Articles by: "Rande Price, Research VP – DCN"

Americans are critical of news institutions. That’s not all bad

September 8, 2020 Rande Price, Research VP – DCN

Good and honest journalism informs the public, increases knowledge, and offers a healthy dialogue on democracy. And, to hold journalists to that standard, Americans believe their wariness of the news media is healthy for society. They think it is a good practice to keep their guard up when obtaining news and information in order to help determine fact from fiction.

Recent findings from a a year-long Pew Research Center study shows that close to two-thirds (63%) of U.S consumers think it’s best if society questions the news media. Nevertheless, half (51%) of consumers are confident that journalists act in the best interests of the public. While this still leaves many consumers less confident, a full three-quarters of Americans believe their level of confidence in journalists can improve.

Trust and transparency

Accurate news information is critical for news organizations. Six in ten consumers expect the news they receive to be correct. However, more than two-thirds (69%) of consumers believe news organization try to cover up their errors. This underscores a distrust of the news media. Many think mistakes occur due to careless reporting (55%), the race to break a story (53%), and a direct intent to mislead (44%). Transparency in corrections is an opportunity to grow consumer trust. Just over half of American’s say that seeing corrections from news organizations makes them more confident in that outlet.

There’s a high correlation between consumer trust and the transparency of a news source. Trust and transparency work together offering a system of checks and balances in accountability. This Pew analysis makes it clear that consumers are concerned with news organizations’ answerability.

Close to three-quarters of consumers (72%) think that the news media does a poor job explaining their source of their money. Sixty percent of consumers report news organizations are not forthcoming about conflicts of interest. In addition, more than half of consumers think the news media lacks transparency in telling audiences how they choose their sources (57%) and whether a story is fact or opinion (55%).

Consumer connection

A personal connection with news stories often leads to positive attitudes toward the news media. Further, more than half (55%) of consumers feel that it is important to connect with their news sources.

However, 59% of Americans report that news organizations do not understand people like them. And 57% believe that their news outlets do not value them. This results in close to two-thirds (63%) of consumers lacking loyalty to their news outlets. Importantly, those who feel that their news source values them, are much more likely to think their news is accurate and to think their news outlet is transparent.

Diverse representation in the newsroom is critical today. Notably, Black adults are more likely than white adults to say different aspects of personal connections with news organizations are somewhat important. They also are far more likely to say it is important to see themselves both in news coverage and in the newsroom.

This Pew analysis highlights the value of consumers and the news media building a connection with one another. Authentic consumer criticism of the news organizations and their journalists can help better inform conversations. It allows for thorough examinations of the facts and provides assurance of truth in journalism.

Industry-Research

Covid-19’s community connection sparks engagement with local media

August 24, 2020 Rande Price, Research VP – DCN

The Covid-19 pandemic and the work-from-home lifestyle are affecting consumers’ media consumption behavior, including engagement with local news. From streaming music to OTT viewing, multitasking with media during the work day is a definite. An analysis from Nielsen’s Remote Workers Consumer Survey shows a larger share of media time is now spent on digital and connected TV devices. The Nielsen survey included 1,000 adults who worked from home prior to and during the coronavirus.

Consumers report their top three workday activities include listening to music (AM/FM and streaming), viewing OTT content and increased social media activity.

Local news consumption

While drive time to work decreased, consumption of local news did not. In fact, news (47%) as a content category leads in viewership compared to comedy (40%) and movies (36%).

Not only did the consumption of local news via digital media increase, it also increased across traditional channels. As concerns and restrictions grew, news briefs were a daily reality in the early days of the coronavirus. Consumers tuned to local news outlets to stay informed. A separate Nielsen viewership analysis between early February and early March registered notable spikes in local news viewing.

Viewing data from Nielsen’s Local People Meter (LPM) in 25 of the largest markets showed viewership in local news increased. Most notably, viewership increased among Persons 2+(7%), among Persons 2-17 (20%) and among Persons 25-54 (10%). Clearly, local news is present in peoples’ daily routines. Increases in local viewership respectively tracked increase Covid-19 positive case levels.

In addition, a study from NewsWhip shows local news sites such as dallasnews.com, wsmv.com, wcvb.com and wndu.com rank highest in user engagement among top news and entertainment media brands. And local sites such as oregonlive.com and wfla.com rank alongside national and international news sites in top related coronavirus articles.

