Articles by: "Bryson Masse – Independent Journalist"

Publishers and platforms face off over the value of news

July 27, 2023 Bryson Masse – Independent Journalist

Internationally, regulators are increasingly taking measures to address the impact that platforms have on the news business. In response, big tech platforms are trying to make the case that news is not central to their popularity or success, and going so far as to block news and political content in the face of new journalism-funding regulations taking shape around the world.

“This is now a global phenomenon and big tech platforms like Meta and Google can’t keep using bullying scare tactics. They have to show up and be prepared to negotiate meaningfully,” according to Jordan Guiao, research fellow at The Australia Institute’s Center for Responsible Technology.

Lawmakers in many different jurisdictions have begun to respond to the critical damage big tech platforms have inflicted on the funding model of the world’s media business. Those steps include the News Media Bargaining Code in Australia, the Online News Act in Canada and the proposed Journalism Competitive and Preservative Act in the U.S. (which Digital Content Next has endorsed). These laws are designed to mandate these tech companies to compensate publishers for the inclusion of the news content that is shared, or found their platforms.

To bolster its position, Meta points to a study it commissioned from NERA economic consulting group which concluded that having platforms pay for news content wasn’t justified. However, advocates for the media industry dispute the accuracy of the findings.

“People who consume news tend to spend a lot of time on a platform,” said Paul Deegan, chief executive of Canadian trade association News Media Canada. “They go there for news. They come back for more. They’re an attractive demographic in terms of skewing higher on educational attainment and income.”

“Just in terms of value, [big tech platforms] get tremendous value from news,” he said.

Devaluing the news

However, according to Instagram chief Adam Mosseri: “[F]rom a platform’s perspective, any incremental engagement or revenue they might drive is not at all worth the scrutiny, negativity (let’s be honest), or integrity risks that come along with them.”

So, in response to increasing pressure to compensate publishers for news, and their own research findings that it doesn’t provide sufficient value to them, platforms have pulled back on including news content on their services.

In February of 2022, Facebook dropped the word news from users’ “news feed.” And in June this year, publishers noted a significant drop-off in traffic from the site, suggesting an algorithmic adjustment to devalue news. And, after the launch of Threads earlier this month, Mosseri said that the platform would not take any steps to “encourage [politics and hard news] verticals.”

Tit-for-tat

In a direct response to policy efforts platforms have gone so far as to block news content altogether. In 2021, Meta not only blocked users in Australia from seeing news content on Facebook but prevented them from posting links to any news stories, regardless of where they were published. In less than a month, the company relented and has since signed licensing deals with publishers in Australia. Job postings in the country’s media sector are up 46% as of April this year.

However, with the passage of the Online News Act in June, Meta and Google have taken a harder tack against these regulatory efforts. Already the platforms have canceled previously struck deals with Canadian publishers and have started to block news in the country.

Reprinted with the permission of Luke LeBrun (@_llebrun) Editor, PressProgress

In February, Google conducted a test to assess the impact of blocking news access for Canadians altogether as it evaluated possible responses to the Act. The company is reportedly holding off on fully implementing its response until the regulations are made by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. Since the passage of the Act last month, Meta has started to intermittently block Canadian news sources on its various services.

According to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Canada has no plans to back down. In fact, they’ve taken the fight to a familiar battlefield on this issue: advertising. Publishers and the federal government in Canada have pulled their advertising from Meta’s services. Per regulatory filings, Canada accounts for $3 billion of Meta’s $117 billion in annual revenues. “The company is running the very real risk of losing more in revenue than they would pay news businesses under the Online News Act,” Deegan told the Financial Times.

The battle has escalated to news publishers rejecting Meta’s ads on their sites, which were purportedly intended to inform Canadian audiences about the news blocking initiated by the big tech platforms in Canada.

Next steps?

Navigating what comes next will be the challenge facing both regulators and publishers.

As of now, a version of the JCPA in California passed the state assembly in a 55-6 vote in June. Despite this, the bill has been put on hold for two years, with an initial state senate hearing scheduled for July 11 this year pushed back to 2024.

Other commentators in Canada view the contentious moves in response to early attempts to regulate the big platforms as an opportunity to further address the wider problems caused by the big tech companies.

“While the government of Canada certainly does not have the power to go back in time and block the consolidation that has occurred in the digital ad market, it is able to empower our competition and privacy commissioners to conduct an investigation into how Big Tech operates in the Canadian ad tech market,” wrote Taylor Owen, Beaverbrook Chair in media, ethics and communications, and Supriya Dwivedi, director of policy and engagement at the Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy.

As well, there’s skepticism that Meta and Google can survive the reputational risks of continuing to block legitimate news sources on their platforms.

“Essentially, I don’t see blocking of news as a viable action for Meta and Google. From the Australian perspective, the news block was a bluff, and we called them out on it. In Canada I believe this will be much the same. And if they prolong it in any way, their reputation as a platform for misinformation will only be validated,” said the Australia Institute’s Guiao. “Meta and Google need news content to legitimize the accuracy, dependability and truthfulness of the information in their platforms.”

Featured Post | Policy

Content production policy captures the global spotlight

February 9, 2023 Bryson Masse – Independent Journalist

Discoverability, funding, IP ownership, and cultural sovereignty are topics at the forefront of how and to what degree streaming companies should be put under government regulations. As today’s over-the-top streaming platforms continue to navigate emerging domestic rules and regulations, jurisdictions outside the U.S. have started to introduce new content and funding obligations for these services.

The ability to transcend borders has long been a defining characteristic of video streaming platforms: Anyone with an internet connection could view all the content. Initially, incumbent broadcasters and traditional distribution channels faced massive disruption as consumer preference shifted away from linear channels to the choice of what to watch and listen to from hundreds of options. With the wide adoption of digital distribution technology, streaming services became content creators themselves, while traditional content producers launched non-linear platforms to compete.

As is often the case with rapid technological advancements, legislation and regulation are now playing catch up. Local players in global markets have long made the case that the playing field must be leveled against the size of U.S.-based streaming companies, and officials have started to listen. Regulations are evolving to include localized content mandates and participation in domestic industry. Here’s how it’s playing out.

