Mixx: One Year In, Someone's Dropping the Ball
Mixx.com is a social news site that seems to have everything going for it. It's got more and better features than Digg, it's been integrated into the websites of a healthy list of huge mainstream media properties and, for the developers out there, it's got one of the most interesting APIs available today.
For some reason, though, it doesn't have much traffic. Mixx will issue a report tomorrow summarizing progress since work began on the site one year ago. The company is releasing traffic stats that show a nearly 3X increase in visitors in May. The surprise after all this good news? Fewer than 1 million people visited Mixx last month, less than 5% of the traffic that competitor Digg saw. Given the circumstances, Mixx's glaring lack of success to date calls a number of things about this industry into question.
Mixx Should Be Big
Mixx functionality is now baked into the websites of USATODAY, LATimes, CNN, NYTimes, Reuters, NPR, Slate, Weather.com and an unknown number of blogs. The company has taken investment from the LA Times, undoubtedly a part of why all these other publishers are willing to consider working with Mixx. No doubt those sites also want to see a phenomenon like Digg that they can win on; publishing partner sites get preferential display on Mixx. That's something that would-be repeat visitors might not appreciate.
You would think that if that integration was executed effectively and if those sites' visitors had any interest in voting on news stories - Mixx should be getting far, far more traffic than it is. There are many sites around the web who get more than 1 million unique viewers each month without links in every story on some of the biggest sites on the internet. Something in implementation or strategy is going very, very wrong.
Mixx users might really like having a small, focused community on the site. That makes sense for them. Having this small a community on the site does not make sense for Mixx's owners and investors though and is not likely to prove a viable situation over the long term. Maybe the site's traffic will more than double next month, though, and perhaps that will happen again in July.
Introduction to User Experience Has Been Weak
Until only recently, first time visitors to Mixx were greeted with an incredibly hostile landing page containing a joke that couldn't have gone over well with new visitors to the site. When they clicked on the Mixx button on a partner page, to vote for a story, visitors were taken to a page that read: "Stop right there - we're going to have to see some ID." Thankfully that page was replaced with a proper landing page days after the CNN partnership began, and it could only have hurt unique visitors so much, but it sure seemed wacky.
Mixx isn't bragging about the number of registered users it has, why does it require users to register in order to participate on the site? Traffic from CNN is a beautiful thing, why not be thankful and let all of convert to users who have interacted with the site whether they've created an account or not?
Does Mainstream Media Even Want to Get It?
More to the point, just like CNN puts links to headlines from The Onion on its front page with no mention of them being satire - so too do these big publishers' efforts with Mixx seem poorly executed. Integration with social media services, particularly ones that take readers off-site, appear to be something that big publishers are doing begrudgingly and in a half-baked way.
Maybe mainstream media readers don't want to click on widgets, don't want to create more accounts on websites unknown to them and maybe they don't even want to vote on the news! Those seem like potential takeaways from a glimpse at Mixx's traffic. It's an awful shame and we hope that something can be done to expose more people to the innovative work going on there.
1 TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4108
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Too bad. I'd love to see how third party services like Mixx have performed when integrated with big media sites. There may be a pattern there.
Posted by: Alex Williams | June 2, 2008 2:18 PM
This will be a whole other story if Mixx keeps up the % of increase they had in May.
Posted by: MrCooker | June 2, 2008 2:25 PM
"Fewer than 1 million people visited Mixx last month, less than 5% of the traffic that competitor Digg saw."
That's the problem right there, Marshall. Compare stats from Digg 1 year in from formation with stats with Mixx 1 year in from formation. You'll have a very different picture there.
I direct you to an insightful article on this sort of comparison written by Brian Hill at http://mixxingbowl.com/2008/01/14/lets-compare-apples-to-apples-and-leave-the-oranges-out-of-this-part-2/
Furthermore, I think the growth is excellent progress for Mixx.
