Don’t worry, Facebook, this article about the history of clickbait is not clickbait
Seriously, we will tell you about the history of clickbait.
You’ll never believe how old the term clickbait is!
Eighteen years old. (See how we just told you?)
The word watchers at Merriam-Webster told Timeline that the first known public web uses of the term “click bait” they could track down was in an email thread from 1998, about computer parts sales.
Added to the dictionary in 2015, clickbait now refers to enticing online headlines that lead to content of dubious value or interest. It capitalizes on a readers’ “curiosity gap,” tempting them with juicy tidbits or hyperbolic language—but never actually delivering on the story.
You’ll Never Guess What’s Been in Your Cereal All Along
Do This One Simple Thing Before Bed Every Night to Improve Health
See Why Feminism Needs to Exist, in 23 Seconds
But now Facebook — the crucible of clickbait — is looking to kill the form. The latest line from the social network is that it wants to reward authentic stories that make a lasting difference in the world. That means downgrading clickbait headlines and links that users close swiftly after opening.
It’s a noble stance, but some argue it’s a convenient shift around the time Facebook traffic to publishers plummeted. Although Facebook confirmed nothing, media experts suggest its algorithm was tweaked because users weren’t engaging enough with content on Facebook. Instead, they were taking the bait, and clicking away from the platform.
Basically, clickbait was so successful, Facebook is killing it. And even if publishers are still scoring clicks from those headlines, it might not be for long. The social network instead now privileges newer products like Facebook Live and Instant Articles, which keep users on site.
The irony of course is that Facebook helped create clickbait. Once Facebook decided it wanted in on the news game and incentivized publishers to post there, those publishers devised strategies to capture users’ clicks. Thus, clickbait.
For many publishers, it became the primary strategy to gain traffic. They adapted to new media by packaging content according to the whims of the world’s most powerful social network.
The highest example of the craft, Upworthy finds “stuff that matters” around the internet, “reframes” it, and slaps on a simple, juicy headline. (At the top of its homepage now: “This Is Why Veteran Homelessness Has Dropped So Dramatically.”) It’s the slacktivist homepage. Around the time Upworthy reported 50 million unique visitors per month, the site shared its headline strategy: A/B test 25 different headlines per story and land on the one readers would like most. And make sure your mom would share it. Seriously.
Other sites define clickbait differently. Often criticized as one of media’s biggest offenders, Buzzfeed’s Ben Smith claimed in 2014 the site didn’t do any clickbait. (Cue eyeroll.) However, Smith defines clickbait as a headline that over-promises paired with content that under-delivers. While some old-guard media might claim headlines like “What State Do You Actually Belong In?” are clickbait (because they’re designed as traffic plays), they don’t exactly trick the reader. When you click, you will reach a quiz that declares what state you actually belong in. On Buzzfeed’s homepage today: “Literally Just Pictures Of Jason Momoa And Lisa Bonet Looking Hot.” Pretty simple.
Clickbait worked so well and produced so many millions of pageviews for hundreds of sites, The Onion even launched a site, Clickhole, in 2014 poking fun at consumers’ insatiable, myopic content consumption—with stories like “5 Disney Princesses Reimagined as Caucasian” and “Fan Prayers Answered: Here’s What The Cast Of ‘Sixteen Candles’ Looks Like In A Tent.” You know it’s successful when you can’t tell a Clickhole headline from a Buzzfeed headline.
To compete in the attention economy, many more traditional (read: less baity) outlets gave in.
The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Chicago Tribune have all waded into the content slop.
However, the old guard had their own historic version of clickbait. In the newsprint days, readers needed a reason to pick one paper off the newsstand over another, and above-the-fold headlines were the best place to start. “Yellow journalism” of the late 19th Century routinely used sensational, suggestive, and exaggerated headlines to move papers.
More of the Headless Body Is Found — New York Journal, 1897
Is the Air Vanishing? — New York Herald, 1897
Tabloid journalism later followed suit.
Was Cary Grant Really Bisexual? — Des Moines Register, 1989
Hillary Clinton Adopts Alien Baby — Weekly World News, 1993
The difference today may just be the sheer volume. As with many things, Jon Stewart said it best. In 2014, the comedian told New York magazine, “I scroll around, but when I look at the internet, I feel the same as when I’m walking through Coney Island. It’s like carnival barkers, and they all sit out there and go, ‘Come on in here and see a three-legged man!’ So you walk in and it’s a guy with a crutch.”
Case in point: If you’re a Taylor Swift fan, consider the recent Page Six headline “Hailee Steinfeld Reveals the Ugly Truth About Taylor Swift’s Squad.” And that “ugly truth” is? “I think people think we spend a lot more time together than we actually do” confessed Steinfeld. “She’s amazing, though.”
Are you yawning? Seething? Laugh/crying at the disintegrating standards of modern journalism? All of the above?
The question is, will Facebook’s recent tweak solve the problem?
Click here to find out.
