Login
close
Login is restricted to DCN Publisher Members. If you are a DCN Member and don't have an account, register here.
Search

Digital Content Next logo

Menu

Articles by: "Mark Glaser, Founder and Publisher – MediaShift"

Mark Glaser is the founder and publisher of MediaShift. He is a longtime freelance journalist whose career includes columns on hip-hop, reviews of videogames, travel stories, and humor columns that poked fun at the titans of technology. From 2001 to 2005, he wrote a weekly column for USC Annenberg School of Communication's Online Journalism Review, and was an executive editor at PBS IdeaLab. Glaser has written essays for Harvard's Nieman Reports and the website for the Yale Center for Globalization. Glaser has written columns on the Internet and technology for the Los Angeles Times, CNET and HotWired, and has written features for the New York Times, Conde Nast Traveler, Entertainment Weekly, the San Jose Mercury News, and many other publications. He was the lead writer for the Industry Standard's award-winning "Media Grok" daily email newsletter during the dot-com heyday, and was named a finalist for a 2004 Online Journalism Award in the Online Commentary category for his OJR column. Glaser won the Innovation Journalism Award in 2010 from the Stanford Center for Innovation and Communication. Glaser received a Bachelor of Journalism and Bachelor of Arts in English at the University of Missouri at Columbia, and currently lives in San Francisco with his wife Renee and his two sons, Julian and Everett. Glaser has been a guest on PBS' "Newshour," NPR's "Talk of the Nation," KALW's "Media Roundtable" and TechTV's "Silicon Spin." He has given keynote speeches at Independent Television Service's (ITVS) Diversity Retreat and the College Media Assocation's national convention. He has been part of the lecture/concert series at Yale Law School and Arkansas State University, and has moderated many industry panels. He spoke in May 2013 to the Maui Business Brainstormers about the "Digital Media Revolution." To inquire about speaking opportunities, please use the site's Contact Form.
Featured Post | Innovation

Will IGTV deliver for publishers?

With a new platform comes the recurring decision for skeptical publishers: How much should they care? And in the case of a new platform from Facebook, there’s every reason to be wary.

Still, publishers must consider the new Instagram TV (a.k.a. IGTV) video app because of two big reasons: 1) Instagram’s very large active user base of 1 billion; and 2) the chance to reach a younger audience via video.

IGTV launched last month as a vertical video version of YouTube, with users able to upload pre-recorded video up to 10 minutes long – or up to an hour for the coveted influentials and those with large followings. Every Instagram user has their own IGTV channel to post this content. For a generation increasingly eschewing linear TV for digital streaming options, it’s yet another way to consume and create video.

Indeed, IGTV puts Instagram in direct competition with YouTube, which has 1.9 billion monthly logged-in users and has long been a destination for video creators. It also competes with its parent company Facebook, which has been boosting its own viewing platform, Facebook Watch. Whether publishers can reap the financial benefits of this new form of production and consumption, though, largely depends on opportunities for monetization. And right now, there aren’t any video ads. Plus, publishers will have to produce programming for yet another platform, possibly leaving IGTV as a place for experimentation and not much more.

Building a Younger Fanbase

At its launch party for IGTV, Instagram cited data that teenagers are watching 40% less TV than they did five years ago. According to a survey by Trendera that was commissioned by video producer Awesomeness TV, 71% of Generation Z say their mode of entertainment consumption is streaming — with 71% also saying YouTube is the best place to watch longform content, and 75% saying Snapchat is the number one platform for staying connected and informed.

If Instagram can marry the Snapchat and YouTube worlds well with IGTV, it can be a prime destination to entertain a younger fanbase that’s used to viewing vertical video, and prefers the direct interaction Instagram offers. For YouTube stars looking to gain younger followers and wanting to take advantage of Instagram’s swipe-based search that makes their videos easily discoverable, it makes sense to experiment with IGTV. And because influentials earn most of their money with brand marketing, they have nothing to lose. So even if Lilly Singh might actually turn to Twitter to announce hiccups with loading content to IGTV, it makes perfect sense that she’s on IGTV.

Whether IGTV will become the primary mode people view other kinds of entertainment, though, is another story. Part of the beauty of YouTube’s horizontal viewing experience is that it is the place where linear TV can become digital. That’s why it’s become a prime spot to watch that late night news clip or music video. And as Wired’s Louise Matsakis and Lauren Goode pointed out, watching video on YouTube isn’t just an isolated personal viewing experience — it can also be social, in that people can play YouTube video on a television or play it out on a computer monitor for friends. “It’s hard to gather around a phone to watch vertical video and even more awkward to [broadcast] one onto a TV,” they wrote.

Publishers Take Note, and Take Chances

For advertisers and brands already turning to Instagram stories, IGTV seems like a natural destination for longer content. However, there’s the risk of looking too stuffy, stilted or worse: an infomercial. News outlets, meanwhile, can use IGTV to release more experimental video stories that can’t fit into Instagram Stories’ one-minute time limit. BBC News, BuzzFeed, Sky News, Vice, The Economist, and Vogue are all early adopters.

But at this point, their IGTV content is a mixed bag. BuzzFeed has been re-posting content from its other social platforms, The Economist is trying its hand at airing short documentaries, and 12 different BBC accounts are funneling content into the BBC’s IGTV channel. The way publishers experimented with Facebook Live comes to mind here.

Although many publishers also had financial partnerships with Facebook to use Live, after a while, the initial excitement at a new method of distribution waned to the reality of resources. Much of that has to do with the fact that for social content to succeed, it has to be customized for the platform — and many outlets just didn’t have time to cater content for Facebook Live. While publishers like the BBC are seeing some success with IGTV, they’re also realistic that we’re still in its early stages.

“We’re not looking to reinvent the wheel, as we want to test the platform and see if it works for us,” Ciara Riordan, BBC News’ deputy social news editor, told the Press Gazette’s Sam Forsdick.

The consensus among publishers at a recent roundtable discussion at CUNY gets closer to the truth: It makes sense for publishers to experiment with IGTV, especially if they can repurpose content from elsewhere and the financial stakes are low. But for IGTV to be worth it, the financial benefits have to be high. Otherwise, IGTV must show itself as a game-changer in attracting new audiences. And so far, neither are true. Instagram has said ads will eventually come to IGTV. But with no way to currently monetize directly from the platform — and the dominance influencers already have on the attention economy — it’s no wonder that publishers, even if they can attract younger audiences, are fine taking a wait-and-see approach to IGTV.

Advertising | Featured Post | Innovation

How digital, streaming services are pushing linear TV to innovate

The idea that digital is the new TV is no longer just an idea, but a reality for many media consumers. A recent report from the measurement company Zenith predicts that next year will be the first year that internet usage globally will eclipse TV time; the same will be true in the U.S. by 2020.

However, that doesn’t mean linear TV — to pinpoint the old-fashioned kind of television programming long associated with the word “TV” — is heaving its last breath. Yes, scaling up against the tech behemoths like Google, Facebook, and Netflix, which are squeezing into the programming space, is a tall order. But linear TV companies can survive by accelerating innovation their own way. They must focus on targeted and addressable ads, emphasize brand safety, and become more like their streaming competition.

Deconstructing TV Advertising

Traditional 30-second commercials still have a place in U.S. television programming, particularly around high-profile events like the Super Bowl. However, alongside the growth of over-the-top television has been the tendency for people to skip over ads with the press of a button. As early as 2010, 86% of TV viewers skipped over ads while catching up on programming saved by their digital recorders. Streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime Video are attractive in part because there is no advertising.