Quality and quantity

Consumers are also seeking out established media brands for information on the public health crisis and the economic consequences. Interestingly, the desire for virus related news and the latest facts are curbing interest in opinionated and partisan sites.

Further, supporting the Nielsen survey and viewership data is a study from Horowitz Research. The findings here show that more than half of US consumers (58%) report accessing more local news during the pandemic than before (38%). Nearly a third of consumers (29%) also report they now consume more local public radio and local/regional newspapers. The increase in local news consumptions is most noticeable among persons 18-34. More than half of this demographic (53%) report they are watching more local news since the Covid-19 crisis.

Working from home offers choice in content consumption. The change in business workplace to the work at home environment offers a new connection point in digital media. Access to local digital news sites provides a strong community focus and serves hyperlocal needs. It also offers marketers an active environment to engage with consumers and integrate at a local level.

Industry-Research

Consumers believe that data privacy is a human right

August 17, 2020 Rande Price, Research VP – DCN

As we know, data monetization is big business for many companies in the digital ecosystem. It’s an integral and lucrative part of programmatic sales’ third-party ad targeting capabilities. However, most of this data is collected, sold, and used without consumer consent.

Given the steady increase in the value of data and data collection, consumers are growing ever more concerned about their privacy. In fact, a new study from KMPG, finds that nearly all U.S. consumers (97%) report that data privacy is a concern. The majority of consumers (87%) view data privacy as a human right. And, unsurprisingly, consumers worry about what companies are doing with their data (54%).

Seeking governance

In light of new regulations in place, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in the U.S., privacy is a critical focal point in digital media. Front and center are new data protection laws to guide the online data collection process.

Consumers overwhelmingly align with the above legislation. More than 90% agree that the data privacy rights of the CCPA should extend to all Americans. Along these lines, four in five (84%) consumers say that they are open to state legislation giving consumers more control over their data.

Importantly, Americans want companies to be transparent in their data collection and usage. They seek regulations similar to GDPR. Nine in ten respondents (91%) agree they have the right to delete personal data and the right to know how their data is being used.

Paying closer attention to online data practices

While U.S. consumers are paying more attention to how brands use their data, they also need to take steps to secure their privacy. KMPG’s research shows that consumers engage in risky online behavior. Eight in ten consumers think it’s a risk to use the same password on multiple digital accounts (78%) or to use a credit card online while on public Wi-Fi (75). Yet, more than 40%, respectively, participate in both of these activities.

Covid 19’s impact on privacy practices

The Covid-19 pandemic also presents data privacy concerns. Three-quarters of Americans are thinking more about data privacy issues during Covid-19. However, a majority are willing to share their personal information to keep others safe and to return to work faster.

Strong willingness to share personal data to safeguards others against Covid-19:

89% would allow places/employers to take their temperature.
85% would share their COVID-19 diagnosis with their employer.
67% would share their personal location data to help track COVID-19 cases.
67% would share their lifestyle information as it contributes to COVID-19 exposure with their employer.

Ad tech companies collecting online data and advertisers using it must rethink the programmatic scenario. GDPR and CCPA are important industry reset buttons, even if forcibly, toward an ecosystem of transparency. It’s the right step to renewing consumers trust.

Industry-Research

Social news consumption leaves people media-malnourished

August 11, 2020 Rande Price, Research VP – DCN

It’s no surprise that social media is where consumers, especially young adults, get their news today. According to a new study from Pew Research Center, 18% of U.S adults use social media for political and election news. Unfortunately, this cohort lacks both the depth and breadth in terms of political news.

Politics

This study finds limited exposure to election news for those using social media as their political news source. Only 8% of consumers who receive most of their political news from social media report that they are following 2020 election news “very closely”. Both broadcast news followers and print news followers are more than three times more likely to follow election coverage closely (37% and 33%, respectively) than social media news followers.

Further, consumers who mainly use social platforms as their main source for political news appear to pay much less attention to news in general compared followers of other news sources. In fact, those who get their political news from cable TV are nearly twice as likely as those in the social media cohort to follow (“fairly closely”) election candidate news (70% vs. 36%).

Current events

This Pew report also analyzed data from previous studies, such as Pathways & Trust in Media. This provides insight into how well consumers that use social media as their main news source are informed on current political news. The analysis found that those in the social media group were among the least likely to have heard a lot about each of six current event stories. Further, they were also among the most likely to have heard no news on each of the six events.

