The NY times maintains Instagram and twitter. They have themed accounts on both sites, for books, tech, arts, and others. The twitter feeds are frequently updated, while Instagram feeds seem to be falling by the wayside. Even the NYtimes book twitter has been updated twice today already, while the main Instagram account hasn’t been updated in a while.
At the time of this writing, the NYtimes posted on their main twitter two minutes, thirteen minutes, and twenty three minutes ago. The last time they posted on their main Instagram account was yesterday. I think it’s interesting that they don’t post as frequently on their Instagram since the reception on Instagram seems to be more robust. Something newsworthy on twitter that went up at around the same time (15 hours ago), received only 270 likes, 80 retweets, and 164 comments. The Instagram post, meanwhile, garnered 114 comments and more than 10k likes.
There are a few things that could explain the NYtimes Instagram post’s popularity. It is the last thing that was posted, so it’s the first thing that comes up if you visit the NYtimes page. The twitter post, on the other hand, required a lot of scrolling to find. Since the twitter feed posts more frequently, when people check the feed, something that happened 15 hours ago is very far down, and people might not be scrolling all the way down until the last place they checked.
The content could also come into play. The tweet I’m referring to is a story by the NYtimes revealing that the president of the Philippines has a neuromuscular disease. The Instagram post is a fun piece on a themed train ride inspired by “Soul Train.” It’s newsworthy because people are having fun at a unique event, and, as it’s Instagram, so it’s a story with a prominent photo which is easy to relate to.
All in all, though, it seems like the NYtimes is mostly ignoring a platform where news and photos get a lot of good reception.
Lillian W Eden 