Posted by: Greg Davies aka cGt2099 | June 2, 2008 2:37 PM
Greg, thanks for commenting. I don't mean to be a jerk about it, but looking at that article you've linked to: the author discounted Propeller's early growth, for example, because it wasn't starting from zero - it had the history of Netscape in its favor. Well Mixx isn't starting from zero either, that's the point of my post here. Mixx isn't just a cool little site that came out of nowhere. It's the would-be darling of a bunch of gigantic media brands. Are those partnerships delivering substantial traffic though? No, they aren't. Not yet at least.
A direct competitor to an established site (like Digg, in this case) has to be an *awful lot* better than the one its competing with. I would almost say it's impossible to win on the basis of features. I deduce from what's happening that Digg has all the *important* features. Mixx might add a lot of "nice to haves", but this doesn't bring over a whole community.
They might get a foothold with a big influx from new users, but these users would have probably be comparable content with Digg, had they been offered that instead of Mixx.
Posted by: Meryn Stol | June 2, 2008 2:49 PM
Does anyone know anything about the people or company behind Mixx? They don't really give you much background info on their website.
Posted by: gabe | June 2, 2008 3:11 PM
Glad someone is finally taking a closer look at Mixx, Marshall.
One of the biggest criticisms I've had for it -- and one which still holds water, I think -- is that irrespective of how much traffic it gets, the level of user engagement is utterly anemic.
Often the top stories on the front page will have less than five comments per story. Go down a few and there simply aren't any.
It strikes me as odd (although perhaps, not really, given the kind of walls that go up, as you've noticed) given that one of the things which is supposed to make Mixx "different" is that it listens to its users, and there is a supposed large contingent of disaffected Diggers on the Mixx.
Either they aren't there, or they're there and aren't really using the site.
Ironic that for a social news site, the social aspect is lacking n'est-ce pas?
cheers
t @ dji
Posted by: Tony Hung | June 2, 2008 3:22 PM
I was just about to write about how 1 million visitors in a month seems pretty damn good... but Greg already beat me to it. To me Mixx seems like they're doing pretty well for themselves.
Posted by: Tony | June 2, 2008 3:35 PM
Marshall
You have to wonder, too, if Digg-like interaction is something that, while big with a more technical audience, goes nowhere with a general audience.
Posted by: James Lewin | June 2, 2008 3:38 PM
James, I do wonder that. StumbleUpon has been a pretty huge success and under the covers it's similar - but the interface is really different.
I know it is just a straw poll but does anyone here actually use Mixx? I tried and gave up as there was basically zero community. I use Hacker News a lot, Reddit a lot and Digg a bit (until I remember why I don't like it).
Posted by: Nigel Eccles | June 2, 2008 4:02 PM
Although the features are a bonus, it is the community that makes Mixx a great site. Mixx is still very young, so admittedly the traffic isn't as high as Digg. The users are committed and dedicated in working together to help grow it. The Mixxingbowl.com is a forum by Mixxers for Mixxers. Users directly connect with Mixx.com admins and share their opinions and concerns.
Please look at this chart to see how much Mixx has grown over the past few months: http://tinyurl.com/5wxy9l
Here is a chart that compares Mixx with Propeller, Digg, and Reddit:
http://tinyurl.com/6hembu
This shows that Mixx is increasingly becoming a solid competitor in the social bookmarking space.
Posted by: Reem Abeidoh | June 2, 2008 4:07 PM
I agree with Greg. Nearly one million in a month and very little spam? Sounds like a nice community to me!
Posted by: MikeonTV | June 2, 2008 4:15 PM
Look, 1 million uniques in a month would be great if Mixx was a plucky little site pulling itself up from its bootstraps. That's not the case, though. It's funded and very heavily linked to from 8 of the biggest media sites on the web. Those people are not clicking through the Mixx buttons in substantial numbers.
The space is just too crowded. I saw a TechCrunch post about a new competitor called Newscred (slightly different angle with the whole crediblity thing). Signed up, liked the layout, liked the concept, but then never went back. Same thing happened with Mixx. There's just too many news sites out there.
