Hi there. 

I hope you joined us for the INMA Product and Tech Town Hall where we covered how product teams are combining with customer teams to get a laser focus on customer experience, some excellent tips to approach personalisation for maximum impact, what I’ve learned about AI from conversations with Big Tech here in California, and why branding is so important. 

If you missed, it don’t worry. you can watch the replay here. 

Today, I am diving into super apps, inspired by The New York Times app redesign and a conversation with the INMA Product and Tech council. Have you landed on a decision either way? If so, I would love to hear about it. Drop me a note at Jodie.hopperton@INMA.org 

This week in the U.S. is Thanksgiving, so in the spirit of the country I live in — thank you for being part of this community. I genuinely appreciate it.

All the best,

Jodie

Why the NYTimes app is a masterclass in formats vs. content

In October, The New York Times launched a new app which, in their words, “cements our app as the home for unrivaled journalism and the front door to the full New York Times product portfolio.” 

In a world where subscriptions come from different places, news is staying at the core. 

“In a bid to improve content discovery, the Times is updating the way readers find stories, sections, and products in its app. While users land on the Today feed and can scroll through stories as before, they can now access other verticals or parts of the bundle by swiping horizontally.” 

This is what I want to dive into today. What they have done is to create a super app of sorts.

At the top navigation, the user sorts by content types. At the bottom, it’s by format.  

Opening the app, a user always lands on Today. This is very much in line with The New York Times’ mission of keeping journalism at the front and center. You can then see how content categories sit either side of this, allowing the user to scroll. To the far right lives a “Sections” tab that takes a user to the full range. To the far left are “Games” and “Audio,” which we dive into below.

This setup leaves the app ripe for personalisation. Imagine if a user could set the most important sections either side of Today? Or, maybe even better, the app does it automatically for you based on behaviour. 

The bottom navigation allows a user to choose by format. As we know, The New York Times has made great strides in both their audio and their games. This setup allows users to easily go straight to their preferred format. 

The layout of the first screen of both games and audio changes, depending on how the user navigated there. If you go from the top navigation, the layout is more list based for games, and after a bold card, audio follows the same format. However, if navigated to at the lower part, the app is more-card based. I suspect this is based on behaviours, and it will be interesting to see how this develops now that it is in one app.

It could be easy to assume The New York Times is pursuing a one-app strategy. But that may not be the case. 

As you can see from the screenshots below, major sections have a push to the relevant app. Or if there is no app — such as Wirecutter — it brings up a browser.

I assume the main app can only hold so much content, and there is a need to send users elsewhere for depth. But this could be part of a multi-app strategy. At the moment, they give users the best of both worlds.

Date for the diary: CMS Town Hall, December 11

Insights and evaluations on how news publishers can evaluate and navigate the selection of a content management system (CMS). This session will include a deep dive into WordPress and plugins. I hope you can join us at this free event. More information here. 

Should you consider a single super app over having multiple apps?  

This was a question posed by one of the INMA Product and Tech advisory council that sparked an excellent debate.

It actually started as a question around discovery and the cost of acquisition, which is notoriously high. Combined with the time it takes to build habit, do we really want to repeat this process for multiple apps? 

It could also be asked whether having multiple apps in a store is confusing for readers. Some media organisations find users download the wrong thing and are then annoyed they don’t get access to what they pay for. Or think they have paid for one thing when in fact they have paid for another. A single app may solve for this. 

During the discussion, I noted down the following, which could support either based on your specific objectives. 

Realistically, there are many questions that need to be answered before making a decision and will depend very much on the organisation and (potential) user base. 

• What is the main purpose of the core app? 
• Is format a self selector for consumers when making a consumption decision? For example, when people get in a car or walk the dog, they likely go straight to an audio specific app, not a content specific app. 
• How much do you want to drive format verticals (audio, video, games) vs. content verticals? 

Clearly there is no single answer, but this does seem to be top of mine for a few organisations. The New York Times appears to be trialing both approaches, so it will be interesting to see where they land and whether they continue to support multiple apps as well as a super app. Maybe this is the test case we all need to watch carefully.

About this newsletter 

Today’s newsletter is written by Jodie Hopperton, based in Los Angeles and lead for the INMA Product and Tech Initiative. Jodie will share research, case studies, and thought leadership on the topic of global news media product.

This newsletter is a public face of the Product and Tech Initiative by INMA, outlined here. E-mail Jodie at jodie.hopperton@inma.org with thoughts, suggestions, and questions. Sign up to our Slack channel.

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