At least not in the form advertising blocks or commercial messages. But there is a less obvious form of advertising happening on streaming services more often than ever: the old-fashioned product placement. Whether show characters eat a certain kind of food or use a particular app, advertisers are working it to get their products written into storylines. KFC’s deal with Netflix to appear in “Stranger Things” is a clear example of product placement in action.

And the revenue makes the trend clear. While the actual number of product placements executed this year declined, the value of each integration has been increasing since 2009, according to Patrick Quinn, president of PQ Media. He predicts the U.S. product placement marketplace will exceed $10 billion this year, thanks largely to more valuable plot integrations — which, essentially, amounts to a more creative form of advertising. So, for linear TV to thrive, it will need to get even more clever with product placements and make them a bigger part of the mix.

Working the Data and Brand Safety

At the same time product placements are booming, and some advertisers are becoming less incentivized to spend money on the diminishing demographics tuning into traditional TV, digital has also had a leg up in another realm: targeted advertising. The wealth of data our digital footprints leave behind has made it easier to cater ads for the niche interests of an individual.

But that’s not to say there isn’t opportunity for cable providers to experiment with targeted ads as well; AT&T, for example, already sells addressable TV — the linear TV version of targeted advertising — through DirecTV, which it purchased a few years ago. With AT&T’s purchase of Time Warner finally approved, this is the chance for AT&T to up the ante and try to scale this up further. The telecom giant has already been working to build a team to focus on addressable ads.

Indeed, one of AT&T’s rationales when purchasing Time Warner was that it needed a bigger advertising platform to compete with the Facebook-Google duopoly. What it lacked prior to scale is what Time Warner can offer: inventory. The pool of content that Time Warner brings to AT&T’s ad platform gives it a fighting chance against Google’s dominant ad buying platform. While Google has had to deal with objectionable content appearing alongside adverts on YouTube, AT&T has the chance here to emphasize its brand safety. And that is what the company, and others, have been pointing out.

A (Realistic) Look to the Future

Still, even if addressable advertising presents a huge economic boost for linear TV — according to the investment bank Credit Suisse, it’s a potential $100 billion opportunity — that doesn’t mean anything AT&T wants to do will happen overnight. Aside from DirecTV and other apps in their own ecosystem, channels under the AT&T-Time Warner banner will have to work out deals with cable companies — which distribute the majority of Time Warner programs — if it wants to use AT&T’s data to beam ads to every house in the country.

While “audience-based” TV ad buying is growing, it’s still minuscule in comparison to traditional TV ads. It makes up only about 10 percent of total TV advertising, according to research from eMarketer. “In terms of the future, it continues to be much more of an addressable (data-driven digital) world as consumers go over-the-top, but that doesn’t mean traditional demographic targeting won’t still play a massive role in the TV advertising ecosystem,” Aleck Schleider, SVP of client and data strategy at the video advertising platform Videology, told Axios’ Sara Fischer. “Especially because the digital TV ad space is still so fragmented and demographic advertising is very unified.”

What’s more, it may very well be that TV commercials still have a future — but in a shorter form. A recent study by the Advertising Research Foundation found that six-second ads on broadcast and network TV capture more attention per second than standard 30-second commercials.

Bottom line: The best bet for linear TV companies is to forget about being linear TV companies and put digital innovation at the top of the priority list. Working toward quality addressable advertising is one way. So too is emphasizing the brand safety issues that tech giants are struggling with (while ensuring that there’s action behind the talk). And maybe the best bet is working to make advertising better, whether it’s with more creative ad integrations in network TV or shorter commercials to appeal to our ever-decreasing attention spans.

Advertising | Featured Post | Perspectives

Facebook’s political ad disclosures are a train wreck in progress

As the midterm elections ramp up — and the foreign interference from Russian operatives during the 2016 election continues to haunt pseople — Google, Facebook and Twitter have all announced more stringent rules around online ad disclosures. And the Federal Election Commission too is seeking public input on a proposal that would expand political ad disclosure rules for other media to mobile apps.

So far, though, the disclosure rules at Facebook are not just a work in progress, but more of a train wreck in progress, as flaws with Facebook’s new rules are already emerging. The social giant was supposed to archive all political ads publicly but missed some, and critics have complained that they aren’t giving enough information about how the ads are targeted. And so many publishers are getting caught up in the rules and can’t boost their own political stories on Facebook without jumping through hoops. An effort by the News Media Alliance to get publishers whitelisted has started, but so far Facebook doesn’t have plans to do that.

It’s clear that more overarching, consistent rules across social media and the web — not just from Facebook and other tech giants — are needed to monitor political ads on the internet.

Facebook’s New Rules – And More Hiccups

In May, Facebook launched its ad transparency tool in the U.S., which requires ad purchasers on Facebook and Instagram to reveal and verify their identities and locations. Upon verification, those ads — whether for candidates or political issues — must come with a “paid for by” label disclosing who paid for the ad. Anyone on Facebook can now also search for any of these ads for up to seven years in an online database the company set up.

Almost immediately, the new rules caused hiccups. In California, at least one progressive group was able to continue targeting local voters with negative campaign ads about a candidate without disclosing who was behind the campaign. In Florida, ads for more than a dozen political candidates and organizations — which had cleared previous disclaimer requirements — were shut down because they didn’t reveal who paid for them. This resulted in a loss of thousands of dollars for campaigners already in full election swing mode. Facebook’s new tool also saw an article’s link to a Breitbart piece as a red flag. The article was immediately shut down — even though linking to Breitbart was actually part of a broader initiative to correct partisan propaganda, not spread it.

Meanwhile, the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles had its safety ads caught up in the terms of the new rules, even though it’s running public service announcements. And certain loopholes allow one person to go through Facebook’s verification process and then give the reins for an account to someone else.

What’s more, Facebook needs to negotiate with unique local transparency laws at the same time it’s trying to implement these rules nationwide and eventually globally. Failure to do so means the social giant is actually violating local laws with these new ad disclosures — which is precisely what’s happening now in Seattle and Washington state, which is now suing Facebook and Google for violating those laws.

Do the Rules Go Far Enough?

While there are obvious problems out of the gate, there are also some important missing elements to Facebook’s rules.

Facebook’s new database is missing ads it should obviously catch, as ProPublica’s Jeremy Merrill, Ariana Tobin and Madeleine Varner have reported. But more strikingly, Facebook is also not revealing a critical piece of information that’s been a contentious force in past advertising: how the ads are being targeted. ProPublica previously found, for example, that certain housing ads on Facebook were made to exclude African Americans and other “multicultural affinities” from seeing them, which violates Fair Housing Act protections.

In response, ProPublica is building an independent database of political ads to monitor Facebook’s efforts.

Publishers Struggle

While certain roadblocks are to be expected in the process of setting things up, publishers have to be especially alert to Facebook’s new rules. The definition of “ads with political content” is “astonishingly broad and may affect any promoted content that relates even vaguely to the political system,”  said Ned Berke, program director of audience development at the Center for Cooperative Media at Montclair State University.

Here are some particular points publishers should keep in mind to avoid scuffles, according to Berke:

  • get authorized;
  • bookmark the 20 issues of public importance Facebook has outlined;
  • modify ads that started running before May 24 — before Facebook’s new terms launched — so they have the required disclaimers;
  • watch out for the keywords that could trigger Facebook’s machine-learning classifier.