Europeans make early moves

In 2018, the European Union passed the Audiovisual Media Services (AVMS) Directive which included stipulations that the streaming platforms must offer a 30% quota of European content to European consumers. It also built a framework that allowed individual countries to mandate the streamers allocate revenues back into domestic production.

Right now, France is one of the countries with strongest local content rules. Streaming platforms must reinvest 20 to 25% of the domestic revenues back into French production. In France and elsewhere in Europe, since the regulations have been in place, Netflix has reached or exceeded the 30% local content requirements.

English language markets feel the squeeze

Because of the cultural juggernaut that is the U.S., other English-language regions have long felt compelled to shore up local production with support from their respective governments. This trend continues to be a flash point in debates about government overreach.

At the end of January, the Canadian senate passed Bill C-11 or the “Online Streaming Act,” an updated version of the country’s Broadcasting Act, which will allow the federal regulator to include international streaming services in its powers to levy fees and control how content is displayed. It’s expected to become law within a few weeks. Canadian governments have long sought to counter the influence of the cultural output south of its border, and the legislation attempts to extend those rules into the online space.

Similarly, Australia announced its own new “National Cultural Policy” around the same time. While it doesn’t outline the exact plans to regulate online streaming services, the Australian government laid out its goals to address the decline in local broadcasting revenues and bolster the creation of domestic productions.

While the report acknowledged the level of quality and popularity of the current slate of Australian content on the platforms, “these services have no requirements to make Australian content available on their platforms. The ready availability of mass content produced in other countries, particularly the United States, risks drowning out the voices of Australian storytellers,” read the Australian government’s cultural policy plan “Revive.”

While no longer part of the AVMS, the UK’s government continues to investigate the creation of rules so that the Office of Communication (Ofcom) will have jurisdiction over overseas streaming services. This recently came to a head when complaints about the Netflix docuseries featuring Prince Harry and Meghan Markle had no official avenues to be heard.

Canada’s new legislation stands out

The proposed legislation north of the border has faced headwinds from entities both large and small because of the unique nature of the proposed laws. “C-11 is a bit of an outlier. In that it extends to user generated content on platforms like YouTube or Tik Tok. The European example does not,” said the University of Ottawa’s Canada Research Chair in internet and E-commerce law, Michael Geist.

Major pushback has resulted in the inclusion of user generated content and subsequent amendments have been put forward to avoid some of the issues with attempting to put all online content under the Canadian regulatory umbrella.

In September, Disney and Spotify asked the federal government to be more flexible about what it considered “Canadian content.” The streaming services warned that certain material, while ostensibly produced in Canada with a Canadian cast, wouldn’t count under the current rules, which include Canadian ownership of intellectual properties.

However, it’s worth noting that trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) include provisions that protect the ability of companies to trade in audiovisual services across the Canada-U.S. border. Already, the U.S. embassy has expressed reservations about the proposed laws violating non-discrimination terms of the free trade agreements signed by the two countries.

While the bill is slated to pass the legislature, much of the specifics will need to be determined by the arms length content regulator the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunication Commission (CRTC). So the final rules and the structure of the regulatory framework remains unclear and will be subject to a public consultation process.

Despite the efforts in international English-language markets to avoid being drowned out, English language markets still generally benefit from the sympatico of shared language with the largest content producing sector in the world.

“Those English markets have had significant success, attracting investment from large streaming services and large production companies,” said Geist. “To Canada’s case, it’s a thriving sector that’s based in part on tax, [and] part on proximity to the U.S. market. So I don’t know that that necessarily suggests that what you need is more protection.”

Featured Post | Policy

How Consumer Reports is fighting to save democracy

October 20, 2022 Bryson Masse – Independent Journalist

Publishers and consumers are on the same side in a fight against gatekeepers wielding market power through inscrutable algorithms, says Marta Tellado, president and CEO of Consumer Reports. Her new book, Buyer Aware, explores the promise of today’s connected products and the many predatory practices and commonplace data harvesting and unacceptable risk.

“The marketplace is changing so dramatically, and so rapidly, but the balance of power has shifted away from consumers. I really wanted to kind of reveal to consumers: what does this new marketplace look like? What protections and rights do you have?” said Tellado in a phone interview.

Consumer respect

That’s where her new book Buyer Aware comes in. Tellado weaves together a history of previous consumer advocacy success stories with the challenges people face today while trying to navigate a world where the gatekeepers of the digital media prefer profit over privacy and attention over accuracy.

“Consumer Reports has been around for 86 years. We’re incredibly proud of the consumer rights and protections that we’ve been able to forge with and for consumers. But the reality is, that many of those things do not translate into the digital space. Technology has raced so far ahead of us,” said Tellado.

All of these threads speak to the premise of the book: that the right of consumers to fair marketplaces be deemed equivalent to people’s civil rights – instead of being an afterthought, as it often feels. Tellado says we’ve reached a critical moment on the frontier of consumer protection, one where Consumer Reports is in a position to be highly instrumental. Throughout the brand’s history, the ongoing efforts of its team has led to accountability in the market. And today’s market is in need of increased accountability.

Publishers implicated in today’s issues

While Buyer Aware includes an overview of the state of financial scams (it’s bad), a status report of today’s latest safety issues and industry responses (also not great), a large portion of the book is dedicated to the threat of big tech’s market power and the misinformation in the media ecosystem. These are two issues in which the publishing industry is directly intertwined – Consumer Reports included.

“What many [media companies] are struggling with, is that we’re in an age where we have monopoly platforms that are essentially gatekeepers,” said Tellado. “They stand between us and the consumers we’re trying to reach.”

Tellado says the digital market doesn’t have the standards, the rules, and the guidelines to sufficiently protect consumers from exploitation. And she points out that publishers are at the mercy of search engine optimization and algorithms which ingrain society’s biases. Certainly, consumer rights are important for society. But she says that even beyond this, fundamental American values are at stake.

