Never underestimate a journalist’s gut instinct — even in a newsroom driven by reader data.

The whole newsroom was convinced we had a fantastic column everyone needed to read. But on our digital platforms, that brilliant column barely performed. A blow, not just to our egos, but to our entire vision for how we designed our apps and Web sites.

So, back to the column that changed everything ...

Expecting crowds but getting crickets

The Netherlands was in the grip of a scandal involving the country’s most popular talk show, whose host was accused of toxic leadership. Columnist Joost Prinsen of Noordhollands Dagblad — also a well-known Dutch actor — wrote a brilliant piece; the kind of article that gets discussed at the office coffee machine: “Have you read Joost yet?”

The column was eagerly shared on social media. But on our own Web site and app? Crickets. Hardly anyone clicked. It was underperforming in our own house — even though it was prominently featured on the homepage in its usual “Column of the Day” slot.

We decided to A/B test it and moved Joost’s column to a regular news spot — part of the standard news stream.

The result was astonishing. On both mobile and desktop, the column shot to the top of the best-read list. From dud to blockbuster, just by shifting its position a few centimetres.

Double-checking the data

Something wasn’t right, we thought. So we dug into the data, because we had more of these fixed, static content blocks — presenting the same themes in the same place, every day.

For example, the “Story of the Day” was a visually dominant block that we already knew performed poorly. Our own reporters hoped not to be featured in it — “because then no one reads it ...” — a red flag we’d long ignored.

The data, including detailed heatmaps, confirmed our hunch.

Visitors were literally slaloming around the fixed blocks in search of real news. Where we thought we were creating rhythm and recognition with consistent layouts, readers had simply gone blind to them. We called it “the kitchen note effect” — those notes taped to the office dishwasher or fridge that hang there for months, slowly yellowing, completely invisible, let alone read.

Clearly, we needed a better design. And the data revealed more challenges. On mobile, we were actively pushing people away at the bottom of the article — with a jumble of tags, newsletter signups, comment prompts, and above all, ads.

Over the years, everything that had “real estate” below the article on desktop had been stacked beneath the last line on mobile. To get to related articles, users had to swipe at least twice.

Nine out of 10 left at the bottom. This, despite the fact that 65% of traffic lands directly on an article, not via the homepage, but through Google, newsletters, push notifications, or social media. And then they were gone.

Inspired by Ikea

Of course, we wanted to create beautiful new Web sites and apps, but the data drove every decision in the design process. Ikea, the Swedish homeware giant, was a big inspiration. Because if there’s one thing Ikea knows, it’s how to lead people from product to product — and keep them exploring.

We wanted no more sites full of kitchen notes everyone ignores, but a touch of Ikea and a laser focus on mobile.

The results exceeded expectations. The new sites and apps went live in June 2024. Six months later, the data spoke for itself: The number of stories per session rose from 1.5 to 3.5. Attention time soared. Paywall hits, conversions, and scroll depth all climbed.

And a column that the newsroom’s gut says is gold? These days, it still gets a spotlight — high up in the news flow — but never again in a static corner.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .