The Essay
The most dignified of the lot, the slideshow essay is text-heavy, using images as illustrations. Its defining characteristic is a larger narrative woven through all the slides. Focus is on the interplay between images and words. The images amplify the ideas in the text while staying out of its way. Typical example: “The Architecture of Edward Hopper,” Slate.
Despite how prevalent slideshows have become across the web, few sites like talking about how they use them. The Huffington Post, Time, and Entertainment Weekly declined to comment. It’s unsurprising. News sites are always loath to discuss internal editorial processes and traffic figures, and slideshows lie at that uncomfortable nexus.
Of those I contacted, only Henry Blodget offered his thoughts on the slideshow’s role. Blodget runs The Business Insider, a blog network he started in 2007. Over the past few years, he has gone from disgraced stock analyst to middlebrow media mogul. His network claims to pull in 40 million page views every month.
His sites are havens for slideshows because, according to Blodget, they consider them a story-telling mechanism native to web journalism. “Every new medium develops certain forms of storytelling ways of conveying information that take advantage of what the medium does well relative to other media,” Blodget wrote over e-mail. “Good slide shows help increase engagement (time on site, page views), the same way an excellent article helps increase the amount of time a reader spends with a newspaper or magazine. Bad ones don’t help with anything.”
But when even bad slideshows succeed economically, where’s the incentive to make them good? That incentive, eventually, will have to come from advertisers, as they tire of the tricks that their editorial friends are playing on them. Earlier, I noted that advertisers don’t care if dozens of page views are coming from the same user, because their ads are still getting shown. But eventually this will reach a point of diminishing returns. Telling the same person about a new movie a dozen times is not as effective of telling a half-dozen people twice.
Advertisers have an easy way to hold sites accountable: rely on unique visitor, rather than page-view, counts. The page-view metric has become diluted by editorial and business tricks like recirculation tools, landing pages, and slideshows. As Gawker Media owner Nick Denton puts it, “Some page views are worth more than others.” That’s why he now judges his staff and sites’ success on a less-manipulated number: how many people come to visit, not how many pages they visit once they’re there. Denton’s reason for the switch is editorial—he wants more exclusives, and he thinks uniques are a good way to incentivize them. Advertisers should follow suit. Their ads will have greater reach if sites know that it’s unique visitors, not page views, that matter most.
And with that change of mentality will come a switch of strategy. No longer will the worst slideshows be as economically viable. Slideshow quality will rise as sites try to create iconic slideshows that bring in new visitors interested in hearing a story told as only the Internet can. Slideshows will no longer have to be a savior in scourge’s clothing.

>> Because humans are novelty-seekers.
I seek novelty: ways I can use Firefox to avoid all of that infernal clicking.
Here's one:
AutoPager :: Add-ons for Firefox
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4925/
#1 Posted by F. Murray Rumpelstiltskin, CJR on Thu 18 Nov 2010 at 02:10 PM
Are there not enough advertisements to put a unique ad in front of the same user 10 clicks in a row? There are only a finite amount of the "uniques" clicking links.
Keeping count of uniques and page counts are both remnants of pre-internet publishing and advertising. It differs not from magazine publishers who over-print their issues, to boost their numbers, only to send stacks by the truck load to the dump. Or to offer deep discounts on subscriptions, same thing: boost the numbers.
It's amazing to me that the best and most deceptive liars--marketers and advertisers--allow themselves to be so deceived by mere publishers. But it's all a part of the chain that ends with the consumer.
Time on site, and bounce statistics are both far more telling. They tell of the quality of the content, or at least of the experience. Even a slide show can be clicked through in a breeze. We're all speed readers, when it comes to the thousand words of a picture.
I'm in a start-up frame of mind. Consult me on some publishing ideas: jonathon [at] nationalheadquarters.org
#2 Posted by Jonathon, CJR on Thu 18 Nov 2010 at 04:57 PM
You bury the lede near the bottom of your piece: That slideshows are mostly cotton candy that advertisers are not going to want to pay for. Advertisers aren't that dumb.
#3 Posted by HB, CJR on Thu 18 Nov 2010 at 07:42 PM
Chadwick: I didn't mean that to come off as unduly harsh (another web trend). I think you hit the bullseye about the current rage in slide shows. But like it's a trick that will wear out pretty fast. Advertisers are already looking beyond basic pageview counts (hell, a bot can generate those). With slideshows, there's often no additional content for viewers to spend time with - just stretched out content that makes them click along. It seems a prime target for backlash from both viewers and advertisers.
#4 Posted by HB, CJR on Thu 18 Nov 2010 at 07:57 PM
I clicked on the link to this piece, hoping to Tweet about it and/or send it directly to colleagues. But "laying around" in the first graf dashed all my hopes and spoiled whatever helpful content this might provide.
#5 Posted by Charlyne Berens, CJR on Thu 18 Nov 2010 at 08:28 PM
This is all fine and dandy for the economics of newspapers ... but why are we using respected, experienced journalists to do this pandering? Let's not be mistaken -- this is advertising disguised as news. This is a job for the advertising department. It's a waste of a real journalist's talents to have them shooting 10 photos of a grade-school bazaar. Not to speak of the degradation.
#6 Posted by Bert Dalmer, CJR on Fri 19 Nov 2010 at 09:48 AM
This reminds me of the story of a 6-year old child whose mother asked him to read his book out loud to her. He quickly looked through all the pages, studying each photo on the page then closed the book. HIs mom said, why didn't you read the words? To which he responded, "Mom, the words are for people who just don't get the picture".
I see a lot of irony in this piece. Newspapers and magazines, who produce most of the content that is aggregated into slideshows by all these websites, are laying off photojournalists at higher rates than writers at the same time as they are looking for more visuals. Sure photo galleries are looked down upon, especially by executives without a visual bone in their bodies and writers who just don't get that we live in the most visually literate society in the history of the world. And that we are looking at a screen, which is a visual medium in an of itself. The bottom line is that people like photos, instead of looking for ways to devalue this trend we as an industry should be hiring more visual people, photographers, artists, photo editors etc. and putting them in management position to help the industry improve its quality and visual content.
#7 Posted by edward, CJR on Fri 19 Nov 2010 at 10:18 AM
Slide shows do generate more than 60% of traffic on some sites -- but the click-through rates on the ads are horrific -- because of the compelling user experience.
In essence, even ad sales people accept slide shows for the sheer tonnage of ad views -- but they are embarrassed when revealing to clients how few clicks these ads get.
The short-term gain in Page Views does not generate an equal amount of revenue per-page.
In short, it's a drug that we need to get off of.
#8 Posted by pk, CJR on Fri 19 Nov 2010 at 10:25 AM
Take a look at this website and see the future.
www.poseymagazine.com
#9 Posted by JBB, CJR on Fri 19 Nov 2010 at 04:02 PM
Can't stand the blasted slideshows. At least this is a cogent explanation of why we are subjected to them--the price to get to the good stuff. Well, page views verss uniques. Uniques won't measure stickiness.
#10 Posted by Jenny Frost, CJR on Mon 22 Nov 2010 at 09:50 AM
[...] ‘As page views became a priority, web editors had to decide when slideshows morph from fun novelty to craven solicitation’ [...]
http://www.berfrois.com/2010/12/page-views/
#11 Posted by Russ, CJR on Thu 9 Dec 2010 at 06:38 AM
How about we make every paragraph a new page? That will inflate the number even more. Or, we could look for a better metric to gage engagement with our readers.
#12 Posted by Mark Hinojosa, CJR on Tue 8 May 2012 at 11:00 AM