Posted by: Sumeet | June 2, 2008 4:23 PM
Not to be a jerk about it, but I found this Alexa comparison to also be of interest
http://tinyurl.com/6x7zdo
Posted by: Greg Davies aka cGt2099 | June 2, 2008 4:54 PM
Enough with the mixx love-fest already. Readwriteweb has turned into a Mixx fanboy site. Please!
What about yahoo buzz? Talk about that. At least that site actually gets traffic.
Posted by: Brant Tedeschi | June 2, 2008 4:55 PM
Greg, touche - and I'll raise you with this Compete graph! http://siteanalytics.compete.com/mixx.com+readwriteweb.com/?metric=uv
I looked at all the free traffic stat sites and none of them are anywhere near correct for Mixx or RWW. Thus the absence of any reference to them in the post.
Oops, I see now that my Compete graph ends in April. Whatever, none of the 3rd party services are accurate.
@ Marshall
The numbers are, in both graphs posted by you and myself, are meaningless. The point I was trying to make with the graph was that there is no validity in comparing apples to oranges. Thus it is also when comparing Mixx 2007-8 to Digg 2007-8.
It makes more sense to make the comparison of Mixx 2007-8 (1 year in from launch) to Digg 2004-5 (1 year in from launch) to get a better sense of launch-based growth.
Additionally, you mentioned before that: "the author discounted Propeller's early growth, for example, because it wasn't starting from zero - it had the history of Netscape in its favor. Well Mixx isn't starting from zero either, that's the point of my post here".
What was Mixx known as before it was renamed to Mixx again?
Posted by: Greg Davies aka cGt2099 | June 2, 2008 5:05 PM
With all due respect Marshall, I think you missed what is happening here. Mixx has grown month in and month out. It did in fact start out with zero users less than 8 months ago. We are prefaced on the premise that one-size –does not fit all and that people want to share content in public and private arenas. We are all very proud of our consistent and accelerating growth. We really see no end to it. Further, the community, which has formed their own fan sites, podcasts, and even comic strips based around Mixx is second to none.
Posted by: Chris McGill | June 2, 2008 5:21 PM
Tsk..tsk..tsk RRW. You will never be Techcrunch.:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/06/02/the-cnncom-effect-mixx-more-than-doubles-vistors-in-may-to-nearly-one-million/
Posted by: Silentjay74 | June 2, 2008 6:43 PM
Actually, I see Mixx as one of the examples of start-ups that execute very well and see traffic from that.
Yes, Mixx isn't yet as big as Digg is, but then again, Digg is much older and surely didn't grow as fast in its first 8 months. (Let's not forget that Mixx launched its public beta in October 2007.)
The fact that traffic doubled after CNN added the Mixx-widget to their site also shows that they get a lot of traffic from their partner sites.
They haven't been able to turn that traffic into a community - I think they'll have to find a way to decrease the entry barrier and optimizing the landing page. A better landing page can easily double their "conversion rate" - I have no doubt about that.
From a business development point of view, they're executing perfectly (even though they're a small player, they get their widget on the biggest websites), from a web development point of view, they're doing just fine. You can't get everything right from the beginning, web development is more a process that starts at a semi-optimal point and sees continuing small improvements.
Posted by: Sebastian | June 2, 2008 8:21 PM
I appreciate mixx a great deal because the members of the community treat each other with a level of respect and appreciation I never experienced on digg. The trolls spewing bile and hateful comments on digg are astounding.
It's true that there are very few comments on mixx compared to digg, but it's QUALITY over QUANTITY. Mixx will grow along with its traffic, but the loyal mixxers will never let the site degrade to the utter depravity found at digg.
Posted by: calinazaret | June 2, 2008 8:22 PM
I love Mixx. I did a lot of checking out other social media sites before settling at Mixx, and I am amazed at the enthusiasm of its community, the responsiveness of its employees, the general respect in interactions that I haven't found anywhere else, just so many things. And goodness, all the wonderful features that keep coming! I've never gotten so excited about a website before, and I just felt the need to speak up! And we're growing like whoa!