Many angry smaller publishers have decided not to boost posts or run Facebook ads until the social giant makes it easier for them to get verified or starts a whitelisting regime so they can promote their journalism covering politics.

Self-Regulation?

While the FEC is currently waiting on public comment for its proposal of new disclaimer rules for online political ads, the Digital Advertising Alliance is advocating for more self-regulation that could potentially work in conjunction with the FEC’s proposal. The DAA hopes to create new “Political Ad” icons that would link back to sites disclosing the identity and contact information of advertisers. It would be comparable to the DAA’s AdChoices, an icon that informs consumers of tracking data and gives them the option of opting out of behaviorally targeted ads.

Like the FEC’s proposal, it’s unlikely the DAA’s suggested political ad icon could come out in time for this year’s midterm elections. But the broader point is that we need more compliances on a federal and organizational level aside from just companies making their own rules for their platforms. The Honest Ads Act, which would bring online advertising disclosures on par with television ads, is another push in this direction, though the bill hasn’t gone far in the current Congress.

The Good, The Bad, The Hopeful

Facebook knows it may not catch all ads and has welcomed feedback on actors that appear to be trying to game the system. It’s also stated that political ads will be subject to human review on top of the machine-learning classifiers. The company is also in talks with groups, including news publishers, about how the authorizing, labeling and archiving of political content will affect them. However, the specifics for how publishers can avoid being bogged down in disclosures that may affect their online presence have yet to be announced.

Still, the ad tool and the database are currently confined to the U.S. And in countries like Sri Lanka, Facebook has already proved to be the gasoline that ignites political wars on social media. While the company maintains it’s committed to expanding these initiatives internationally, there’s still a long way to go. While the hope is that things will improve over time, Facebook needs to tread with care and get this balancing act right to make sure trusted publishers can promote their important political coverage. Let’s also hope oversight from independent groups and government regulators comes through as well.

Revenue

Are ad-free environments winning video?

It used to be a given that advertising was the major driving force in media business models—from TV ads to sponsored content online. But two big factors have scrambled that equation: 1) data and brand safety scandals at Facebook and YouTube as the EU pushes stronger data rules; and 2) the rise of streaming content as cable-cutters and cable-nevers soar.

More and more, consumers are paying for premium content without advertising. This includes streaming services such as Spotify, Netflix and HBO. Even Facebook researching a new subscription-based, ad-free version as privacy concerns mount. As the upfronts take place this week, a new reality is setting in for TV networks as Magna projects a 2% decline in national TV ad sales each year through 2022.

For publishers, this means giving much more serious consideration of ways to offer consumers a user-friendly, ad-free environment. It’s also time for serious reckoning of what content will succeed with a subscription.

Incumbency and Monthly Rates

Make no mistake about it: The popularity of non-cable, commercial-free shows, and their seemingly indispensable association from today’s cultural conversation, means that TV — if we are still choosing to call this TV — no longer rots your brain. Rather, HBO, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and other such services are, arguably, as good for you as the best journalistic enterprise. And that means that for many people, a monthly fee is worth it. The result is a profitable business enterprise.

But these networks have their own strategies and identities behind those business models. HBO has long been established as a premium cable network, and that incumbency has given the network a leg up. Subscribers who pay for HBO are probably likely to leave it on in the background after they finish watching their favorite show because they know they’re paying for high-quality content. Netflix also has a comparable consumer base. However, the typical Netflix consumer’s watch-and-go mentality means the network has to keep churning out new content.

Still, the high growth rate for both networks means their consumer base hasn’t even peaked yet. As cable continues to decline, both HBO and Netflix will have to remain nimble. But a loyal fan base willing to continue to pay will certainly help sow the seeds for more good shows to sprout.

AMC Networks Offers Multiple Options

In comparison, with fewer younger audiences and diminishing returns on network advertising, more traditional broadcast and cable networks must balance out their options. Take AMC Networks: Two-thirds of its revenue comes from distribution fees and sales of content to streaming and pay services, while one-third of that revenue pie comes from advertising. While its first quarter earnings set records, ad revenues were down 9%, distribution revenue increased 11%, including to networks like YouTube TV and Acorn TV.

AMC Networks CEO Josh Sapan anticipates this revenue pie will continue to adjust as trends change. “We will probably see that accelerate toward the non-ad-supported pieces over time,” he told Deadline’s Dade Hayes.

Indeed, the network has already invested in non-ad-supported options like a premium subscription service. So, the same time AMC is continuing to make itself a quality destination for advertisers, it’s also planning for a future where advertising will play a diminished role. And its recent boffo first-quarter financial results suggest it may be on the right track.

Europe’s Privacy Laws Shift U.S. Ads

It’s not just that publishers are working against changing consumer preferences. The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), set to be enforced starting on May 25, will also shift the scales on data gathering and consent. Companies will have to be much more transparent about the data that they are collecting about users. Consumers in the European Union will also be able to access what data is stored about them and have the right to correct that data — regardless if that data is processed in or outside of the EU.

And that’s already influencing how much advertising may proliferate, as Wired’s Nitasha Tiku reports:

In March, Drawbridge, an ad-tech company that tracks users across devices, said it would wind down its advertising business in the EU because it’s unclear how the digital ad industry would ensure consumer consent. Acxiom, a data broker that provides information on more than 700 million people culled from voter records, purchasing behavior, vehicle registration, and other sources, is revising its online portals in the U.S. and Europe where consumers can see what information Acxiom has about them.

How Many Publishers Can Charge?

While ad-free environments are gaining steam, and more publishers are selling subscriptions in exchange for premium ad-free services to those with ad blockers, there are still only so many subscriptions that consumers can buy before getting overloaded. Om Malik argues that publishers will have to stop drinking their own Kool-Aid and eventually reckon with the fact that few among them will be able to fully capitalize on the subscription craze.

More likely, as ad-free environments proliferate, publishers will have to consider them as part of the mix, especially with the loss of advertising to the duopoly and data security. While not every publisher can simply put up a paywall and watch the money roll in, every publisher can consider just what they can charge for, and what their audience really values.

Advertising | Perspectives

Trends at the NewFronts: brand safety, metrics, big media ‘coopetition’ with platforms

The NewFronts are far from new. And old-line publishers are making more noise this year, even as the event is shortened to one week from two, with another week coming in the fall in Los Angeles. This week, the discussion between publishers and advertisers around online video had the usual buzzwords and focus on youth, mobile, and fun. However, challenges remain relating to brand safety, metrics, and building awareness of publishers’ digital video offerings.

As digital video ad revenue in the U.S. continues to grow — predicted to hit $15.42 billion this year and reach $22.18 billion in 2021 — according to eMarketer, more publishers and tech platforms will battle it out for those ad dollars even as popular video destinations like Netflix and HBO lack ads. And with so many publishers and platforms working together, it’s become more of a “coopetition” among them at the NewFronts.

Here’s a roundup of some of the key NewFronts trends to watch.

Brand Safety Concerns Continue

Last year’s NewFronts said it all: Whether this dog-and-pony show is worth it highly depends on how much money you have, and what you have to offer. Similar to last year, for most publishers, what they want to offer — and therefore what is at the forefront of their minds — is brand safety.

As YouTube continues to battle crisis after crisis on its platform, brands are under pressure to make sure their content doesn’t appear next to extremist or racist propaganda. Other platforms hardly match YouTube’s scale, making it hard for advertisers to boycott YouTube for any length of time.

