Many publishers are struggling with whether to participate in Facebook’s Instant Articles program. The Washington Post is the latest to sign up.

Under Instant Articles, publishers post stories directly on Facebook rather than linking back to their own sites. The social network has sold the program by saying it will substantially reduce load times for mobile users and give publishers access to a much broader audience. Publishers will get to keep 100% of revenue brought in from ads that they sell and 70% if Facebook sells the ad. (Source)

There are some clear advantages and some possible disadvantages to moving content to Instant Articles.

One of the biggest advantages is that almost everybody is on Facebook, so participating in the program gives the brand more reach.

But … does it really? Just because your content is getting out to more people, do they recognize it as your content? For example, do people know they’re reading The Washington Post when they read a Post article on Facebook?

According to Facebook, the publisher gets to create its own experience, consistent with its brand. But I’m not sure how well that’s going to work out. People will still be on Facebook when they see this content, so it’s not clear whether people will remember the content as coming from the publisher or from Facebook.

I applaud Facebook for giving publishers flexibility in branding, but I suspect it will be a while before we know how effectively publishers can brand themselves in that kind of an environment.

Publishers also want to get user data on their readers. As I’ve discussed before, the data can be an important revenue stream. But how much data is Facebook going to give to the publisher? And mightn’t they change the rules later?

In order to better understand what readers want, publishers are also investing in learning more about their readers and connecting with them directly through digital channels, like online communities, social media and direct-to-consumer sales initiatives.(See The Evolution of US Digital Innovation in Publishing)

How is that going to work in the world of these news aggregators? Not just Facebook, but Apple / Google / Flipboard etc.?

At this point there are more questions than answers, but here are some thoughts to consider with respect to these services.

Most importantly, distinguish different types of publishers. When you read online studies and surveys and opinion pieces and whatnot, they tend to lump all of “publishing” together, which is a huge mistake. What applies to daily news will not apply to books, or to legal services, and there are important variations within categories.

Along those same lines, you have to think about the markets that are being served, what they want, and the context in which they want it. For example, there’s stuff I like to read on Facebook, but I certainly don’t want all my news mediated by what my friends happen to post, or what the Facebook algorithm thinks I want. And there’s a lot more to read than just the news.

It’s also important to evaluate how your content will appear — i.e., next to photos of cousin George’s new baby, right above an article from The Onion, next to an urban myth that simply won’t die, and in the midst of the latest social media freakout.

Is that what you really want? Is Facebook — no matter how gussied up and branded — the right place for your content?

I think publishers are going to have to take this slowly and carefully, and I think the most prudent path is to put a limited amount of content in these different platforms and watch the data very carefully.

Generally speaking, I think publishers have been suckers and have not been wise in allowing other entities to profit from their content. But … only time will tell.