Another analysis in this report identified 29 fact-based news-related questions in five Pew studies across the last nine months. The questions included topics on the presidential election, the economy, the political parties, Donald Trump’s impeachment, and the coronavirus outbreak. Pew’s analysis of the 29 questions shows a high correlation between the least accurate responses and consumers who rely mostly on social media for political news.

On average, 43% of social media news consumers answered correctly compared to 63% among those who rely mostly on news websites or apps and 56% among those who turn mostly to network TV. The only comparable group to social platforms are adults who watch local television (37% of correct answers).

False information

Unfortunately, consumers who rely on social media as their main source of political news are more likely to be exposed to false information. In fact, about a quarter of U.S. adults who get most of their news from social media are more likely than others to hear false information or unproven claims. With multiple conspiracy theories centered around the Covid-19 pandemic, about a quarter of U.S. adults who get most of their news through social media report that they heard “a lot” about Covid-19 conspiracy theories. In addition, about eight-in-ten (81%) report they heard at least “a little.” Hearing conspiracy theories is much higher among those who use social media than among those who use any of the other six platforms (broadcast TV, cable TV, print, etc.) for their political news

Demographic characteristics

The Pew study shows that those who rely on social media as their main source for political news tend to be less well-informed. Social media does little to help educate their users how to identify trusted news sources. Consumers need help to navigate through feeds where premium and trusted news brands are right alongside misinformation and disinformation.

Industry-Research

Uneven content policies and moderation practices: How YouTube’s standards fare

July 21, 2020 Rande Price, Research VP – DCN

Publishers establish editorial guidelines to provide a common foundation for journalists, creators, and producers. These guidelines provide a common language to identify an editorial framework and boundaries. Guidelines are often questioned, reevaluated, and updated in a process that allows the editorial voice to evolve over time. Editorial guidelines also present a check and balance system for standards and content moderation, which in turn creates a safe space for advertising.

Unfortunately, the editorial guidelines of social media platforms appear to be a complex maze of mixed messages. This results in unhappy content producers – given opacity around monetization of some content – and risky business for marketers.

A new research report, Tiered Governance and Demonetization: The Shifting Terms of Labor and Compensation in the Platform Economy, examines YouTube’s governance and guidelines including its content moderation practices. The authors, Robyn Caplan and Tarleton Gillespie, investigate the complex landscape of YouTube, the largest video hosting platform in the world. They explore YouTube’s monetization models and their attempt to provide a foundation for governance.

Monetization strategy

One problem is that they frequently include different governance strategies for different creators. The result is that creators struggle to remain inside the viable boundaries for monetization.

YouTube offers a partnership program for content creators and shares advertising revenue with them. Plain and simple, the more user-generated content, the more views, which allows YouTube to collect user data to support targeted advertising. And the more ads served, the more revenue generated.

The YouTube Partnership Program (YPP) is intrinsic to its revenue model. Essentially, it is a form of unpaid labor that generates enormous revenue for the platform. YouTube’s partnership program encourages users to make more content with an offer of compensation as ads run against that content.

YouTube’s content creators vary from amateurs, professionalized amateurs, legacy media organizations, and YouTube’s contracted producers of original content. One particularly tricky aspect is that each is held to held to a different standard and entitled to a different monetization offering.

A few other social platforms developed similar programs, but YouTube’s is by far the largest. According to Caplan and Gillespie’s research, YouTube’s lack of clarity and complicated rules appears to do little in the way of effective content moderation or fair compensation. Further, the fact that YouTube works with multiple creator tiers fuels issues of inconsistent treatment. Consider how editorial standards would impact:

amateur creators who are not dependent on revenue,
creators who are dependent on revenue
professionals building their reputation for secondary distribution, or
media institutions who partner for distribution power.

Enforcement practices

YouTube’s policies vary, with little explanation, in dealing with content that violate their standards and practices around sexual content, violence, harassment, hate speech, or misinformation. Actions include content demonetization, removal of individual videos, or the suspension of entire accounts. They might also place videos behind age barriers or include interstitial warnings indicating graphic content. YouTube may also remove videos deemed to infringe on copyright infringement, violate privacy, or simply spam.