Whereas some companies might feel anxiety, others see opportunity. Take NBCUniversal. The company isn’t hosting a NewFront presentation but is still pitching a new way of buying short-form video — NBCU Choice — that it’s guaranteeing to be brand safe and effective at hyper-targeting. And Digiday reports that half of that inventory is on YouTube.

“With the widely reported issues around questionable adjacencies and toxic environments, this has only become more important,” Hearst Magazines Digital Media’s Todd Haskell told Digiday. “We speak to issues around brand safety in every pitch, but particularly in ambitious content marketing programs like this.”

For YouTube itself, the tech giant has revealed a slew of changes to bolster its services. In yet another effort to quell brand safety fears, Google has announced it will improve the quality of ad-supported content on Google Preferred, YouTube’s program to allow advertisers to place their advertising on the most popular 5% of YouTube channels. The tech giant will now add inventory from YouTube TV — its streaming service that packages popular TV channels — to Google Preferred. Noting that audiences are also watching YouTube on TV screens more — 150 million hours a day, by its accounts — Google has also announced advertisers can buy YouTube video ads meant to only stream on TV screens through AdWords and DoubleClick Bid Manager.

These changes may not be enough to make publishers forget how precarious their content is online — but it’s certainly enough to keep publishers and advertisers hooked on Google.

The Metrics and Awareness Challenge

The convergence of video and TV means that brands this year are also paying more attention to metrics. Nothing comparable to Nielsen ratings has yet to exist for digital. As such, publishers that define success with their own metrics can lead to the kind of inflation and misinformation that has gotten some of them in trouble in the first place.

“With regard to the NewFront, one of the things that has come up historically has been almost an abstract discussion of data,” Zenith Media digital investment EVP Will Warren told BeetTV.

“I think what needs to come into play is, ‘How are publishers themselves using those types of information that they own specifically to help drive their own business forward?’”

Beyond the typical vanity metrics, Meredith exec Andrew Snyder mentioned how important measuring impact is for the publisher, which swallowed up Time Inc. recently.

“We are really focused on driving impact,” Snyder told Broadcasting & Cable. “We think about impact in two ways. On one side, it’s about impact with consumers. On the advertising side of the house, what matters most to our customers is scale, and together the new Meredith reaches over 170 million consumers. We reach 80% of millennial women.”

But what really puts some traditional broadcast and print publishers behind the eight ball is the fact that audiences don’t think about them as purveyors of original online video content. According to the 2018 Digital Content NewFronts Sentiment Forecast, commissioned by Matrix Solutions, consumer interest in original content from big media names like ESPN and the New York Times is pretty abysmal. While Americans who watched online content were excited about YouTube (57%) and Hulu (32%), only 16% were excited about ESPN, 10% about New York Times, and 2% about Conde Nast.

Big Media ‘Coopetition’ with Platforms

That problem around awareness might explain why some larger media brands like ESPN and Viacom presented for the first time at the NewFronts this week. Both companies are pushing very big digital initiatives. But they have a long way to go to catch up to established players.

Disney had been content in the past to tout its Maker Studios at NewFronts in the past, but this year is breaking out with its Disney Digital Network, using the “brand safe” buzzword throughout its presentation. The company touted new food shows via Tastemade and a “Star Wars” fan event. Disney even had ESPN present in its own slot, pushing its new ESPN+ streaming service, as well as new original content deals with Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat.

And Viacom was touting its new 300-person division, Viacom Digital Studios, with hundreds of hours of original digital-native content, along with expanded programming for Snapchat. Plus, Viacom will produce the first VidCon conference in London in February 2019.

While many larger publishers have had love/hate relationships with the tech platforms, it’s interesting just how much love there has been at the NewFronts. Twitter announced even more live video programming with publisher partners, and nearly every publisher mentioning programming on tech platforms.

For marketers, it’s not an either/or proposition between the platforms and publishers, but how to spread the word in brand-safe content, with measurable results to the right audience. How they get there isn’t as important as the fact that they can get there.

Innovation | Perspectives

News aggregators, Flipboard make a comeback as Facebook falters

Mark Zuckerberg may be all over the news lately, but thanks to Facebook’s algorithm change, there’s a chance you may not be seeing much about it on Facebook itself. So where are people going for news now?

They may be returning to news aggregation and curation apps, which have had their ups and downs over the years. The fact is that less news on Facebook means more opportunities to distribute news via other platforms. Though there’s still a strong incumbent advantage by tech companies like Google and Apple. Some of the upstart news apps are using machine learning and AI to better serve users. And one thing is certain: Publishers have more freedom to experiment and see what works outside of Facebook.

Digital Magazines Make a Comeback

The “digital magazine app” Flipboard was something of a media darling after it was first released in 2010, and has raised more than $200 million in funding over the years. While conversation around it has largely been muted for the past few years, the company still attracts 100 million monthly users, and its users have generated 35 million “magazines” to flip through. After Google, Facebook and Twitter, it’s the number four traffic source for digital publications, according to Parsely.

Given Flipboard’s popularity and longevity, it’s in a prime position to toot its own horn and make itself relevant, reliable and profitable, especially as Facebook continues to cope with data scandals. As CEO Mike McCue told Axios’ Kia Kokalitcheva and Ina Fried, “As people start to realize they need a place to reliably go to read about the things they care about, it’s time for us to seize that moment, whether it is on the product or on the management team.”

So it’s no wonder Flipboard recently hired former Spotify and AOL executive Kal Amin to serve as its new chief operating officer, the latest in a string of new hires. In a world of fake news, Flipboard can focus even more on human curation. If the company stays on track, keeps expenses to a minimum, and finally reaches profitability, its app could be a win-win for Flipboard, publishers and users.

Machine Learning and Bursting Your Filter Bubble

While Flipboard users can personalize the app toward their interests and therefore see more content they are interested in from the get-go, other apps are distinguishing themselves by prioritizing popping peoples’ filter bubbles. Take the startup Knowhere, which uses machine learning to create articles that are then reviewed by human curators. It also allows users to toggle between reading versions of a political or polarizing story written from a left, right or “impartial” perspective.

BuzzFeed has launched an “Outside Your Bubble” feature on some of its articles, and researchers at MIT have released a Chrome extension that allows Twitter users to “flip their feed.” However, the use of machine learning to create multiple versions of the same article is a new twist to addressing a recognized problem.

And machine learning is becoming more popular globally. In Japan, one of the most popular news apps, SmartNews, uses machine learning. The Norwegian news aggregator app Sol also uses a combination of algorithms and human editors to engage users. The company has 50,000 daily unique users and adds a small but steady 5,000 new users a week, according to its CEO. And half of the users who register with the app agree to use a chatbot assistant to curate their content. Therefore, it’s not necessarily that machine learning will take over any preferred human curation. It looks like it will be used to augment curation according to taste and needs.

Tough Competition for Aggregators

The major hurdle for all these new startups and apps, though, is that there is entrenched competition beyond just Facebook. Apple News is the default news app on iPhones and iPads. Admittedly, its user base is small given the number of iOS devices around the world. However, there are plenty of consumers uninterested in researching and downloading new apps can who can easily turn to it. And although Google’s Feed, which was released last year, hasn’t quite reached epic numbers, Google still dominates search and driving traffic to publishers through Google News and AMP.

And with Facebook’s massive (if declining) user base, it’s hard to really count out the social giant. Even the CEO and founder of Nuzzel, a news app that surfaces trending content across different social media platforms, acknowledges that Facebook will still likely hold a big lead. “Even if people get a little less news on Facebook, more people will still get more news on Facebook than most other places,” Nuzzel CEO Jonathan Abrams told Mashable’s Karissa Bell.

