Publishers Correctly Giving Up on AMP

Page speed has been one of the significant improvements Google has encouraged publishers to make with their websites. In 2015, Google offered the Accelerated Mobile Page (AMP) framework, which would make it easier for publishers to introduce fast, mobile-first pages.

The benefit for publishes was two-fold. First, the pages were faster, which was good. Second, Google appeared to prioritize AMP pages. For publishers starved for traffic, they appreciated any advantage. But starting in June 2021, Google stopped prioritizing AMP.

It should come as no surprise, then, that publishers are giving up on AMP. According to The Wall Street Journal:

Publishers are wise to make this change. Depending on Google for so much put publishers at a disadvantage and likely interfered in their monetization efforts. A 20% increase in advertising revenue just by changing to fast, non-AMP pages is significant.

But as reported in the story, not all publishers are gung-ho about it.

It's a fair worry, but I suspect any potential drop in traffic is more than offset by an increase in potential revenue and publisher control over their pages. Managing regular and AMP versions of your website is additional work for developers. I remember the day Google announced it wouldn't be prioritizing AMP any longer, a developer I worked with asked if we could immediately strip it from our codebase.

While I think the increase in revenue can offset the drop in traffic, that assumes you're replacing AMP with speedy, native pages. If you're just going to revert to slow-loading pages, you'll see a significant drop in traffic. Why? Speed matters a lot.

In October 2020, I wrote this about Google's push for publishers to make their websites faster:

Google's priority is giving its users as pleasant an experience as possible. Delivering slow pages on the search results page isn't in Google's best interest, so they're likely to deprioritize that content compared to faster pages. So, if you're going to get rid of AMP, you will need to learn about Google's favorite thing.

Enter Core Web Vitals. Back in July, I wrote this:

Largest Contentful Paint (LCP) is what you need to pay attention to regarding page speed. LCP focuses on how long it takes for the user to interact with the page. In other words, even if the article has loaded, if images and other things are still loading in the background, in Google's eyes, the page isn't loaded.

A primary complaint publishers had with AMP was that monetization was limited. Unfortunately, publishers notoriously bloat their websites with a ton of ad tech. This will slow the site down. You need to be critical of ad partners that take too long to load. They may pay a higher CPM, but if it means your rankings are lower, are you coming out ahead?

If your engineering and audience teams have not started talking about Core Web Vitals, you should schedule that meeting immediately. It plays a big part in how Google ranks websites.

I am a big fan of publishers moving away from AMP, but it's only the first step.

When digital publishers buy magazines

Axios did a deep dive into the state of magazines and how many digital publishers have been acquiring magazine brands. According to the story:

We're at an interesting inflection point where digital media has finally figured out how to sustain itself. Whether it's subscriptions, commerce, and 1st-party and contextually driven advertising, digital media companies have an arsenal of options available to them.

What these magazines have in spades are brands. Think about the Dotdash Meredith deal. Meredith had well-known brand names, including Entertainment Weekly, InStyle, and People. You could argue that these brand names are stronger than many of Dotdash's brands, which have been in existence for less than a decade. Entertainment Weekly launched in 1990; InStyle in 1994; and People in 1974. That's multiple decades of brand building.

The play makes a lot of sense, and we can see how Dotdash Meredith is executing it.

• Step 1: Acquire the brands
• Step 2: Integrate the digital tech stack
• Step 3: Track print revenue and if it drops too low, cut the print product

Dotdash Meredith made that decision in early February, shutting down the print editions of six magazines. The revenue opportunity there was likely not compelling enough to keep the team around. Despite getting rid of the magazines, it still owns the brands. And with continued investment in content, it can benefit from decades of brand building.

An interesting tidbit jumped out in Axios' coverage of Dotdash Meredith closing the six brands:

As I wrote in December, there might be an opportunity in magazines.

These are great brands. But if you're going to continue operating a magazine, it's crucial to push forward with creating a higher quality product. If not, pay attention to print revenue and when margins are gone, cut the product. Then, at least you'll have the brand.

Thanks for reading today's issue. If you have thoughts, hit reply. Become a premium member, so you will receive the Friday edition of A Media Operator and receive an invite to the Slack channel. Have a great week!