With the dawn of the web, and then smartphones, we've been buried in data. Anyone creating content online soon hopped onto metrics like a bunch of hungry chickens going after grain.
First page views, then shares. The data is there for the taking, but is it meaningful?
Simply do some research on Google search terms and you can optimize content to get lots of page views. Focus on entertaining or utility-driven content, and you'll nab lots of shares (especially with pretty pictures, thanks Pinterest).
VICE is one example that shows that hard news can make its way around the web if it's particularly provocative, like this recent story called The Ghost Rapes of Bolivia.
But most journalists will agree that regular watchdog stories are not always the juiciest (we can't always have mayors accused of sexual harassment).
Even at Mashable, I prefer to not write "X Chrome Extensions For Staying Productive" all the time.
Brands, now creating their own content, are facing a similar dilemma -- plenty of data, but what does it mean? Sometimes they do want exposure, so the goofy YouTube video makes sense. Other brands want a quality impression, and will be okay with a few thousand views as long as their logo was next to something awesome. They too will look at both page views and shares, and in addition might do a survey that measures purchase intent, A/B tested against their campaigns.
But I imagine most brands looking to make the best investment into marketing would want to measure impact, too.
So we don't have a marketing problem or a journalism problem -- it's a communication problem. It is not caused by technology, as it existed before digital, but digital capabilities bring it to light. It's safe to say we have a growing number of brands trying to be funny on Twitter, and a plethora of digital publications launching with big ideas related to lists and pet photos.
The impact of journalism is like a tree falling in a forest that nobody heard. It is happening, but we haven't found the metric yet. That metric will help journalism organizations budget in a way that makes sense, and justify grants and public funding. It will help marketers be more efficient with their dollars.
A marketing solution may help journalists, and vice versa. I think this is an opportunity for the two groups to steal ideas from each other. We can all better appreciate the pet photos in moderation anyway, right?