And when the founders of Sol realized it needed to encourage users to download the app, it did the obvious: It advertised the app on Facebook and Instagram, and went from number 17 to number 1 among free apps in Norway’s Apple App Store.

All that said, the time is ripe for news aggregators to finally break through and make a difference. There is an opportunity to stand out with customized content, better data security, respect for consumer privacy, and the appeal of being something other than Facebook.

Perspectives

Before gloating over the latest Facebook scandal, publishers should get their data houses in order

Facebook has been under fire ever since the revelation that it allowed the political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica to harvest user data and use that information as fodder for the Trump campaign. While outrage against the social media giant is warranted, we also ought to be concerned about the entire digital advertising ecosystem, where everyone — including publishers — is on the hunt for data.

Indeed, rather than just pointing at Facebook, feeling smug and a bit of schadenfreude, publishers and advertisers should take a deeper look at their own practices. And how about going even further: Take a leading role in ensuring user privacy. Think about what you can do to make sure data hunger doesn’t comprise user interest.

Walled Garden War

Anger toward Facebook isn’t anything new for media companies and publishers. If anything, the Cambridge Analytica scandal is just one point on a timeline documenting publishers’ tempestuous relationship with Facebook. At a recent Platforms + Publishers roundtable I produced at Facebook, there were plenty of angry small publishers who pointed to a loss of 50% or more of Facebook-referred traffic. Someone even mentioned that going to Facebook was like going back to an abusive partner. You think things are getting better and then, smack! you are hit with an algorithm change and a poisonous political data scandal.

As Axios’ Scott Rosenberg put it, the current fury against Facebook is personal for journalists because they, along with their institutions, blame Facebook (as well as other tech behemoths like Google) “for seducing their readers, impoverishing their employees, and killing off their jobs.” Given the stronghold Facebook and Google have over the digital advertising industry — which has also rendered publishers and advertisers dependent on the duopoly — any backlash that can knock down these tech companies, even a little, stands to make things better for their competitors and the ecosystem at large.

Data Hypocrisy 

But there are a couple fallacies with that kind of thinking. First, Facebook has played a crucial role in helping news outlets reach their audiences where their audiences are. And it’s no secret that the micro-targeting of a news item to user — based on the data gathered — worked to help the publisher, even if publishers always felt they were on the losing end of the relationship. And Facebook has certainly made a much bigger effort at helping to drive memberships, donations and subscriptions to publishers; in fact, that was the overarching theme of the roundtable I produced at Facebook.

And secondly: While it’s easy to nurture a grudge against Facebook, it’s harder to understand the complex relationships between publishers and platforms – where there can be collaboration and animosity. National outlets may be more vocal about their criticism around Facebook’s ability to adequately compensate publishers. However, local publishers in particular see Facebook, Google and other major tech platforms as potential allies that can help elevate their standing, and help them compete with national outlets.

Not only that, but consider BuzzFeed’s Mark Di Stefano’s scoop that both The Economist and the Financial Times hired Cambridge Analytica to help them grow their subscriber base in the United States. It’s unclear whether the data benefited the two British companies, but clearly, that’s what they were looking for. As media and tech thinker Doc Searls accurately notes, news publishers are also guilty of using third-party tracking apps that return internet advertising to their users. But, as everyone is now realizing, there’s no guarantee what actually happens to that data. “What will happen when the [New York] Times, the New Yorker and other pubs own up to the simple fact that they are just as guilty as Facebook of leaking its readers’ data to other parties, for—in many if not most cases—God knows what purposes besides ‘interest-based’ advertising?” Searls wrote on his Harvard blog.

Taking the Lead

To be sure, the momentum against Facebook (and Google) has been piling up for some time, and the latest scandal is unlike any other that has reached Facebook. As the company reels in the aftermath of the Cambridge Analytica data leaks, it’s cut third-party data providers out of its ad targeting, added safeguards like an email certification tool for marketers, emphasized its support for local news publishers, and considered more heavily its approach to data collection. Mark Zuckerberg has been forced to discuss the crisis in an apology tour with various news outlets and journalists. It’s safe to say Facebook knows its product (and reputation) is on the line.

But the best reckoning publishers could have right now is not about Facebook, but themselves — and the steps they can take to make sure they have their own data houses in order. As the Association of National Advertisers put it in a statement, “In truth, the Cambridge Analytica controversy is greater than Facebook alone…It’s a brand reputation and data security risk for every ANA member that advertises and monetizes brands on online and mobile outlets.”

One huge step, already started by the Advertising Research Foundation (ARF), is to call for new industry guidelines and standards around data collection that also focuses on prioritizing user protection. The ARF has invited other industry bodies to contribute to the endeavor; now it’s up to the rest of the players in the digital advertising ecosystem, publishers and advertisers included, to do their share to ensure a safer internet. Data is the ultimate feast for everyone, but if the hunger for it leads to toxic consequences, it poisons the entire body.

Perspectives

SXSW pushes back against tech

The SXSW Interactive festival has expanded beyond its tech-centric past to include panels and discussions on politics, journalism, food, and other cultural conversations of the moment. But among these hot topics is, of course, technology and its influence on the future of these other sectors. From grasping the blockchain to pushing back against tech giants, the festival, in many ways, is media Twitter come to life. (Remember that SXSW brought Twitter to life after the show in 2007.)

But this year certain trends stood out more than others. The show was dominated by politics and ideas – which trumped gadgets and apps. Here are some key takeaways and themes from this year’s festival:

Pushback on Technology

It’s been over a year since the 2016 election, but technology’s role in its outcome, the resulting fallout, and the rise of misinformation and social media warfare has given tech a black eye. Top that off with the outsize influence platforms such as Facebook, Google and Amazon are having over our lives. Those topics and conversations dominated SXSW panels this year.

The back and forth between Facebook director of product Alex Hardiman and CNN media correspondent Brian Stelter during a panel on Facebook and publishers delved deeply into the tricky territory publishers find themselves in, especially with Facebook’s recent algorithmic changes that prioritize friends and family over news outlets. Hardiman, for one, admitted that Facebook has flattened news. However, he insisted that Facebook is not a publisher, much to the chagrin of tech and news experts like Kara Swisher and Christiane Amanpour, who cried foul to these claims during another panel.

SpaceX and Tesla founder Elon Musk’s much talked-about appearance included a depressing take on artificial intelligence: “The danger of AI is much greater than the danger of nuclear warheads,” he said. “If humanity decides that digital super-intelligence is the right move, we should do so very carefully.”

One thing is certain: No longer are we simply enthralled at the latest gadget or the future of tech. Just as the media and tech beat has changed for the journalists who cover them, so too have festivals like SXSW that present the myriad of ways media and technology are intersecting and changing our world.

Hollywood Makes a Scene

When the most-talked about marketing ploy at SXSW is an HBO show come to life, that proves that the convergence of Hollywood and technology is complete. The real-life replica of HBO’s show “Westworld” makes the case for investment in experiential marketing to drive brand attention. Certainly, SXSW attendees will recall the show when it returns for a second season. And with the way the news cycle seems never-ending, brands and shows that draw attention to themselves outside the digital world and in the real world can elicit interest and help ensure audiences won’t scroll past them.

To further reinforce Hollywood’s SXSW impact, look no further than the premiere of Steven Spielberg’s new film, “Ready Player One.” Set in a dystopian future where the characters spend their lives inside a virtual reality system. SXSW is certainly a fitting festival to premiere a movie of this kind. But with the avalanche of shows like “Westworld” and “Black Mirror” that deal with these topics, the movie premiere is simply one of the ways we can see tech’s imprint on our culture.