- Katharine, and enthusiastic Mixx user (katharinec)
Posted by: Katharine | June 2, 2008 8:37 PM
wow, i was hoping to read a decent in-depth article but that didn;t happen at all. it doesn;t feel like much research nor thought went into this article. If it had, then the article might not even have been written... at least not until a few months down the road when more critical data is available. Ok, maybe this was deliberately a "1 year in" analysis so fine. But i agree with some other commenters here that this is an unfair assessment of the mixx.com team/community. it feels like this was written from inside the web 2.0 bubble with too much emphasis on digg.com success.
Posted by: sull | June 2, 2008 9:21 PM
I just found out about Mixx two days ago, and now it's one of my top landing sites.
I'd say give it a bit of time, as it seems user friendly and has news from all over. Much better than hitting the NY Times and Washington Post main page like I usually do throughout the day.
I stopped using Newsvine a while back, too clumsy and always changing. Mixx seems to be less flash, more news and I like the voting mechanism on stories.
Good product, hang in there.
Posted by: Captain John | June 2, 2008 9:45 PM
I always felt intimidated when on Digg. I don't think I'm unintelligent, but I AM only 56% geek and that wasn't enough to make me feel welcome there. And here, Greg Davies has shown you a perfect example of why people like the Mixx community--friendly, helpful and courteous. Thanks, Greg!
Posted by: Melanie | June 2, 2008 9:46 PM
first mover advantage
only a finite number of people with time on their hands for such stuff - digg got them first
Posted by: gregory | June 2, 2008 9:49 PM
big media = passive consumers
so big media links are no help
Posted by: gregory | June 3, 2008 1:00 AM
you know, i've been using mixx for about 6 or 7 months now, and although it's pretty good, i have to agree it's not that social.
no one ever comments on anything, not like on Digg, or Youtube or many other sites.
part of the reason is the interface. awhile back i was in an email exchange with Mixx's personel, and i gave them some good advice about this (as a web developer that started back in about 1995) and they refuse to follow it.
they need to make Mixx easier to comment with, and they won't and it would not be hard. they are already using the Web 2.0 technology that could make it easy and cool, but right now, if you are on any of the main pages you have to open a new window to go and see the comments and comment on a story. that is a different window then the one you get when you look at the story.
big mistake. and i've now mentioned this enough times...
if they want to make it hard, that's their problem. i'm talking about something that would take all of 3 hours for ONE developer to implement, but they just won't do it.
Will, Chris, Kerry, i hope you see this, and i hope you revisit my emails of a couple of months ago for some other good ideas.
it's either social or it ain't, and i'm saying it really isn't because you make it hard for people that are lazy and have a hundred other sites to use too, and also have lives, and stuff, and don't want to bother spending the extra time and energy to open up a bunch of windows to simply comment on a story. and i'm one of them more often than not.... i'd say close to 80% of the stories on Mixx get ZERO comments.....sad. truly sad.
Mixx crew, ignore this at your own peril.
love, yoda.
Posted by: yoda on mixx | June 3, 2008 1:45 AM
Dudes, one of the hardest thing to obtain on the Internet is good distribution channels. Mixx has this and is getting banner ad-like traffic numbers. This is a failure.
Luckily their distribution isn't going anywhere anytime soon, so they can always turn the ship around. I hope there will be a follow-up article in a few months.
Posted by: joseph | June 3, 2008 2:49 AM
I think in time Mixx will be *there* in terms of traffic. Mixx has a very sticky quality that will help it outshine the competition. After all Rom wasn't built in a day and Mixx has a lot of competition that is already firmly entrenched in the social news scene.
Posted by: Allen Harkleroad | June 3, 2008 3:30 AM
I'm see the value of readers commenting on news articles, as it helps us understand different perspectives.
With that said, that is not what I like the most about Mixx. The voting mechanism allows me to quickly see what people feel about the importance of the articles. As someone said earlier, we only have so much time to spend online and in the real world.
To coin a phrase, "it's the attention deficit economy, stupid."
A simple comment link to the right of each news story may solve this 'glitch.'