“Writing the book was also a way to tell a larger story about our democracy, that it can only really thrive if you have a fair and just marketplace. Those two things are incredibly connected.” However, the main thing that Tellado wants readers to take away is that there are constructive paths forward.

She points to the emergence and vilification of “hipster anti-trust” as the force which shouldn’t be underestimated through patronizing nicknames. With Lina Khan’s ascension at the Federal Trade Commission, the potential of real action taken against the big tech giants is palpable. Tellado also endorses the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act helmed by Minnesota Democratic senator Amy Klobuchar as a legislative solution.

Equipping consumers with tools

In a very on-brand “consumer-empowerment” move at the end of each chapter, Tellado suggests ways an average person could shield themselves from perils found in the previous pages. To combat big tech’s extensive reach over people’s private data, Tellado recommends people reduce the amount they hand over. More innovative options for people to leverage are found after following a QR-coded weblink. Consumer Reports has developed online tools people can use to protect themselves. For example, they offer an app that reveals the information companies collect from individuals.

Perhaps this seems ironic considering how much the book pins on other digital systems. But that’s the point: these new marketplaces are a reflection of how our digital tools are used, not that they’re inherently bad. Despite the risks, the work by Consumer Reports and its peers in the media space show us there is a flag to rally around in defense of the rights of the consumer.

Featured Post | Innovation

How quality content and tech are critical for safe online experiences for kids

September 26, 2019 Bryson Masse – Independent Journalist

Increasingly, parents and policy-makers acknowledge that some of the most popular online content channels for children leave much to be desired. That has prompted a push to ensure that content targeted at children remains compliant in a shifting regulatory landscape. It also presents an opportunity to provide places where parents, kids, and advertisers feel secure.

Finding the right spaces for kid friendly content has been challenging on many levels. Issues range from inappropriate content mixed in with kid-friendly viewing, the use of young people’s personal data, and creating content that truly appeals to — and serves — young audiences.

Recently, Group Nine Media ventured into the kids content space with its Dodo Kids YouTube channel. Launched in July, Dodo Kids joins a number of efforts from media organizations that are trying to navigate the challenging kids-specific content channels.

For the creators of some of the most-viewed content on the internet, the existence of the kids content vertical made sense, says Group Nine Media’s chief marketing officer, Rachel Baumgarten. Dodo Kids is “an evolution based on the content that we create, and the audiences that we already serve. The Dodo, as a brand, is already brand safe. [It’s] already a brand that parents watch with their kids, as there’s a lot of co-viewing that happens.”

The strategy starts with content

Group Nine’s move into kids content is paying off. Two months into its run, the numbers have started to come in: views have increased 30% month over month and the YouTube channel has seen more than 1 million unique monthly viewers.

With cute hops and nose boops, best pals Bubbles the pig and Seamus the lamb are two of the many adorable characters found on the Dodo Kids YouTube channel. Beyond featuring appealing animals, Dodo Kids tailors its on screen content to be better aligned with younger viewers. That means less text and more images and voice overs to communicate the messaging.

“It’s playful. It’s fun,” says Baumgarten about the content made for kids aged three to seven. “And it speaks to bonds and relationships, whether in this case, it’s between children and animals, or the relationship that kids have with feeling good and dancing and singing—which is why we went into Dodo Sing Dodo Dance as a franchise.”

Advertisers want in

Having a channel specifically made for kids has also allowed the company to grow deep partnerships with advertisers. An early example is their work with Paramount Film’s Dora the Explorer live action movie Dora and the Lost City of Gold. Content used in pre-roll and a standalone mini-series was created specifically for the main Dodo channel, the Dodo Kids channel, as well as the El Dodo Spanish-language vertical. Baumgarten sees that as a critical way moving forward to maintain brand safety.

“We are looking to create these larger partnerships with brands that are looking to be in a brand safe environment and a trusted environment,” she says.

In producing this material, Group Nine Media has also maintained compliance with a slew of policies that protect younger viewers. Any sort of product integration needs a distinction or call as advertisement. There aren’t any third party websites or social platforms linked to in the content. The Dodo’s legal team reviews product integrations before launch. And any on-screen personalities linked to the editorial content aren’t used to sell products or services.

“[Parents] want them to be able to see content that they know is regulated and safe and is trusted,” says Baumgarten. “So it felt like the right time to lean into kid specific programming.”

Evolving regulations require nimble strategies

The efforts at The Dodo are occurring at the same time as the overall regulatory environment continues to change. YouTube has settled its case of non-compliance with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (Or COPPA). Beyond a Federal Trade Commission fine of $170 million, there are changes for publishers on the giant video platform. While the changes have yet to be deployed, it appears that content flagged for children will not include personalized ads and comments fields will be disabled as well.

According to a blog post by lawyers at Fenwick & West LLP, this interpretation of COPPA could have implications for the wider publishing business. The FTC made clear that companies can be found liable for non-compliant content even if they have “actual knowledge” of the subject matter and target audience. That means, even if the kids content is found on a website targeting the general population, the platform should be prepared to make special arrangements to make sure the content and technologies comply with the COPPA rules.

Regulatory clarity opens new avenues for solutions

However, newly clarified standards could prove to be an opportunity for emerging players in the online kids video market. Dylan Collins, CEO of U.K.-based SuperAwesome, says that the current methods of age-verification will no longer be enough to protect against liability in this space.

“Today, for example, when a child goes to a general audience platform, they get an age gate which says tell us you’re over 13. Chances are that that child ticks the boxes and says ‘yes, sir, I’m over 13,’” says Collins. The FTC has made it clear that standard is not good enough, he adds.

In a bid to address the lack of technology efforts to solve some of these problems, SuperAwesome announced the details of its Rukkaz (pronounced raucous) free, ad-supported streaming platform earlier this summer. Made for publishers trying to get the attention of kids aged seven to 12, it will also contain technologies that protect children’s privacy and offer more guarantees to brands and advertisers.

“We want to make sure that kids have got access to all of the creators and influencers that they want, but that they’re able to engage with them and to completely safe environments.” Collins believes that human review of ad media alongside just using context-based targeting, rather than personal info will define the growth of “kidtech” in the next few years.

