--- slug: fn-src-email-1659d1a3e3d107b3 title: "Fwd: Tom & Maureen: On Success Of Point / Counter-Point Reception On Today's Articles" kind: source_email status: published hash: 245597540d66462ba95758bfa018a14bf5796368a0967e4846c540406093f398 created: 2026-10-11T06:57:26.156Z updated: 2026-10-11T06:57:26.156Z summary: "" tags: [] above: ["[[fn-index-emails]]"] below: [] adjacent: [] nested: [] --- # Fwd: Tom & Maureen: On Success Of Point / Counter-Point Reception On Today's Articles # Email ## Attachments No attachments. ## Message From: Cyrus Massoumi To: Ashleynreis Subject: Fwd: Tom & Maureen: On Success Of Point / Counter-Point Reception On Today's Articles Sent: Sun, 2 Sep 2018 18:44:27 -0700 Sent (UTC): 2018-09-03T01:44:27.000Z Sent (America/Los_Angeles): 2018-09-02T18:44:27.000-07:00 Account: 62ca724fdabf40deba435e42eb88ef18 Gmail message: 1659d1a3e3d107b3 Thread: 1659cfd4f36120bb Message-ID: CAMG-JC8cdLO_KNfCmoo5NRC-1hRJbnQM0W-KOenYhp2V0GsZ0w@mail.gmail.com References: CAMG-JC8qyrkOTrVkG7yD1WQWr7YuzmdPCxU+8FCwMZH+1RVd_A@mail.gmail.com Body coverage: full Body format: markdown ## Body ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: **Cyrus Massoumi** <[massoumi.cyrus@gmail.com](mailto:massoumi.cyrus@gmail.com)> Date: Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 6:36 PM Subject: Tom & Maureen: On Success Of Point / Counter-Point Reception On Today's Articles To: Tom Edwards <[tom.edwards@tjedwardsgroup.com](mailto:tom.edwards@tjedwardsgroup.com)>, Maureen Mackey <[maureen.mackey@lifezette.com](mailto:maureen.mackey@lifezette.com)> Tom & Maureen, Wanted to make a brief notation on the two successful articles today. We have as of now experienced content success on (2) posts, (10) Tweet responses to the McCain funeral & (3) Eulogies at McCain funeral. Both of these pieces of content are operating at a high efficiency and both are having success on the Conservative & Liberal market spheres. I believe that in upcoming time there will be preference shown by social networks to pieces of content which are inclusive of elements from both sides. Content which runs as point counter-point has the opportunity to perform at a 400% higher efficiency than content which isn't (which isn't to say not to do partisan content, but only to comment on the efficiency of posts which can be posted to both markets, and to summarize the mathematical benefits of it) When an event occurs resources are used to describe the event, Subsequently the event is responded to ~ often times myriad people respond to it, outlets such as TheHill run each of these iterations as individual stories. Stories are for purposes of (social) media economics not stories, but, data nodes. A story propels itself across a social media API graph at its basis speed + its share/interaction factor (viral co-efficient). So a story (in an algorithms eyes a data node traveling across its graph) is even at a high degree of efficiency only viewed by a nominal % of people who ~might~ see it. For example when TheHill posts event & person #5 responding to it, they have at that time juncture produced (5) story events, none of which benefit from previous iterations. In the event that content is stacked, to be inclusive of previous iterations, and run on a sub-category of the site outside of public viewing in this stacked iteration, it reduces the workload requirement from the editorial perspective, increases the content field in the article itself, and the byproduct is that we have more events to trigger a success. Example: A big story happened REG. Cohen, Maureen went to substantive lengths to work on it, I went to substantive lengths to headline it, and when we posted it as a node on the graph there was a failure, we couldn't repost it, and it was essentially dead. >If we had run an iteration thereafter then we could have reduced the time field to say 10 responses to the event, or a TV event which could be added, the adjustment to the content field would have been a nominal % of modification, but, the redundancy could have been inclusive of everything which went into the entire composition before, including the HL work, the image work, ETC. ~ When something exists as point-counterpoint you have a reduced drop-off since people are engaged with content which is inherently perhaps more controversial. If they enter as "Conservative" or "Liberal" they enter into a content field which is linear with their thought progression, if content is point-counterpoint, it isn't neutral, but, it isn't linear. >The market size is doubled, the content style isn't symmetrical, the content field is mathematically more robust, and the content possibility is expanded upon. Articles suffer or gain from binary commitment or failure. People either go into them or don't after engaging in an original commitment (click). Assuming that point-counterpoint causes a higher commitment ratio, the inclusion of point-counterpoint reduces the scope of procuring elements (such as responses) since they are from both sides of the spectrum, and adds to the possibility of depth/time on article since there is more content. Many of these qualitative elements shouldn't be judged independently but should be viewed as compounding variables. >When traffic may have been at (x) until another content piece was brought into possibility, the iteration move moves it there expeditiously. Content isn't wasted if it can be moved in an iterative manner and then done in a modified form. >>The iteration has a success, real time moves to (2x). Then there is another story, and the stall period between producing the content piece that follows is time spent while the cycle is being acted upon with maximum efficiency. Every day has a limited # of events, thus, any news cycle has a limited QTY of traffic since you can only post about # of events/%*# of events, or # of events * iterations, so, by moving horizontally across content instead of vertically through a cycle it creates less friction on production and expands utility. Event = x (where x = article time, depth, cost, ETC.) Event + point-counterpoint response = fractional x cost, but, exponential to qualitative attributes. Let me know your thoughts, -CM ## Facts ```json { "platform": "Gmail", "source_id": "1659d1a3e3d107b3", "date_as_recorded": "Sun, 2 Sep 2018 18:44:27 -0700", "from": "Cyrus Massoumi ", "to": "Ashleynreis ", "subject": "Fwd: Tom & Maureen: On Success Of Point / Counter-Point Reception On Today's Articles", "category": null, "body_status": "full text (agent capture)", "account": "massoumi.cyrus@gmail.com", "retrieval": "/home/hatch/workspace/email/gmail/74c79e853c76970de7d58ccd588363546b489754b709b959957922e347875d41.md" } ``` --- **above:** [[fn-index-emails]]