Personally, I do not find speed to be a significant exception or attraction.
Actually getting news is the clear winner!
Thought experiment, two sites:
One is quick, easy to read, but boring, low clarity.
The other is slow, harder to read, but is compelling, high clarity.
Now another thought experiment, and please here me out! This one is from broadcasting:
Two streams or stations. Can be radio, TV, whatever:
One, is boring, but pristine! Quality is off the chart good.
The other, for whatever reason, is compelling! Quality is low. Crappy.
-----
Answer these for both experiments:
Which one do you use?
Why?
Which one do [you think] other people use? [And you might benefit by asking them]
Why?
-----
Results!
In broadcast, the number one criteria was whether it was compelling. Full stop, that is what mattered to most people by a very solid majority. Almost nothing else did. And that played out with almost everyone doing broadcast of any kind moving to offer more lower quality choices to people, while at the same time delivering compelling programming to their audiences.
You have probably heard the phrase, "Content is king!"
For news, this will be less clear, but I bet being fast is analogous to quality in the broadcast realm.
And if I am at all right about that, fast just won't get you there. Don't get me wrong. There will be a set people who go for it, but the bigger numbers will be on compelling.
And that is both a different, and IMHO, a very interesting topic. Public trust in mainstream media "news" is super low.
If you were to deliver compelling news from a variety of sources that have more public trust, you are very likely to attract and keep users. Again IMHO.
Why just accept mediocrity? The slowness of the website has no connection to quality of work that is displayed. So they can be improved separately. It doesn't have to be always choice of bad vs less bad. We should strive for something that is actually good.
I agree with you! And there are some of us out there too.
In broadcast, where I live, only a single TV station is going for best quality. All others compromise quality to offer multiple program streams or substations. There are a few in radio doing quality first, with most offering multiple streams.
Online, I often see quality emphasized when it is not compelling in any other way. In this discussion, I feel speed is not a meaningful differentiator. Great news would be!
The rest of my comments are supporting why that is.
Nice, and compelling websites, programs, and the like are super nice and appreciated by me for sure. Sadly, that combo is rare.
It sometimes comes at a small premium too. I will often pay that, given it is modest and covering the added cost and not over the top of the value added.
Actually getting news is the clear winner!
Thought experiment, two sites:
One is quick, easy to read, but boring, low clarity.
The other is slow, harder to read, but is compelling, high clarity.
Now another thought experiment, and please here me out! This one is from broadcasting:
Two streams or stations. Can be radio, TV, whatever:
One, is boring, but pristine! Quality is off the chart good.
The other, for whatever reason, is compelling! Quality is low. Crappy.
-----
Answer these for both experiments:
Which one do you use?
Why?
Which one do [you think] other people use? [And you might benefit by asking them]
Why?
-----
Results!
In broadcast, the number one criteria was whether it was compelling. Full stop, that is what mattered to most people by a very solid majority. Almost nothing else did. And that played out with almost everyone doing broadcast of any kind moving to offer more lower quality choices to people, while at the same time delivering compelling programming to their audiences.
You have probably heard the phrase, "Content is king!"
For news, this will be less clear, but I bet being fast is analogous to quality in the broadcast realm.
And if I am at all right about that, fast just won't get you there. Don't get me wrong. There will be a set people who go for it, but the bigger numbers will be on compelling.
And that is both a different, and IMHO, a very interesting topic. Public trust in mainstream media "news" is super low.
If you were to deliver compelling news from a variety of sources that have more public trust, you are very likely to attract and keep users. Again IMHO.