Since YouTube’s settlement with the FTC, Collins says the interest in Rukkaz’ protected, kid content platform has grown tenfold. The platform is still in development and has not had an official launch. However, content creators are already in the midst of getting onboard, according to Collins.

Going forward, he sees potential in technologies similar to today’s CAPTCHA systems to detect when it’s a younger viewer, automatically directing them to age-friendly content. He also says that the wider internet, used by adults and children alike, will benefit from this new focus on standards and privacy.

“The kids digital media environment is really setting the standard for what I think the adult digital media space is going to look like in five or 10 years time, or certainly where a lot of people want it to go,” says Collins.

Featured Post | Policy

Confused about section 230? You’re not alone.

August 22, 2019 Bryson Masse – Independent Journalist

Hint: Try thinking about it in terms of user-submitted content

Passed in 1996, the Communications Decency Act includes a line under the Section 230 heading which reads: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

Written by (then) United States Representatives. Chris Cox and Ron Wyden, that line has been the shield online outlets have used to protect themselves from liability for certain kinds of content posted by users to their websites. It is important to note that Section 230 has nothing to do with content composed by publishers (user comments certainly count, though). Because of this, the law as become mired in the debate about online speech and the role moderation plays on online content platforms.

The statute is the focal point of the two sides of the American political spectrum—for almost diametrically opposite reasons. Republicans have claimed that it is at the source of infringement of conservative voices on popular online social media platforms. On the other hand, Democrats question why racist or violent content remains online despite calls for increased moderation.

Resolving these different perspectives won’t be easy. But what certainly isn’t helping things is the recurring problem of statue 230 being misinterpreted and misrepresented. These problems only confound the confusion over this already-complex issue. Corrections have been issued: Vox needed to rewrite a piece back in May with a mea culpa and more recently The New York Times took back a claim that Section 230 protects online publishers of hate speech (that’s the first amendment).

Conspiracy theories

Some have accused legacy of media being behind some sort of coordinated attack to undermine the power of big tech. However, Jeff Kosseff, an expert on the subject, offers another explanation.

“I think the problem, really, is just that it’s a complex issue,” he says. “And people don’t think it’s a complex issue because it’s a short law. I mean, the core of it is 26 words. But the problem here is that it’s not intuitive.”

Kosseff is a cybersecurity law professor at the United States Naval Academy and the author of The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet, the 328-page book that tackles the story of Section 230. One thing Kosseff is pretty sure about: there’s no conspiracy. “I seriously doubt that the Sulzburger family is telling the New York Times business section to write that Section 230 protects hate speech. That seems a bit too far fetched for me,” he says.

Historical perspective

That’s not to say all of the media coverage has been wrong either. Kosseff, who worked over seven years as a reporter at the Oregonian, points to pieces in Wired and The MIT Tech Review (both of which cite him) as successfully communicating Section 230’s intricacies. Going forward though, Kosseff recommends that reporters covering the online speech beat develop a better understanding of the statute and its history.

Although passed in 1996, Section 230 originally came about as a way to carry forward a legal principle decided in the 1950s and apply it to the online medium. Since the case Smith v. California in 1959, distributors of content have enjoyed protections against liability of the nature of content they do not produce, as was found in the California. (At that time “distributor” meant an outlet like a bookstore.)

The need for further clarity emerged after legal battles in the early 1990s. Two internet companies were targeted by people who felt they were harmed by the content found on the respective services. The cases resulted in two different legal outcomes. The first company, CompuServe, was spared liability for content on its platform as it had decided to not perform moderation. However, Prodigy, which did edit what was found on its service, was deemed liable for the content on its site.

Net not neutral

These two distinct outcomes are likely at the root of a common misinterpretation of the law: that a content platform needs to be a neutral party to defend itself from any legal claims. That is not the case. Section 230 was written so that content providers could decide what was added their sites by third parties without the risk of legal action.

According to Kosseff, this misinterpretation could be connected with the way the legal departments of news sites have historically navigated the law in relation to examples like crowdsourced projects, user-submitted reviews, and comment forums . “A huge misconception that even lawyers at news organizations have is that if you make any edits or moderate user content, you lose your Section 230 protections,” says Kosseff.

This point of confusion has manifested itself in the debate between the roles of publishers versus platforms. A May op-ed authored by GOP Senator Ted Cruz explained that Facebook risks losing its protection as a neutral platform and instead risked the liability of being a publisher. Except Section 230 specifically means that if you allow third party posting, you do not count as a publisher of that content (with some exceptions like content breaking federal criminal and intellectual property law). The difference between publishers and platforms is “not really a distinction under the law for Section 230,” says Kosseff.

In addition to encouraging reporters on the topic to do their due diligence, Kosseff recommends that publishers retain legal council with the most up to date knowledge. That’s the key to not only reporting correctly on topic of Section 230, but also managing news and other media websites with user generated content, as there could be negative consequences in the most common misunderstanding the law.

“It’s terrible for business reasons,” says Kosseff. “Because if you’re just sort of voluntarily keeping up all the worst content, you’re going to be driving readers away. And there’s no reason for you to do that.”

Featured Post | Innovation

The scoop on why The Washington Post is way into TikTok

August 8, 2019 Bryson Masse – Independent Journalist

Whether it’s hurtling singles to record breaking runs on the charts, or reminding you about your own mortality, music video mashup and sharing app TikTok is now an ingrained part of the zeitgeist.

Beyond the latest remix of Lil Nas X’s Old Town Road, the app has piqued the interest of social media managers at news publishers. Launched by Chinese tech company ByteDance in 2017, the service merged with Shanghai-based lip-syncing app Musica.ly before its popularity really took off in 2018. It became the most downloaded app in Apple’s App Store and hit one billion downloads on all mobile platforms in early 2019.

To catch everyone up: TikTok allows users to record 15- to 60-second looping vertical video. It has a built in editor to add background audio tracks and augmented reality-inspired overlay graphics. It’s huge adoption has been buoyed by using samples of pop music as background tracks. TikTok has partnered with music studios to navigate the tricky copyright status of those tracks and music stars have used the platform to leverage viral memes to spread awareness.

