while watching these political talking heads. Mine went from 96/54 to 140/80 and people may be intuitively responding to how it “feels” to be so annoyed by the opinions of these leftist educated young people when all we really want is straight reliable verifiable news.

  8. Steve Wilson says:

    That’s so funny, considering that the information on this website about how Nick Denton THREATENED TO FIRE/ BLACKLIST JOURNALISTS tasked with reporting misconduct– perpetrated by Gawker in collusion with The New York Times–
    (Google: NY TiIMES STAFFER DEATH-THREATENS AUTHOR FOR UNVEILING NYTIMES/ GAWKER MISDEEDS)
    — is bringing traffic in like crazy lately.

    Which is really pretty good for a blog that’s hasn’t updated itself at all (except for the one aforementioned post) in almost a whole year now.

  9. pgrote says:

    The decline isn’t surprising for thehill and gawker. thehill sold out for advertising with auto start videos and 30+ different ad networks and trackers loading on their mainpage. Gawker moved away from interesting, unique stories and went for low brow coverage and curating. Amazingly, they thought getting away from being original would work out.

    The graph in the article has poor color choices. Gawker is the subject of the article and should have the more distinct color. The four shades of blue were tough to distinguish.

  10. Vicki Macon says:

    Most people have already made their mind up about the presidential election and the mainstream news now does the same thing Gawker does. Trump can say anything he wants and nobody listens to Clinton.

More Digital News from Variety

Loading