Caplan and Gillespie summarize the YouTube problem:

YouTube stated values as an open platform of expression are in direct conflict with their cautiousness regarding acceptable content and the financial and algorithmic incentive structure.
YouTube’s governance offers a different set of rules for different users. These include different material resources and opportunities for creators to different procedural protections and different expectations of fairness.
Given the ambiguity in the guidelines, creators develop their own theories as to why their content is demonetized.

Caplan and Gillespie offer examples of YouTube’s randomness in enforcing its standards. For example, it appears that YouTube determines participation in YPP based on an algorithmic mix of popularity, engagement, and propriety. However, according to many independent content creators, YouTube also allows inappropriate content to circulate and amplify based on popularity and the ability to generate revenue for the company.

YouTube’s participatory video culture does not bode well for advertisers’ demand for quality and predictability. It appears to be a system based on rewarding audience size and celebrity stardom. Unfortunately, given this revenue model, when YouTube adds new layers to its already complex labyrinth of standards, it fails its creators and fails to effectively moderate content.

Industry-Research

The market is flooded with streaming options. But are consumers satisfied?

July 14, 2020 Rande Price, Research VP – DCN

As more media companies enter the streaming video marketplace, consumers are presented with more choices and content. The good news is that, overall, consumers value the video subscriptions they subscribe to. Hub Entertainments’ annual Monetizing Video report finds that 62% of viewers feel they get at least a “good” value from their TV subscriptions. Hub’s research was conducted with over 2,000 broadband users, age 16-74, who watch at least 1 hour of TV per week.

Significantly, holding subscriptions in high esteem is not necessarily a side-effect of Covid-19. While lockdowns helped drive viewership and overall value, we have seen high levels before shelter-in-place orders. In fact, DCN’s Digital Subscription Economy research showed that 64% of consumers reported their subscription(s) offer high value.

Valued services

Across the different video/TV services consumers use, streaming services topped the list in terms of value for the money. Seven in 10 rated Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, and Amazon Prime as excellent or good value for the money. Boasting deep libraries of content, streaming are convenient and appealing entertainment resources. In contrast, only four in 10 consumers ranked traditional pay-TV as a good value for the money.

Consumers estimate they spend $94 per month for all their TV subscriptions combined. However, they believe they should only pay $72 per month. It is interesting that, even though they are paying $22 more each month, subscriptions services are still perceived as a good value.

Actual vs. reasonable price

Breaking down the payments across the television categories, traditional pay-TV subscribers (no SVOD) are the most likely to feel their total TV bill is higher than reasonable. They estimate they are paying $106 for their subscriptions but think they should only pay $69. The actual vs. reasonable gap is $37 more than they think they should pay.

Pay-TV only (including SVOD) subscribers estimate paying $107. However they think they should only pay $79, making the actual vs. reasonable gap $29. Consumers paying for streaming-services only (no pay TV service) estimate they are paying $60 and think they should only pay $54. This is the only cohort that thinks they are paying the appropriate amount.

Consumers ranked the kind and amount of content a platform offers right up there with pricing as the most important features. Least important features included both recommendations and notifications.

Streaming theatrical releases

Accessing theatrical releases at home is of high appeal among adults 18-34 years old. In fact, 63% of young adults, a key target audience in the theatrical movie business, say they definitely/probably would pay to stream a movie at the same time it’s released in the movie theater. Consumers 35+ differed greatly. Only 12% said they’d definitely/probably pay to stream a movie at the same time released in a movie theater. Further, 18-34 years olds show a strong willing to pay with 65% would definitely/probably pay $15 dollars, 65% would definitely/probably pay $25 and 57% pay $50.

Streaming theatrical releases is a completely different distribution dynamic, altering the window availability across the distribution timeline. The recent release of the big Broadway musical “Hamilton” on Disney+ serves as a promising start with more than 725k global downloads. This marks a 47% increase in app downloads compared to the average four weeks in June. Of course, not all movies will have “Hamilton” level success. Monitoring and evaluating new distribution patterns will be critical to understanding how wide-spread streaming and its adoption becomes for theatrical release.