Why is this news?

Why should news managers care though? “To me, the why is obvious. It’s a whole new generation. [TikTok is] basically Gen Z’s biggest platform. Not all Gen Z likes TikTok, but a lot of them love it passionately,” says Washington Post video editor Dave Jorgenson.

Jorgenson has been behind The Washington Post’s push into the format. “There’s not a lot of news on TikTok. And, for someone who works for a newspaper or a broadcast network, that might seem kind of scary. But for me, I was like, ‘Oh, that’s amazing,’” he says. “I mean, why wouldn’t we use this app that — I think as of Friday — was number one in the entertainment section of iTunes.”

Other brands on the app include NBCNews, E! News, and The Dallas Morning News. Though Jorgenson seems to have truly tapped into the TikTok format, attracting a devoted audience to the Washington Post’s TikToks.

A culture of its own

Users spend an average of 52 minutes a day on the app. And, for Jorgenson, it’s been a way to introduce a newer generation to the venerable newspaper brand. But that’s taken a fairly specific strategy. “I’ve been very heavy handed, you’ll notice a Washington Post literal, physical newspaper cameo and we really want that to stick in there. It is funny how many people think that my name is Washington or something,” said Jorgenson.

The other main benefit Jorgenson sees is a pretty wide open space in the app for breaking news. There just aren’t many competitors. But he adds that anyone interested in using the platform should take some time to familairize themselves with the culture.

“Embracing the culture is really important,” he says. Sure, a brand or newspaper can try and jump to profit off the growing platform without figuring out what that culture is. However, audiences “know when they don’t understand the app, and they don’t know what’s going on.”

The scoop on TikTok

But if a brand is considering the space, there are a couple things to understand about going viral on the platform. Similar to Instagram, there’s an algorithmically organized “For You” section where the app surface relevant content for the user. Videos appear based on the Likes given by the user’s social circle.

There’s another unique way that TikTok puts its own spin on sharing called a “duet.” Users of the platform can record their reactions to be played concurrently beside the original video. And, if an account large enough does that, it ends up being a huge boost to viewing numbers.

“Another tip for a newsroom would be to use popular songs that everyone is using,” said Jorgenson. In fact, TikTok displays videos using the same songs together allowing discovery of content along similar themes.

At the end of the day, Jorgenson sees others in the news space following the Post’s lead. “I’ve started to be pretty open about how I do it because I think competition is good,” he says.

“A friendly rivalry is a good thing on any social app.”

Kids digital video is a perilous place and regulation may not be keeping pace

July 11, 2019 Bryson Masse – Independent Journalist

As children’s digital content consumption has come under the microscope and parents are realizing the extent to which popular online video services fall short of their expectations, federal regulators have voted to take away some of the guarantees protecting traditional sources of educational media. At the same time, others are calling on the Senate to leverage COPPA to reign in platforms’ approach to digital video and to enact new legislation to better keep pace with the rapidly evolving digital video marketplace. Clearly, the industry is at a crossroads and children are increasingly dodging traffic in the form of data collection, ad targeting, and unconscionable content—all of which would be unthinkable in the carefully moderated world of kids TV.

Unsurprisingly, YouTube is often found in the crosshairs when talking about objectionable digital experiences for kids. With issues stemming from lackluster privacy protections enabling extensive collection of childrens’ data to recommendations algorithms pitching inappropriate videos, the video social media network faces pressure from the Federal Trade Commission to turn around its platform. One idea from the company is to double down on its YouTube for Kids platform and effectively quarantine kids content from the rest of the site. However, to date, that approach has had some significant problems of its own.

Of course, it’s easy to see why parents like the service: It’s got tons of available content, it’s easy to find, and probably most appealing of all, the large majority of it is free.

Other services, from new market entries to the larger video services like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime Video (as well as upcoming competitors like Disney+), to traditional media networks have implemented features to better safeguard children. Companies like SuperAwesome are developing video platforms that take the risk out of kids content online for parents and advertisers. And Superawesome demonstrates the level of interest in this space, having raised $13 million in funding earlier this year, led by Harbert European Growth Capital. It was also ranked one of the U.K.’s fastest growing companies.

What’s changed

While YouTube holds great appeal and attracts massive audiences, it has yet to unseat one medium that has been guided by rules to protect children’s content for almost 30 years. That would be broadcast television. “It’s certainly the most powerful way to reach the biggest audience. You know, the demise of linear TV has been greatly exaggerated,” says Harold Chizick CEO of Chizcomm and Beacon, the largest media buyer in the children’s programming sector.

While the digital offerings from content companies are more robust than ever, and kids end up watching on more screens, Chizick says that there is a key difference: cowatching. Parents and kids are more able to catch content together when it’s on a larger screen where broadcast TV is usually found.

Additionally, the advertising industry has taken advantage of the dearth of younger eyes. And, in practice, kids end up not being able to avoid targeting technology that leverages collected personal information. That’s challenging as there additional protections for kids and their data under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) which advocates say the federal government is not doing enough to enforce.

Kid Vid

Although the online kids programming business doesn’t necessarily feel ready for prime time, the Federal Communication Commission voted this week to change the rules and regulations surrounding “Kid Vid” or the broadcast licensing requirements of children’s programming called. The changes were originally larger in scope when first proposed by Republican commissioner Mike O’Rielly last winter, in a vote of three to two among the commissioners, the FCC decided to enact an earlier start time for the programming (6 a.m. instead of 7 a.m.), removal of a mandatory 30 minute length for individual programs, and a reduction in reporting requirements for the broadcasters. Broadcasters will still need to air at least three hours a week of educational and informative content.

These changes make sense because broadcast stations need more flexibility to air other important content like local news and coverage of community events, as O’Rielly said in an op-ed at The Hill. As well, encroaching modernity has heralded the shift from linear TV to digital options meaning the burden of regulations falls only on part of the industry. “Notwithstanding this extensive competition in the video marketplace, local broadcasters are the only ones forced to operate under our Kid Vid rules,” he wrote.