The Voice Battle Continues

Google Home or Amazon Echo? It’s a huge question among those testing the digital voice assistants revolutionizing the future of search and the mainstreaming of a “smart home.” Amazon may have an initial leg up with Echo over Google and Apple’s HomePod — Alexa hit the market first — but Google is playing catch-up with massive marketing splashes at CES and now SXSW.

The tech giant turned a house in Austin into a huge advertisement for Google Home by connecting everything from blinds to appliances to Google Assistant, and showing people how such a Google home could function. A sign in front of the house, “Make Google Do It,” reinforced the concepts behind the gadgets, which included a sock-sorting robot.

But the battle for the voice is very much at the center of a smart home. With voice technology continuing to evolve (and the stiff competition against Amazon in this market), Google is also testing custom voice commands and working with third-party publishers to keep users engaged. Magazine publisher Hearst, for example, is partnering with Google to support subscriptions that can offer news alerts and daily “wisdom” in whatever areas a user prefers.

This sounds a lot nicer than Alexa laughing at you (a recent tech glitch). But it’s safe to say that Google and Amazon are in a tough battle in this department. And Apple is knocking at the door, which will push all the companies to do better.

SXSW Gets Political

From Russian trolls hacking Facebook to YouTube’s war with misinformation and Trump’s tweets, technology is now tightly intertwined with political life. And the presence of politicians at SXSW and conversations about news and politics were inescapable.

There was Mark Warner, U.S. Senator from Virginia, on “Hacking our Democracy and Discourse.” Discussions on policy and regulation with “Tech Under Trump.” Another panel on curtailing patent trolls, patent regulation, and U.S. Supreme Court cases that are bringing reform. And let’s not forget former presidential nominee and U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders — endearing to many for his grouchy take on trends, but who has now made his first appearance at SXSW, in a conversation with CNN’s Jake Tapper. And Ta-Nehisi Coates remarked on the tendency among journalists to still not give Trump supporters credit for knowing what they were doing when voting the president in.

Then there’s the begrudging and critical look at the news cycle and national reckoning over #MeToo. Christiane Amanpour made it clear that the battles she thought she won in the ’90s are still taking place today — like continuing to be the only woman in the room. Amanpour boiled the situation down: “We are at peril and at risk if we don’t know the difference between truth and lies…Truth and lies are the only thing that separates us from democracy and dictatorship.”

It was the perfect underscore for the New York Times’ recent marketing campaign, also present at SXSW. Over social hour and drinks at the bar, attendees could leave with a Times button defining our era: “Truth. It’s more important now than ever.” And at SXSW, the importance of truth, politics and ideas seemed to drown out the newest apps and tech gadgets.

Revenue

Facebook and Google are competing to drive more subscriptions. Imagine that.

Recent research from DCN shows that major tech platforms have brought very little in the way of revenues to publishers. Distributed content from Google and Facebook only amounts to five percent of the total average digital revenue for publishers. So how can the platforms turn that around and improve on those numbers? By helping drive subscriptions and conversions for paid products.

Last June, I called out Facebook and Google on this very point. Driving subscriptions would be a win for publishers who need more revenues, and for the tech platforms which need a way to build trust, support the news ecosystem and generate positive press in these times of bots, misinformation and election meddling.

The good news is that both Facebook and Google are now taking clear steps to help drive subscriptions for publishers. Facebook will take a 0% cut on subscriptions they drive through their app on Android and Apple devices, while launching a new Local News Subscription Accelerator. And Google has upped the ante with plans to help publishers identify potential subscribers by sharing more data. The bad news is that there is a long road ahead to making these initiatives work.

Facebook Makes Peace with Apple, Launches Accelerator

Facebook’s News Feed tweaks — most recently, to downgrade publishers’ posts in favor of content from friends and family — have long influenced the kinds of stories Facebook users see. Because people are used to the free-flowing nature of news in the Facebook News Feed, the social giant had been loath to introduce friction.

But after mounting criticism, Facebook has been developing ways to drive subscriptions from its app. And best of all, its support for paywalls will not include taking a cut of revenues from publishers. Instead, Facebook will show users five free articles and then direct them to the paywall on the publishers’ site. That means 100% of subscription revenue goes to publishers – and they get to keep all the data about users as well.

It wasn’t an easy task to pull off on iOS, because Apple is notoriously stubborn about waiving the 30% “Apple tax” it takes from any monetary transactions in apps. But after some tough-knuckled negotiation, Facebook’s Campbell Brown announced at the Code Media confab that Apple caved in and would waive the fee.

Not only that, but Facebook also recently announced a Local News Subscription Accelerator with 12 metro dailies getting training support for a three-month trial. It’s nice that the social giant is putting $3 million into the effort, and partnering with the Lenfest Institute. The big question is whether that work will scale to help more publishers.

Google Leading the Way So Far

While Facebook has made a lot of progress lately, Google, in comparison, has been more consistently friendly to publishers: At the recent Digital News Initiative summit in Amsterdam, for example, Google announced it would help identify which kinds of users would be attracted to which publications. The company also said it would ease the process of subscribing within Google. It also plans offer users a tailored search experience based on their subscriptions. This push to support subscriptions is one that Google has been working on for over a year. At the International Paid Content Summit in Berlin, publishers also touted Google’s efforts in distributing digital subscriptions. A survey among summit participants revealed Google shows much more “cooperative behavior” than Facebook.

Google also recently surpassed Facebook as the internet’s top referral source for publishers, a status that takes on significance for both Google and publishers given Facebook’s decision to de-emphasize news. A friendlier Google in the midst of News Feed shifts can help offset what publishers might lose with Facebook’s algorithmic changes. Coupled with access to Google’s coveted data insights — which publishers want and Google controls — working the publisher-Google relationship is indeed enticing for both parties. If Google wants to win favor with publishers, now is as good a time as ever.

Sharing the Wealth

Ultimately, though, whether Google or Facebook will do better in driving subscriptions is not as important for publishers as whether the two will really commit to the process. Because Facebook and Google together account for such a huge chunk of the attention for internet users, publishers must stay focused on working with both of them, along with other players like Twitter, Snapchat and LinkedIn.

It’s surely a positive that both Facebook and Google are taking big steps in driving subscriptions, and perhaps their rivalry could help push them even more. And while they surely dominate in online advertising, it’s incumbent upon them to make sure the news ecosystem is healthy and thriving. If digital ads are getting sucked up by the duopoly and subscriptions are becoming an important source of revenues for publishers (both for-profit and non-profit), then publishers will need to insist on better data, better leads, and a transparent funnel that helps them survive and thrive.

Innovation

NBC, Snapchat push social viewing at Olympics

Americans are watching fewer big live events on TV — as seen in declining viewership of the Super Bowl, Oscars, etc. And you can count the Winter Olympics as another victim of those changing habits. A recent Gallup poll confirmed that lower ratings will likely follow. But Comcast and NBC aren’t letting that get them down. Instead, they are pushing even harder into social media and new platforms.

And it’s not just a way for NBC to increase its social footprint and beat criticism of #NBCFail memes of years past, when viewers were unable to access solid coverage because of tape delays and commercial interruptions. With less people watching linear TV broadcasts, multi-platform viewership on digital and social is likely going up, and NBC is pushing hard into different platforms to stay ahead of the curve. It’s a way to engage advertisers and audiences — especially younger audiences — for the future.