Advertising | Industry-Research

How publishers can reset to serve a cookie-less digital marketplace

July 7, 2020 Rande Price, Research VP – DCN

To date, marketers and ad tech companies have heavily relied on third-party cookies – those created by domains other than the one the user is visiting. Third-party cookies are used for cross-site tracking, retargeting, and ad serving. Whereas first-party cookies, which are created by the site the user is visiting, allow publisher sites to collect data, remember logins, and help to create a better user experience. A new International News Media Association’s (INMA) report, “The Third Party Cookie Trigger,” covers fundamentals, complexities, and new possibilities as the industry moves beyond third-party cookies.

Clearly, data is an important currency in the digital ecosystem. However, in January 2020, Google announced that it will phase out support for third-party cookies in Chrome by the end of 2022. The next two years provide the time to reset the digital advertising marketplace. We’ll need to reshape data collection and exchange strategies, redefine advertiser opportunities and enhance the users digital experience. Importantly, publishers have an opportunity to showcase how first-party content consumption data provides a better signal for relevance in the advertising ecosystem.

Disappearing cookies is no surprise

The holy grail of digital advertising is its ability to serve the right ad to the right user at the right time. However, the current path to that grail is questionable. Today’s digital advertising ecosystem is complex and messy. According to the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers (ISBA), tracking advertiser spend to the publisher is nearly impossible. In fact, publishers receive only 51% of digital advertising spend with up to one-third of the total spend unattributed.

Further, data collection of consumers on the web has a myriad of issues. These range from consumer consent to data tags firing off signals that lead to latency problems. And now with GDPR and CCPA in place, new governance on data collection is in play. So, it was only a matter of time before third-party cookie were phased out.

Moving beyond cookies

Media companies are already investing in technology platforms, modernizing their publishing infrastructure, building a data foundation, and setting new standards for publisher and advertiser transactions. In fact, publishers are taking steps to build scalable audience segments based on their data for advertisers. They are developing ways to leverage their first-party relationship with their users to evolve the advertising ecosystem.

The INMA report also identifies five potential alternative vehicles, some already in the works, to third-party cookies:

Open Web alternative solution: An alternative such as Web browser APIs, driven by Google, Apple, Firefox, and media companies.
In-app advertising: A shift of marketing spend from the Web to in-app advertising (90% of time spent on mobile is spent in apps).
First-party data: An acceleration of first-party data (scalable) by publishers with a connection to advertisers.
Paywalls and logins: Paywalls and logins and first-party cookies offered as a digital currency to use among publishers, brands, and companies.
Universal IDs: Development of universal user IDs (needs to work across all parties and comply with GDPR and CCPA).

The end of third-party cookies affords publishers with an opportunity to re-think the value of advertising served on their site. It also allows them to distance themselves from an over-reliance on ad tech. It’s important for publishers to take the lead in reshaping data collection and exchange strategies in the digital advertising ecosystem to better reflect the value of the first-party relationship.

Industry-Research

Nonprofit newsrooms proliferate with an emphasis on audience connections

June 30, 2020 Rande Price, Research VP – DCN

Right now, nonprofit newsrooms are surviving and, in some cases, even thriving. A steady stream of new nonprofits continues to join the media market. Many have a strong focus on public interest news, particularly investigative and analytical journalism. INN Index 2020: The State of Nonprofit News research offers insight into nonprofit news organizations’ sustainability, especially among those serving at a local level.

Community journalists generally launch nonprofits with lean budgets and a small staff, with a management style similar to that of many startups. They engage directly with audiences and members. However, even with claims of success, non-profit newsrooms face struggles of their own. At least 40% expect declines in revenue due to the Covid-19 pandemic, while more than half expect no impact, and 8% report expectations of revenue gains. Revenue declines are directly tied to losses in events and advertising.

Growth

According to the INN Index, 12 or more nonprofit news outlets launch each year. Growth areas include local reporting and explanatory reporting, with more than one-third of the outlets focused on these areas. Further, specialized nonprofit publications have also launched and grown, often funded by foundations supporting a coverage topic.

Stability

About half of INN members earn more than $500,000 per year while the remaining half earns less. This has remained consistent for the past three years. Non-profit publishers manage multiple revenue streams. In fact, on average, 41% manage at least four revenue streams. Interestingly, reader revenue in the form of donations and memberships accounts for just a small percentage of overall income, with little change in the last three years.

In all, foundation grants still comprise the largest revenue stream, accounting for approximately less than half of total revenue. Individual giving, including both major gifts and small donations, makes up about one-third of total revenue.