In her dissenting opinion, Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said that she was concerned about the reliance on algorithmic recommendations for kids who watch content online. “This [proposal] follows on the heels of reports that automatic recommendation systems can present disturbing videos on the screen, one after the other. As a mother, I am not at ease when my kids before the computer and rely on algorithms to deliver their next video,” said Rosenworcel during arguments before the vote.

Modern regulation

Early on, the changes to Kid Vid had children’s programming advocates—and more recently a group of Senate Democrats—concerned. “The FCC’s assumption that children’s television guidelines are no longer necessary because programming is available on other platforms is simply wrong,” as three children’s television groups said in a fall 2018 filing to the FCC. “To obtain access to non-broadcast programming, households must have access to cable or broadband service, and be able to afford subscription fees and equipment. Many families, especially low-income families and families in rural areas, cannot access or afford alternative program options.”

Christopher Terry, assistant professor at the University of Minnesota Hubbard School of Journalism and Mass Communication agrees. In a phone call, Terry levied criticism at the shifting motivation behind the changes. Originally proposed as a first amendment issue in 2018, he said that was unlikely to fly due to the fact that the FCC has full mandate to regulate the content found on broadcast channel as licensing conditions. The reframing of the changes as a competition problem in an era of changing viewing habits, only came later. Even then, Terry questions who is actually benefiting from more competition.

“There is absolutely no upside for the people who use this programming in this proposal,” says Terry. “The only people who benefit from this is the FCC—they’ve got less paperwork to deal with—and the companies that are going to have more opportunities to figure out ways to get around this.”

With the FCC’s new rules moving forward nonetheless, the need for mature, responsible online platforms for kids content delivery is more critical than ever. Regulators want people to embrace the new online platforms, so there should be a destination which protects the interests of kids and their parents equally as any bottom line.

Featured Post | Innovation

Access and third parties remain concerns as local news goes OTT

June 27, 2019 Bryson Masse – Independent Journalist

Local television news enjoys a somewhat unique vantage point among audiences: It’s America’s most trusted source of news according to the 2018 Poynter Media Trust Survey. Just over three quarters of respondents said that they either trust local TV news “a great deal” or “a fair amount,” beating out network news at 55% and online news at 47%. (Though local newspapers weren’t far behind broadcast at 73%).

But local news is not without its challenges, as younger generations change their viewing habits and cord cutting becomes more common. In fact, bridging those gaps are the stated goals of CBS’ new local news streaming services. Earlier this month, CBS announced the launch of CBSN Los Angeles. It’s the second local news over-the-top service offered by the Eye Network after a version in New York started streaming last December. Available 24/7, the service offers viewers access to not only the regularly scheduled one-hour news broadcasts, but also exclusive news and weather content produced by a dedicated team.

A local stream

The effort is built on the experience and infrastructure of the CBSN streaming service launched in 2014, according to Executive Vice President and General Manager of CBS Local Digital Media, Adam Wiener. “It’s an investment in innovation. We want to be wherever our consumers are and we’re creating product to meet that need.”

While bringing local news to an online streaming might feel like the natural next step in news delivery, there could be reasons it ends up more complex than that. “I love the idea of experimenting with local news,” said Christopher Ali, associate professor of media studies at the University of Virginia. “I’m a huge fan of it, we need to find different ways to keep local news going.”

Ali also points out that the corollary of the fact that younger people not watching the news, is that the main audiences are older adults, Unfortunately, at least at present, this demographic is the least inclined to adopt new viewing habits. He thinks the audience for local news could remain older as there are unique properties of the local news viewership.

Youthful news

For example, to combat declining audiences, a February 2019 report from the Shorenstein Centre and Northeastern University suggested that local news needs to look at online outlets like Vox for inspiration. But that might not be enough to change local news’ fortunes among the young, says Ali. “We tend not to settle down until we’re in our 30s, which means that local politics, local zoning issues don’t tend to matter, really, until we have kids or we buy a house,” he says.

Another factor that marks the CBSN services are their locations in major hubs. With LA and New York online as well as planned expansions to Boston and the Bay Area, there’s not yet talk for movement to smaller markets. “Places that are hurting for local news are the mid sized cities, your Kansas City or St. Louis. These are the ones where we’re seeing the collapse of the newspaper, and also the kind of a less robust television ecosystem,” says Ali. “So how do we scale what CBS is trying to do to make sure that these other markets, which are quickly becoming local news deserts, are going to be served as well.”

Since not all small towns and remote areas have fast internet, that could also stratify the potential audiences for digital local news broadcasts, Ali says.

Consider the source

Valerie Belair-Gagnon, assistant professor of journalism studies at the University of Minnesota, agrees that any move to digital will favor those with better internet access. However, she also says that local news’ move to OTT is “part of a larger trend of news organizations to rely on third party platforms to produce news, reduce costs and a reaction to the diversification and segmentation of audiences.”

While CBS certainly has control over its distribution offering stream access through a website, it also has apps located on the App Store, Google Play Store, Amazon’s Fire TV, and Roku’s streaming platforms. For (relatively) smaller companies, these relationships have also proven to be a challenge to navigate. Apple has been accused of anti-competitive behavior by Spotify, and the music streaming service has filed a legal complaint in the E.U. It alleges that the 30% cut Apple takes from digital purchases grants an unfair preference for their own product.

Belair-Gagnon also worries about the ultimate responsibility of creating journalism could be rendered ambiguous. “In a world where news organizations are increasingly relying on third party outside of regulated channels and where there is increasing opportunities for different forms of storytelling, whose responsibility is it to produce news? Who is liable when journalists relinquish their control over third parties?”

The bottom line is that the need for local news is great and experimentation with ways to serve this market is critical. However, there also remain important unanswered questions in the path to modernize the evening news broadcast.

Featured Post | Innovation

The New York Times helps consumers decide where to draw the line on privacy

April 24, 2019 Bryson Masse – Independent Journalist

The waves of negative press about privacy intrusions and breaches are becoming a regular occurrence. Yet the outrage cycle seems to have a short lifespan and there’s confusion and a range of expectations when it comes to data collection and usage. That said, consumers need to remain vigilant about new and unexpected ways digital organizations leverage personal data collection.

