Actually, this content was built because it's interesting (and therefore satisfying for users), it ties into our coverage areas and historical mission, and it supports our business.
The format was derived from a British music magazine that I used to read, as described here:
If this were a single-page article, the length would be more than 5300 words long -- or the equivalent of around 20 double-spaced typed pages on A4 paper. Do you think that's more enjoyable to read or scroll through?
Yes, I could have comissioned it as a feature-style article, which probably would have been half as long or less, but I really don't think it would have been as effective or readable as the profiles. For instance, the profiles allow you to easily skip over companies and sections you don't want to read, whereas a feature would force you to skim.
As for generating page views, it's unfortunate that this drives so much online journalism today, but this special feature would have been commissioned regardless if we were using page views, time spent on site, or some other metric.
One of these days, a new business model will come to dominate online media -- maybe even invented by one of the Y Combinator companies -- and I honestly hope it will encourage media outlets to return to an emphasis of quality over quantity. We're in the age of the page view right now, but it won't last forever.
- Whenever you build content for page views and NOT users you make a grand mistake, user satisfaction is what makes those page views worth anything.