Focus on direct audience relationship

Significantly, non-profit publishers are highly focused on developing direct relationships with their audiences and connecting “the press” with “the public.” In fact, six in 10 report that they reach their audience primarily through direct publication touchpoints including, their website, newsletters, podcasts, and events. Direct engagement makes sense as nonprofits seek to convert loyal readers into donors.

Establishing ties to communities and strengthening audience engagement are two best practices to build upon in order to expand the public’s understanding and support of community-based journalism. Unfortunately, there are many nonprofits operating without a substantial reserve fund. As many non-profit publishers manage their businesses like a start-up, it’s important to establish and maintain best-practice standards for nonprofit management and revenue reserves.

Industry-Research

Some good news, and some bad news, in Reuters’ annual report

June 23, 2020 Rande Price, Research VP – DCN

Each year the Reuters Institute publishes an analysis on the state of the digital news ecosystem. The Digital News Report is vast, covering six continents and 40 markets across the globe. This year’s report explores the impact of coronavirus on news consumption and on the economic prospects for publishers. It looks at progress on new paid online business models, trust and misinformation, partisanship and populism, and the popularity of curated editorial products like podcasts and email newsletters.

The report provides a comprehensive review of the marketplace and incorporates and tracks core consumer metrics of trust and engagement. In particular, it offers insights into digital news publishers’ business models, their sustainability, and the overall impact on modern society.

Political polarization

With the rise and distribution of low-cost internet publishing and its usage to fuel political polarization, the news media as a whole has been called into question. Unfortunately, extreme viewpoints intensified by social media algorithms and the amplification of echo chambers produce a lot of noise and misinformation. Consequently, divided societies trust media less, as they are generally dissatisfied with institutions in their countries.

This type of dissatisfaction is reflected in the data with only four in ten respondents (38%) trusting news overall. However, close to half (49%) trust the news brands they know and use. Further, news in distributed environments (search and social) are trusted the least at 22%. Not surprisingly, social media leads as the biggest source of concern about misinformation (40%), twice the level of news sites (20%).

With a surge of politicize news sources, respondents want the facts. Close to two-thirds of Americans (60%) prefer to get news from sources that have no point of view compare to 30% who prefer to get their news from sources that share your point of view or 10% who prefer to get news from those who challenge their views.

Paid content

Many publishers added new opportunities for paid content to their business model, such as subscriptions, memberships, donations, and micropayments. Growth in subscriptions continues with 20% of respondents in the US paying for online content, up four percentage points in the last year.

Reuters identifies two waves of subscription growth in the U.S. Wave 1 was set in motion by the younger and more liberal voter population in 2016 who subscribed after Donald Trump was elected as president. This segment wants to be informed and to support journalism as a tool to maintain democracy.

The second wave is upon us now. It is fueled by a new election cycle and tighter restrictions around paywalls and what content is available for free. News publishers also experienced growth in new subscribers with the onset of the coronavirus. And that comes, despite many of them offering free Covid-19 content.

Access points

With more pathways to news content, just over one-quarter of consumers (28%) report accessing news websites or apps directly. Another 26% access via social media and 25% access through search. However, among 18-24-year-olds, only 16% have a direct connection with news brands. More than twice as many (38%) prefer social media for their news. Developing a relationship with Gen Z is an important target for publishers’ long-term sustainability.

News surge

Overall, the majority of consumers report that the news media did a good job in helping them understand the details of the pandemic. However, close to one-third (32%) reported that the news media sensationalized the seriousness of the situation. The coronavirus also showcased the need for local news, however long-term demand (and support) is in question.

With quality journalism in demand, digital news publishers must be highly consumer focused. Given that close to three quarters of consumers using backdoors to access their content, publishers need to increase their focus on brand value and customer experience. The 18-24-year-olds are a focal point for growth. And fostering a relationship with this younger demographic holds strong promise for news brands.

Industry-Research

Content moderation is serious business. Social platforms need to act like it

June 16, 2020 Rande Price, Research VP – DCN

Content moderation is a big job for social platforms (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube). Much of the content posted on these sites is made up of user-generated postings, pictures, and videos. However, there is a sizeable amount of content from rogue publishers to contend with as well. At present, it is common practice for social platforms to outsource the role of content moderation.

NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights’ new report, authored by Paul Barrett, focuses on Facebook and questions its strategy of outsourcing content moderation. Facebook, by far, outsources the largest number moderators of all the tech platforms. Barrett makes the case that content moderation is central to social platforms’ business. Thus, as with other core business functions, Facebook should make this vital role that of a full-time company employee. To improve moderation, Barrett contends that Facebook must bring moderators in-house and increase the number from the current 15,000 to 30,000.

Outsourcing

According to Barrett, Facebook’s outsourcing was a purposeful decision. Their reasoning goes beyond the cost of bringing these employees in house. It is also a logistical – even strategic – decision to outsource moderation.

Sarah Roberts, an expert on content moderation at the University of California, comments that Facebook and other social media companies outsource moderation to minimize its level of importance. Roberts’ refers to this as “plausible deniability.” She explains, the work is mission critical. However, your full time employees don’t handle it directly. The company intentionally places a physical distance between the problem and its staff.

Facebook contracts third-party vendors, which hire temporary workers located at 20 sites worldwide. With the assistance of AI, this army of contract-moderators sift through approximately three million posts a day.

Business paradox

Facebook’s core business model centers on advertising. The goal of the platform is to add new users, to increase scale. This drives advertising revenues, which demonstrates growth to Wall Street. However, there is an intrinsic problem here. More users create ever more content to be moderated. This puts moderators on a hamster wheel with no end in sight.

With such a high volume of moderation, and a minimal level of content expertise, errors occur. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s CEO, quoted a 10% error rate in flagging content that should be taken down or taking down content that should not be flagged. Given this margin, there are at least 300,000 mistakes each day. Some of these are very serious mistakes.

The consequences

What are the repercussions of postings remaining online when they should be taken down? There’s little risk for Facebook, at least within the U.S. Due to the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, internet platforms are protected from liability for most content posted by users. Even with President Trump’s recent executive order to roll back Section 230, tech company protection from liability still appears in place.

Unfortunately, there are consequences for the workers. In a recent class action lawsuit against Facebook in San Mateo County, California, a group of former reviewers claimed that “as a result of constant and unmitigated exposure to highly toxic and extremely disturbing images,” they had suffered “significant psychological trauma and/or post-traumatic stress disorder.”

Facebook agreed, without admitting any liability, in May 2020 to settle the suit. The settlement could distribute millions of dollars to more than 10,000 current and former moderators in the U.S. (a minor slap on the wrist for a company that earns more than $70 billion dollar per year).

Importantly, there are also serious consequences for multitudes Facebook users as well. One such incident identified members of the Myanmar military as operatives behind a systematic campaign on Facebook to target the country’s Muslim Rohingya minority group. Facebook was warned of anti-Rohingya rhetoric and false claims posted on their platform (which were not removed). The United Nations and others blame on Facebook for the murder of more than 10,000 Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar and the displacement of hundreds of thousands more. Facebook eventually concluded there was a deliberate and covert Myanmar military operations but again there was no liability on their part.

Incidences like those in Myanmar also happened in Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Ethiopia, as well as other places.

Time for change

Barrett concludes his report with eight recommendations to change Facebook current practices:

Stop outsourcing content moderation and bring the process in-house.
Increase the number of moderators from 15,000 to 30,000 to improve the review process.
Hire someone to oversee content and fact-checking who reports directly to the CEO or COO.
Expand moderation in at-risk countries in Asia, Africa, and other areas.
Provide all moderators with quality medical and psychiatric access.
Support research on the health risks of content moderation.
Explore targeted government regulation regarding harmful content.
Expand fact-checking to discredit false information.

Companies routinely outsource areas outside their expertise. However, this practice is far from common for areas core to their business. Content moderation is an area of expertise that Facebook needs to possess, and excel, in for the safety of its employees and Facebook users worldwide.

Industry-Research

Adding algorithms in the newsroom can help build trust

June 9, 2020 Rande Price, Research VP – DCN

Building trust in the news media is a careful balance in accuracy, bias, and transparency. Unfortunately, news brands today don’t live in isolation. Adding social media to the mix alters this balance with its potential amplification of inaccurate, out-right fake, and politically manipulated news stories. With a surge in digital news consumption, it is important to examine new strategies to renew consumer trust.