Here’s a look at how NBC and other publishers will take on the Winter Games this year.

NBC Goes All-In on Social

This tweet has already gathered 45,000 retweets and nearly 124,000 likes as of writing:


The tweet from NBC Olympics is just one example of a social strategy that appears to be working: Push content online right away. Research out of the Rio Olympics from 2016 reflected skyrocketing numbers for social viewership, and there was no reason to anticipate those figures would decline.

So, NBC is seizing control over the narrative of the Olympics. It’s broadcasting the games live for the first time, streaming clips on Facebook, posting videos on YouTube and Twitter, and investing heavily in a Snapchat presence that also includes hiring BuzzFeed to produce a daily, Olympics-themed Snapchat Discover channel. NBC and Snapchat struck a partnership — one of several, as NBCUniversal invested $500 million in Snap Inc. when Snap went public last year — to broadcast exclusive content on Snapchat.

That Snap had a solid earnings call right ahead of the Opening Ceremony this year also gives the company an extra boost of recognition. Snap may be suffering the fallout from Instagram and Facebook copying some of its core features, but it has long pitched itself as a “complementary, second-screen platform for live and linear TV,” as Digiday’s Sahil Patel wrote. And that’s a selling point when you think about the ways linear TV habits are changing.

Publishers, Take Note

Alongside NBC’s huge push into social distribution, a few publishers are also engaging audiences in new ways to boost their own metrics down the line. The New York Times, for example, announced a “live messenger experience” with the Times’ deputy sports editor, Sam Manchester, where he’ll be messaging directly with audiences who want a closer, behind-the-scenes, personal take on the Olympics.

With different mediums for consumption — and therefore disparate methods for measuring consumption — Discovery Communications is consolidating data from linear broadcasts, digital platforms, and social media engagement metrics, to get a better picture of who’s tuning in and who is tuning out of watching the Winter Olympics. Discovery has the rights to broadcast the Games across Europe and will share these results with their clients and partners. While no measurement approach is perfect, it’s a huge step to prepare for a future where understanding metrics can make or break an editorial or ad strategy. It’s not a question of whether other publishers will follow suit, but when.

Google’s Plan

What conversation about distribution can take place without acknowledging the influence of large gatekeepers like Google? Google’s search algorithm has long been key in ensuring people can actually find all the content publishers are putting out there. This year, Google is filtering live video, VR video, and YouTube video into its search results. It’ll offer users location-specific updates about a country’s rankings and other top news stories from the Olympics. And subscribers to YouTube TV can stream over 50 hours of live video coverage, including VR content.

Let’s be clear: The efforts in social viewing and highlight reels for the Winter Olympics this year are not a one-off endeavor. Insights gleaned from how it pans out this year will help better cater to multi-platform consumption in the future — not just for the Olympics, but for all content moving online and on social. And as live events lose their luster on linear TV, more publishers will consider ways to move to social viewing while still driving revenues along with attention.

Innovation | Perspectives

Hey Google, Alexa, and Siri: Publishers want a fair shot at voice-activated devices

A December 2017 survey by the Pew Research Center found that 46% of Americans use digital voice assistants, and the trend is going up. A recent study from Juniper Research forecasts that 55% of all households will have a smart speaker installed by 2022, and marketers’ spending on such assistants is expected to reach $19 billion by the same year.

It’s a huge opportunity for marketers and publishers looking to reach audiences on these devices. But buying an Amazon Echo, Google Home, or Apple HomePod isn’t just buying a product, but inviting an entire company into your home. So, publishers should tread with caution to make sure they have a fair shot in sharing upside, without upsetting people with invasive advertising and pitches. It’s a no-brainer that as Amazon, Google, and Apple rev up their products, they’re also going to look for ways to monetize their use and increase their company footprints. As the battle between platforms and publishers plays out, publishers must bear in mind that digital voice assistants are no exception.

The Voice Battle Rages

It’s become something of an iPhone or Android question: Google or Alexa? Both are great products and offer great services, and their comparison is the focus of many consumer-focused assessments of where people should invest their money — and eventual data. Indeed, knowing the aim behind these companies is a good indicator for what to expect down the line. Wired’s Scott Rosenberg put it this way: “Amazon is primarily a store, so its likely long-term plan is to use Alexa to sell you more stuff. Google is primarily an advertising company, so somewhere down the line you can bet it will find ways for its Assistant to present you with ‘sponsored’ suggestions.”

Not to be outdone but admittedly late to the game is Apples’s new HomePod device and Sonos’ new voice-activated speaker, Sonos One, which presents itself as a platform-agnostic device. But you’d have to do the legwork yourself to transfer your personal data, should you switch from one platform to another.

And that means that the platform buy-in is real. Amazon has a two-year leg up over Google and is obviously at the top of the hierarchy at the moment; it also has the potential to upend the entire advertising industry. What was once a company that tiptoed around marketing has now been toying more with placing sponsored products higher up in search results — which means advertisers are now buying in more. To date, Amazon says it won’t sell advertising on Echo, but advertisers and the public assume the company will change course when it figures out the best way to serve them.

Google Coming On

Google, meanwhile, is pushing its Assistant onto more products, and made a huge splash at the recent Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. It recently came out with “Smart Displays” (akin to Amazon’s Echo Show), which, among other things, can visualize recipes, maps, and — to toot on its own horn — YouTube videos.

It’s no wonder that marketers are trying to benefit. The natural question for brands now is how to bring voice into their experiences, which is in sync with how companies are also trying to differentiate their products. You can see how that plays out with Apple’s “give me the news” feature on for Siri, or the number of brands building skills for Alexa, which Amazon also touts as device features.

The BBC has been relying on voice assistants installed on smart devices to feature BBC content, and will likely transition into creating content specifically for Echo and Home devices, and monitoring what and how people are listening to create better experiences for those voice-activated formats. The Washington Post and CNN, among others, are also experimenting with ways to leverage audio programming in a way that’s useful for their audiences.

Ensuring a Win-Win Situation

With more devices entering the market and voice positioned to be the next frontier in experience and marketing, the risk for publishers is that building for one company specifically — or even multiple companies — places their eggs in the basket of a third-party tech giant. That means that as bullish as publishers ought to be in featuring content where their audiences are, they also need to insist on sharing the wealth these tech companies are gathering — revenues, customer data, advertising insights and more — to beat any potential exploitation.

And that can also be an opportunity for publishers. The current trend is still on the we-must-get-on-the-voice-AI-bandwagon-before-it’s-too-late hurried strategy, without thinking about the data and revenue deals that need to happen in tandem. With all the opportunities publishers can leverage with voice — news flash briefings, news quizzes, podcast streaming, recipes and the like — they should also emphasize their own loyalty programs, subscriptions and original content back on their own sites.

Just as publishers have battled with social platforms over the power dynamic, data and promotion, they will have to make sure voice devices don’t end up using their content without giving them a good chunk of the spoils when they take off.

Perspectives | Video

The top 8 trends for publishers in 2018

We live in interesting times. And they will only get more interesting if the past year is any guide to what’s ahead. With Donald Trump in office and “fake news” becoming the new “f-word,” there’s a lot to mull in the coming year for publishers. Beyond politics, 2017 was a tough year for those who pivoted to video without a solid strategy, and the “duopoly” of Facebook and Google gobbled up more digital advertising, even as they helped publishers on other fronts. And newer technologies like artificial intelligence and blockchain are going from “good to know” to “need to know.”

