Why chasing viral traffic is a race to the bottom

For a long time, virality was digital publishing’s north star. Editors and commercial teams alike prized content that could “go big” on social media—driving massive spikes in traffic, engagement, and ad impressions. But in today’s media landscape, the strategy is showing serious wear. Publishers who remain stuck in the viral mindset risk sacrificing their editorial identity and alienating their core readers, all for metrics that rarely deliver long-term value.

Viral traffic might look impressive on a dashboard, but it’s often a hollow victory. It’s time to reconsider whether these short bursts of attention are worth the editorial and commercial cost.

The hollow promise of scale

Viral content offers a seductive pitch: publish a story that resonates broadly and reap the rewards in visibility, reach, and revenue. But this rests on two assumptions—that reach equates to value, and that fleeting attention can be converted into loyal engagement. Neither is reliably true.

The economics of digital publishing have evolved. Volume-based advertising remains important for many outlets, but the returns are declining. Programmatic ad rates are often underwhelming unless traffic is sustained and targeted. A reader who visits once via a trending link, reads half a paragraph, and never returns does little for your bottom line.

As Tony Haile, former CEO of Chartbeat, put it: “The attention web doesn’t reward traffic—it rewards engagement.” His platform’s own research suggests viral articles bring in high numbers of first-time visitors, but with low dwell time and poor return rates. Worse, they rarely translate into email subscribers or paying readers. Without an intentional strategy to retain that traffic, it washes away like sand.

What publishers sacrifice for a spike

To chase virality, editorial teams are often forced to compromise on depth, tone, or integrity. The demand for speed and shareability favours reactive content, listicles, simplified hot takes, or “content for the algorithm”—designed more for feeds than for readers.

This often results in copycat journalism. Dozens of outlets cover the same topic in near-identical ways, offering little original insight. The pressure to capitalise on trends means less time for in-depth reporting, fewer resources for specialist beats, and a narrowing of editorial ambition.

Publishers also learned hard lessons during the pivot-to-video years, when algorithmic nudges from platforms like Facebook encouraged mass investment in a format that proved commercially unsustainable. Entire editorial teams were reshaped or laid off based on misleading metrics, only for the promised audience engagement never to materialise. That episode became a cautionary tale about the dangers of building on borrowed ground.

The risk to brand trust

Trust is a precious asset—and chasing virality often undermines it. Sensationalised headlines, misleading thumbnails, and exaggerated claims might boost click-through rates, but they erode credibility. Once readers feel manipulated, they’re unlikely to subscribe or recommend your content.

The Reuters Digital News Report 2024 showed a strong correlation between perceived trustworthiness and willingness to pay for news. Publishers that consistently deliver accurate, useful, and well-framed content are those most likely to succeed in reader revenue models. Loyalty isn’t just about content quality—it’s about consistency and alignment with audience expectations. If your output varies wildly depending on what’s trending, readers lose their sense of what you stand for.

A better way to grow

Rather than aiming for maximum reach at all times, the most successful publishers today are those investing in “slow metrics.” These include return visits, time spent on site, email open rates, and subscriber churn—metrics that reflect genuine interest rather than passing attention.

Consider how titles like The Atlantic or The Information operate. They don’t try to win the social lottery with every story. Instead, they invest in quality journalism, publish with intention, and build products designed to meet the needs of their most engaged readers. The payoff is a deeper relationship with a smaller but more valuable audience.

Similarly, platforms like Substack have shown the power of niche content delivered with consistency. Many successful writers on the platform don’t go viral—they go deep. They serve communities who trust their voice and make a habit of returning.

There’s also renewed interest in owned channels like newsletters and apps, where publishers can bypass the gatekeepers and develop more direct relationships. These spaces offer more control, richer data, and a buffer from the ever-shifting winds of social media.

The long game

Going viral isn’t inherently bad. When a piece of content genuinely resonates and spreads, that’s a signal of quality and connection. But making virality the core strategy is a mistake. It leads publishers away from what makes their voice distinct, their product valuable, and their relationship with readers durable.

In the end, the race to the bottom isn’t a race anyone wins. It exhausts editorial teams, devalues content, and makes it harder to build something that lasts. Publishing is better served by playing the long game—where trust, depth, and audience understanding matter more than the latest trend in the feed.