Overall, however, keeping it simple and letting people see the basic rankings of what members think are important stories of note (to me) is very helpful and I like it. And I think, as the attention economy continues to increase its pace, it will become more important.
And that is a good thing for sites like Mixx that understand that.
Posted by: Captain John | June 3, 2008 4:12 AM
I think comment #30 nails it...
The primary sources that drive traffic to Mixx are used to talking "at" their audience; engagement means watching, not joining-in. The level of participation at Mixx is simply a reflection of that.
Posted by: Andrew Terry | June 3, 2008 4:13 AM
Andrew, I think the term 'engagement' actually means to engage, as in to participate in. And I disagree with your premise that primary sources 'drive' traffic to Mixx.
Until I knew it existed, none of the major media outlets routed me to Mixx.
Now, however, it is the Mixx website that I hit first thing in the morning (ok, I'm a news junkie), and it drives me to the major media outlets, as well as some news sites I wouldn't have even considered looking at for the day's news.
And that is a good thing - for me, for Mixx, and for the major and minor players in the news field.
Posted by: Captain John | June 3, 2008 4:49 AM
I've just looked at mixx.com for the first time and the first impression that I get is that there is way too much to do. Digg is one thing, boom, news.
If mixx got rid of the popular photos on the home page and made the popular stories section bigger, there would probably be much more interest.
Sometimes a site just needs to look dumb to attract users. Making it sophisticated doesn't guarantee hits.
Posted by: Don V | June 3, 2008 8:48 AM
That, I think, is the biggest IF...
Posted by: kayvaan | June 3, 2008 9:13 AM
I think a lot of the problems are just normal growth problems.
Good of you to bring them up, though, because they definitely need some attention.
Posted by: Ben | June 3, 2008 9:29 AM
mixx.com has a long way to go. The challenge for mixx is to figure to how to have users in a different demographic (stay home mom ?) from digg's to vote/comment more. Totally agree w/ Marshall its growth is not impressive given its exposure on top media sites.
It is hard to please everyone on UI -:). However in this case, some PERSONALITY and ease of use enhancements can help a great deal. I used it long time back and found its navigation not intuitive and too many different sections on landing page before giving up. Also found it odd why I couldn't remove a group.
Posted by: Andy | June 3, 2008 10:53 AM
I find it interesting that you didn't interview any actually mixx users for this article. Wouldn't that have been important? I call shenanigans. Essentially, you've written an article about a subject you know very little about aside from numbers from a third party which may or may not be accurate. Nice.
I hope the rest of readwriteweb doesn't have the same policy.
Posted by: Julie (aka calinazaret) | June 3, 2008 1:12 PM
I started using Mixx just a few months ago and I've found it to be a very active community, even though small, at this point. I do feel there are a few issues with the actual "mixxing," however. I like the groups feature but I don't like how a vote in one group doesn't necessarily carry over to another. It's nice to be able to spread news around different groups, but I feel that a story can get lost that way.
And I think it's important to remember that not all successful ventures or websites need to skyrocket within a year, or be considered in "serious trouble." Mass media outlets can sometimes take years to catch on. It doesn't mean its not successful. In this time of countless media outlets, I do believe there is a sort of fatigue setting in. It's those sites that stick with it and appeal to loyal users that will come out on top. I think we get spoiled by "bubble" companies and runaway success in an instant gratification world that we forget ... Rome wasn't built in a day.
Posted by: InternetMan | June 3, 2008 1:26 PM
The number of unique visitors has increased every month. Considering the competition, that hardly constitutes "dropping the ball".
Posted by: FatLester | June 4, 2008 6:49 PM
Maybe its partly to do with the name? "Digg this" is intuitive, while "Mixx this" - with what? Tequila? Salad Dressing? With a spatula? Hmm... or is this going to take me to a music site?
The other thing that bothers me is the connection to big media. Big Media == "the establishment" == "not good..." (at least in some minds), so people like me would stay away "by principle" if we knew about the Big Media connection.
On the other hand, maybe it is Everything to do with the name.
Posted by: BartMan | June 6, 2008 7:42 AM