Now that the year is coming to an end, let’s look ahead at how the past year’s biggest trends will influence the digital media business in the year ahead.

1. Power of Subscriptions as Trump Bump Continues

By the end of 2016, increased readership and donations to the likes of the New York Times and ProPublica suggested that partisan politics and the non-stop news cycle, for all its distress, were at least helping the bottom line of news publishers. While some subscription-driven and membership-based publications saw a leveling off of that by the middle of the year, it seems helpful to take a macroscopic view of this trend rather than a quick snapshot: The New York Times recently announced that it has more than 3.5 million subscriptions and more than 130 million monthly readers. That’s more than double the audience it had two years prior. While the Gray Lady’s boost can’t speak for everyone — local news still struggles, for example — it suggests that audiences are becoming more used to the fact that they ought to pay for premium content. With AI also becoming more efficient, and Google and Facebook both making efforts to support subscriptions, expect that technological help, including better personalized targeting and performance measuring, will help boost subscriptions and donations even more.

2. Pivot to Reality

For all the hype surrounding pivoting to video, not everyone who invested in the strategy saw its benefits. Perhaps most jarring was Mashable’s fire sale for $50 million. Given Mashable’s $250 million valuation just last year, the sale price serves as a dire warning to other digital darlings. Mashable is now poised to lay off more employees (last year, investment in video justified a round of high-profile layoffs) as it refocuses its brand yet again. BuzzFeed too, has announced layoffs of about 100 employees after revealing it missed its 2017 revenue targets. Vice Media is also expected to miss its revenue target by more than $800 million this year. CNN Digital announced 2017 brought in its highest revenues ever at $370 million —but it faces a $20 million budget shortfall. And let’s not forget the abrupt closure of DNAInfo and Gothamist.

Factoring in that Google and Facebook continue to gobble up digital advertising revenue, many publishers need to diversify revenue streams fast. Digital darlings like BuzzFeed and Vice, not to mention smaller publishers, will have to think beyond native ads. Perhaps the best strategy, as The Atlantic’s Derek Thompson put it, is not to pivot to video or pivot to VC money, but to pivot to readers.

3. A Shifting Regulatory Environment

Net neutrality, that on-again off-again issue, is officially back on after Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, pushed a proposal to repeal it. Even with the announcement that more than a million of the comments submitted to the FCC were fake, the outcome of the net neutrality vote isn’t in doubt as Republicans control the Commission. The new regulatory environment would be a bust for streaming video publishers like Netflix and Amazon Video, and a boon for publishers under the umbrella of the larger telecom companies that will benefit, including AOL, HuffPost, and NBCUniversal. Meanwhile, the AT&T and Time Warner merger — which the U.S. government is trying to block — would inevitably boost HBO, CNN, and TBS if it goes through.

What this amounts to is a huge upending for independent publishers and small businesses used to an even playing field, and the potential bundling of subscriptions and promotions would favor the larger ISPs and telecom companies. Meanwhile, Congress’ clampdown on the technology industry suggests that regulation may also be coming for major tech companies. With opposition on all sides of the regulation debate, expect a topsy-turvy cycle of enforcement — and resistance — in the year ahead.

4. Leveraging AI

Artificial intelligence is often talked about, but little understood. Expect 2018 to be the year publishers take heavier stock in what it can mean for them. Publishers have already turned toward programmatic advertising, and programmatic video has a huge potential to deliver advertising boosts. However, that doesn’t mean publishers can turn a blind eye on issues like ad tech fraud, high programmatic fees, and lack of vendor transparency. Leveraging AI will mean investing more time in quality control.

And while it is the root of many fears, AI doesn’t necessarily mean the complete displacement of humans. Rather, working AI to your advantage can free humans up to do tasks that require much more nuanced attention. Utilizing AI to deliver more meaningful analytics that can help automate repetitive tasks for publishers like social media distribution, for example, or more personalized ad and news targeting, is one way publishers can redirect their energies and consider AI as an aid rather than a threat.

5. The Rise of Audio and Voice

If you’ve visited the websites of The New Yorker or The Atlantic lately, you may have noticed options to “listen” to digital stories. Will others follow? Given the attention on the voice — think of the popularity of podcasts and the mainstreaming and price drops of home speakers like Google Home and Alexa — expect voice-command gear, and more options to listen, to take center stage in 2018.

There’s been a push by tech companies to move into audio, with Google buying the audio curation app 60dB, and Apple recently buying the audio search platform Audiosear.ch and the music recognition app Shazam. Audio publishers are bound to get a huge boost if Google surfaces playable audio clips in its news results, for example. And while some voice-command software may get a lot of flack for “eavesdropping,” the threat to user privacy is likely overblown. With all the new options to listen to voices and startups like Trint and Descript focused on automatic transcription of these voices (which can serve as huge tools for publishers), 2018 may just be the year of the voice.

6. Brand Safety Issues

Brand safety was a huge watchword this year, from fake Russian accounts on Facebook to the discovery Google helped advertisers target people searching racist search terms, to the more recent revelations that YouTubers were reaping huge financial benefits from posting disturbing footage of children. You can expect Facebook, Google, and other platforms to be under the microscope even more in 2018. While many publishers can crow about creating safe curated spaces for advertisers, they too need to watch out for problematic issues when using programmatic ads.

7. The Battle Against Fake News Continues…

The battle against fake news and the filter bubble on platforms may have felt like it reached fever pitch in 2017, but as the weaponization of social media around the world shows, it’s a topic that’s here to stay, especially with the 2018 mid-term elections on the horizon. Google struggles to separate rumor from fact during breaking news, Facebook is at the center of a Rohingya massacre in Myanmar, and the Philippines’ right-wing president Rodrigo Duterte has also been using the platform to undermine opponents — including human rights activists and publishers who leverage Facebook as their main medium of distribution. Plus, Russia’s utilization of “social bots” to influence the outcome of the 2016 U.S. election is the precise reason Google, Facebook, and Twitter had to testify before Congress. With Donald Trump’s recent suggestion that the Access Hollywood audio in which he bragged about sexual assault was fake, expect more scrutiny on fake news in audio and video. The battle is only beginning.

8. The Power of Blockchain

The recent attention on the skyrocketing valuation of Bitcoin may have raised people’s FOMO quotient, but the attention on the technology behind it — blockchain — could have a huge influence on publishers and advertisers. Not only can this cryptocurrency technology allow for efficient monetization of content, but as Daniel Newman writes in Forbes, it has the power to help curtail ongoing issues with ad targeting. “Because the chain is transparent and encrypted, companies can easily determine if the people viewing their ads are members of their targeted audience—or not—saving millions in ad spend each year,” Newman wrote.

Indeed, there are a myriad of ways marketers can leverage blockchain. Publishers too can reap the benefits. A new startup called Civil, for example, looks to leverage blockchain to create a journalism platform free from fake news, advertising and outside influence. Blockchain also has journalists talking about its potential impact on news publishing.

For all its potential, though, blockchain remains confusing to many people, so you can expect a lot of explainers in the new year as interest increases.

Looking Forward

It’s been a rough 2017 in many ways, and change is such a constant that it has become a way of life in digital publishing. But we can be sure that as digital advertising has surpassed TV ads for the first time that digital has stopped becoming the “other,” the “nerds in the corner” and has now become the center of publishing. So rather than pout and complain in 2018, it’s time to buckle up, sharpen our focus on new tech, new techniques, and new collaborations and partnerships, so we can make the most of this wild ride.

©2024 Digital Content Next. All Rights Reserved.