As you mention in your post, deft webpage design or breaking the content into separate pages may be the answer. I’m a fan of the former, and hate the latter. (Clicking is more inconvenient than scrolling.) The former also requires more front-end consideration for design, which requires time — an scarce asset in the newsroom.

Perhaps leveraging best practices seen in other sites / distribution methods is the answer. A longer piece can have a 300-word “abstract” overview that hits the high points, complete with a source quote, bullet points and a photo. Users can be encouraged to “click in” to the full story, which they intellectually understand will be longer. This provides options for the more interested user, and less time investment for casual readers.

Another option could be to roll out longer pieces as RSS/blog exclusives; the only way to enjoy these “crown jewels” is to subscribe to the paper’s free RSS feed, which could be promoted alongside the abstract summary described above.

Thanks for writing such a provocative post, and please keep up the excellent work!

@John – I think you touch on a great point, the impact that blogs and having on traditional online media. And, I think it extends beyond length to functionality. I’ve noticed that people really want and expect the same bells and whistles that they get on blogs or on other similar sites.

Now most articles are in the 500 word region which appears to be more successful. I think people expect newspaper/magazine articles online to be like blog reading. Its definitely a challenge for the industry.

Many stories can do with less than that but just as many need more, so I say use the Web to post the 20 or 25 inch version that actually encompasses a story’s context, history, nuance and complexity.

I don’t like having to click on multiple pages to read a long story. I’m a big fan of the page-turning apps that sit on one Web page.