Already, we face some pretty significant questions: Do you want your genealogy company to sell analysis based in your DNA? Your smart doorbell clips accessible by warrant? Mugshot-matching facial recognition capabilities?

That’s why Stuart A. Thompson, graphics director of The New York Times Opinion section, and his team set out to figure out how people report their comfort levels in terms of sharing different kinds of personal information. The work, published earlier this month, is part of the ongoing Privacy Project at the paper. It’s a series examining the different ways private groups and governments are using personal information.

Understanding the limits

Perhaps encouragingly, The Times found that consumers are taking notice of the data collection policies of the services they chose to use. But they’re not exactly excited about it when they find out. Many of the activities asked about — which were found to be outside of 90% of respondents comfort levels — are already employed by tech companies.

Readers were asked about their comfort level about the various ways companies use, or could use, personal information. Credit: New York Times.

Thomson also said that there the results offered clear take always for digital publishers. Acknowledging the reliance on third party tracking in the news site business, he explained that blind acceptance of those practices could be coming to an end. “Even if you have an airtight privacy policy that you feel ok with now, you might not feel as okay with it when people start paying attention to what you’ve done or criticizing what you’ve done,” said Thompson.

Privacy by design

Thompson said the goal of this project is to learn what was “the line” for his readers and he used a pretty clever page layout to do so. Readers scroll through increasingly intrusive privacy scenarios and then place a line over the example which they felt uncomfortable with. This skeuomorphic interaction is a technique that The Times has previously used with good results.

“Drawing things was a New York Times/Upshot trademark way to get people to interact with us,” said Thompson. “We were talking through as a group, and I think we kind of fixated on the line.”

One element Thompson wanted to address head-on was the idea that consumers continue to make privacy related decisions that aren’t in their interest, dubbed the privacy paradox.

Understanding the big picture

However, to Thompson, they’re not acting irrationally or unexplainably. People are just caught in larger systems. Individuals aren’t given real opportunity to give consent of the personal data use, such as in cases where data is required to be handed over in order to access a service, and there aren’t consumer guardrails around those practices.

With appropriate regulation, consumers shouldn’t “have to read every detail of a data policy or a privacy policy to consent to what’s happening, because you have to do that a dozen times a week,” said Thompson. “We’re not prepared for that kind of activity and we’re not very good at it.”

He added that tech companies have taken advantage of consumers’ difficulty with risk management. As a result, governments and regulatory bodies have had to enact legislation like the General Data Protection Regulation in the European Union.

The stakes get bigger

Another example of the push back against the surge in the surveillance economy was a lawsuit against the efforts by Alphabet subsidiary Sidewalk Labs in Toronto. The plan to build a smart city in the portland’s of Canada’s largest city could incorporate any number invasive new forms of data collection.

To nip that in the bud, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association launched an application to sue on the grounds that the wholesale data collection of people who just happen to be in the area aren’t allowed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protections including against unreasonable search and seizure. While this case is immediately relevant for the smart city project, it could help society establish a point at which it “draws the line” about privacy overall.

But at the end of the day, the path to better privacy management could start closer to home.

“As publishers are working in the public interest, maybe they have an additional responsibility to declare what they’re doing,” said Thompson. “You could argue that they are acting in this pure business sense and they have their own lines that they’re willing to to draw, [but] maybe publishers should think about what they’re comfortable with.”

Podcasts are booming. So, what are the revenue models?

March 14, 2019 Bryson Masse – Independent Journalist

If someone asked you five years ago which type of digital media would be seeing its renewed heyday, the podcast might not have been on the top of your list. But indeed, the format – still firmly connected to its broadcast radio roots – is in the midst of a renaissance.

Achieving new heights of popularity means that publishers of the audio-only medium have started to experiment with new business strategies to find a path to monetization.

We’ve seen some innovative approaches in the podcast sector like digital ad insertion, or having ad slots be dynamically filled by more up -o-date or geolocated content. But analyzing the recent business moves gives us an idea of what’s coming next in podcasting revenue.

Will Revenue Follow Audience?

In early February, Spotify purchased podcast publisher Gimlet Media for a cool $230 million. In a conversation with Recode’s Peter Kafka, Gimlet co-founder and president Matt Lieber explained that Spotify wasn’t just its second largest partner but also its fastest growing partner. He went on to say the reasons why the acquisition made sense was a “disconnect between the number of people who are listening and the amount of shows they’re listening to, and the amount of money coming into podcasting.”

With the size and scope of Spotify, Gimlet saw opportunity to overcome one of the fundamental challenges of podcasting: discovery. The competitive landscape means that to have your podcast’s needle found in the metaphorical hay stack, you either need to be lucky or know how to appeal to the right audience.

Lieber told Recode that the data found at the Swedish streaming platform (and its 96 million subscribers) would help with that process. The lack of relevant listener and audience data has held back the podcast industry in the past. Platform controllers like Apple weren’t releasing detailed enough listening data. This made it it difficult to fine tune advertising budgets and understanding your audience.

Value Proposition

That’s not to say this new found access to audiences will change the fundamentally open nature of podcasting at the publisher. While there will be most certainly exclusive productions on the streaming platform, Gimlet’s most popular offerings won’t disappear from other podcast platforms. At the time of the announcement, Spotify said they had no plans on putting the content behind paywalls.

Similar to this approach, there are efforts like the premium Stitcher service which removes ads from their free shows and offers bonuses to subscribers.

Subscription Business

So what about the companies who do want to publish content behind a subscription fee? Podcast publisher Luminary has set its sights on being the Netflix of podcasts. With a planned launch date of June, the service will charge $8 a month to get access to podcasts from the likes of Trevor Noah, Conan O’Brien, and Malcolm Gladwell. The media start up hopes the draw of big names will have people opening up their wallets.

Although, there are those who are a skeptical of the reach of direct to consumer efforts.

“Well everybody wants scale and they want people talking about [their show] and to engage with it,” said NPR’s senior vice-president of programming and audience development Anya Grundmann. “So you haven’t seen a lot of subscription [offerings] from the very beginning when trying to build audience.”

Grundmann pointed out that podcasts often end up being the “carrot” that drives consumer purchasing of subscriptions to news publications. Recently, the Guardian began running podcast ads in the shows they produce for their membership program, which seems to be having positive results.

Reaching the Masses

However, there’s also a drive to reach as many people as possible, much like its predecessor, broadcast radio. “I don’t see us putting our stuff behind a paywall,” said Grundmann of the public broadcaster. “Our goal is to reach as many people as we can and not just people who have money.”

That doesn’t mean NPR has not benefited from new ways to monetize the format. Grundmann said it has extended its podcast-related events business because there’s “so much energy of people wanting to meet people and be part of a community.”

Whether through the draw of exclusive content for power users or listening experiences without ads, direct to consumer offerings from podcast producers are beginning to emerge. But it’s also obvious that the traditional subscription model might not be the best fit for the resurgent industry, as many producers are hesitant to go all the way and lock content behind paywalls. Creators will need to continue to experiment and test strategies to determine the best ways to monetize the connections with their audiences.

Subscriptions make sense. But how many will consumers pay for?

January 10, 2019 Bryson Masse – Independent Journalist

It’s no secret: In the coming year, readers will run up against more memberships, more pleas for donations, and more paywalls. In short, more opportunities for money to escape their wallets to bolster media outlets they have previously accessed free of charge.

Companies like Buzzfeed and Quartz have recently embraced direct-to-consumer business models, joining traditional subscription outlets in a rush away from digital advertising reliant models. Beset by multipronged threats like the internet giants Facebook and Google sucking up all traces of revenue growth, declining consumer trust, and an alarming trend of fraud cases, it’s not hard to see why digital media companies are looking for alternatives.

But this shift comes at a cost. While ad based revenue models optimized for reach, the new normal will be the tailoring of niche content to attract a reliable paying clientele. The Atlantic’s Derek Thompson recently predicted that the entire industry will return to the early days of journalism where a “party press” would stoke the partisan emotions of their readers.

“News media of the future could be as messy, diverse, and riotously disputatious as their audiences, because directly monetizing them is the new central challenge of the news business,” wrote Thompson.

That means that digital publishers will need to navigate the real risk of subscription fatigue. How much are consumers willing (and able) to pay for?

What it will take to survive in this new DTC world?

“As loose paywalls tighten and everyone seeks reader revenue, I imagine audiences will be forced to make choices, especially in what is looking like a dramatically slowing US economy,” said former GIzmodo Media Group CEO and Columbia University professor Raju Narisetti.

He expects that people will begin to add it all up and realize that — given other recurring payments like internet service, mobile, and subscription-based everything from meal services to shaving supplies — their content selection might need to be more discriminating.

Needless to say, publishers need to figure out how to compete for limited discretional dollars. One approach that many are trying is aggregate services like Flipboard, Texture, and Blendle.

Adding Texture

An obvious option could be an even more widespread integration into an app like Texture, purchased by Apple last year. Texture offers a service similar to Netflix wherein a group of publishers bands together to offer a wide range of branded content for a single rate. While currently available to use, there are persistent rumors of a spring relaunch of the service included in a future Apple News update, foreseeably offering an increased amount of content above and beyond the current free selection. It’s hoped that the move would have the same omph Apple brought to its Apple Music platform. At least that’s the pitch.

Publishers remain skeptical, though. “Some executives fear Texture could end up doing more harm than good. Their concern is that Apple could steal their current subscribers, who would save money by reading articles on Texture instead,” reported Bloomberg.

One thing that could change that calculus is the confidence boost of a New York Times-shaped news outlet taking the plunge, according to Narisetti. While he admits it’s natural for the larger players to be cautious, there’s a vector for profit in the service.

“That’s because they are currently giving away up to 20 stories entirely for free on Apple News. So, in my mind, they are actually likely to incrementally gain by monetizing that via Texture, than lose any significant, core loyal direct subscribers to lower-priced subs,” he said.

Once that’s overcome, “the US news floodgates will open up on Texture, much like how NYT paywall given the confidence to the American general news industry,” he added.

But there are always more than one way to approach the problem.

Infinite Scroll

Focusing on user experience, the creators of Scroll.com want to offer a direct to customer alternative which side-steps competing with a publishers revenue models by offering to remove the ads from a collection of publishers for a monthly fee. Sites load faster, users can opt out of advertising, and publishers get a new revenue stream.

“We avoid the problem of cannibalization and instead get to complement rather than compete with them. Most publishers see us as a middle of the funnel service, creating more engaged users who can then be converted into their own plans,” said Scroll founder Tony Haile.

But perhaps the industry needs to learn from the experience of the wider technology industry. Subscriptions are an increasingly popular way of packaging any digital-adjacent service (often dubbed Anything as a Service, or XaaS), whether it be a ride sharing plan, in-app purchases, or even the meals you make for dinner. But they’ve even suffered through the same issues as facing the digital publishing industry.

Value for Life

“As a media company looking at some of the struggles of consumer XaaS companies like Blue Apron last year, I would make sure to focus relentlessly on reducing my churn rate, and increasing the Customer Lifetime Value (CLV) of my paid subscriber base,” said Gabe Weisert managing editor at Zuora, a subscription management platform provider.

He explained that the way towards healthy CLV is to drive usage at every opportunity. Keeping people engaged keeps them paying customers. Strategies which achieve that include cross-selling and upselling. For example, the New York Times saw solid growth of new subscribers from their crossword and cooking app offerings.

To entice their audience, Buzzfeed is offering tote bags for new subscribers, but Amazon is taking those subscriber-enticements to a new level. The Seattle-based retail giant has started offering free sample of items of products based on users’ shopping habits data—with the only goal to getting us to buy more.

“CLV should be the gold standard metric of every media company. That’s all Netflix cares about. It’s all Amazon cares about. That’s why [subscription services] keep giving us “free” stuff — they know exactly how much those investments materially affect the value of their subscriber base,” he said.