Newly honored research from the University of Florida Consortium on Trust in Media and Technology offers insight into the value of adding algorithmic reporting to human bylines to increase positive perception of news coverage. T. Franklin Waddell research, Can an Algorithm Reduce the Perceived Bias of News? Testing the Effect of Machine Attribution on News Readers’ Evaluations of Bias, Anthropomorphism, and Credibility, examines the premise that machine-based news stories are objective and “free from bias.”

Adding machines to the process

Waddell conducted an online experiment to test this premise. He tested author attribution: journalist vs. algorithm vs. combined authorship from two news outlets (MSNBC vs. Fox News) on two story topics (Khan Conflict vs. Paris Accord). In all, there were 612 participants who were asked to read a news article that was written by either a journalist, an algorithm, or by a journalist and algorithm together.

After reading the article, the respondents were asked questions on article credibility, perceived bias, and the personification of human characteristics. Waddell’s research also explored whether news attributed to an automated author is perceived as less biased and more credible than news attributed to a human author.

Credibility results

The results of the study showed that algorithms were perceived as less biased than human authors. Machine attribution decreased perceptions of bias, which then related to message credibility. In other words, the research found that news automation aids credibility and helps to reduce the perception of bias.

More importantly, machine and human sources combined offered a more favorable credibility outcome and the perceived bias was less than a human or machine source alone.

Transparency

The research also discusses the importance of messaging this combined journalistic approach to news consumers. Waddell found a positive impact on message credibility when using a combined byline of journalist and machine. Additional research needs to be conducted on specific labeling and consistency to accurately describe the degree of automation used as well as to heighten the credibility of the news products.

Waddell’s findings that bias perceptions lessen when news is attributed to a combined partnership of human journalist and machine automation is significant. While there are concerns about biases built in to AI itself, these research insights offer a promising step that could have a positive impact on consumer trust in media news. Automation alone does not appear to be the answer. But, along with historical context, background information and fact checking, it offers a starting point. And it is critical for the news media to explore ways in which it can reinforce the credibility of quality journalism.

Industry-Research

Research reveals the scope of Google’s digital ecosystem dominance

May 27, 2020 Rande Price, Research VP – DCN

Fifty state attorneys general in the U.S. are looking into Google’s abuse of market power and use of anti-competitive conduct in the digital advertising market. These investigations are as complex as they are numerous. However, a new report from the Omidyar Network offers insight into the core issues under examination.

Roadmap for a Digital Advertising Monopolization Case Against Google showcases the company’s market power, which it achieved through orchestrated acquisitions and vertical integration. The authors, Fiona M. Scott Morton and David C. Dinielli, delve deeply into the Market Study Interim Digital Report produced by the UK’s Competition and Market Authority (CMA) to continue the narrative. The detailed report includes a description of markets relevant to allegations of antitrust and a detailed explanation of anticompetitive conduct. It outlines and explores 20 specific instances. These showcase Google’s market dominance and the harm that causes to competition and consumers.

Key points

Audience and inventory

Citing the CMA report, 95% of all web users in the U.K. access at least one Google site or app each month. YouTube, a Google product, reaches 91% of the total U.K. web audience. And when it comes to inventory, Google Search is approximately 90% of the total supply. Serving as the main point of entry for the internet and controlling most of the supply for search advertising and a sizeable supply for display (especially open display and video) are strong indicators of market power.

Advertising intermediation

Google’s many data services, together with its stack, dominate the ad tech ecosystem, which targets and places digital ads. Google holds an overwhelmingly high market share in three functions plus in data services: the publisher ad server market is (90%+), the supply side platform/inventory (40–60%), and the demand side platform (50–70%).

Providing all of the functions in the ad stack allows Google to, essentially, manage the price. In the digital ecosystem there is a price charged by each intermediary in the ad tech supply chain (take rate). The take rate is the difference between what the advertiser pays and what the publisher receives. The CMA estimates Google’s take rate is at 40%, given it provides all the functions in the ad stack. In other words, Google keeps 40 cents of every advertising dollar.

Further, actions by Google can paralyze aspects of the market. Earlier this year, Google announced plans to retire the third-party “cookie.” The cookies websites place on a user’s browser to identify each unique user. This enables intermediaries in the ad stack to track consumers as they visit different sites. Google doesn’t rely on cookies in order to place targeted ads and track attribution. Its sites, aps, and devices collect user data. Google has no problem identifying users for targeting practices with or without the cookie. However, retiring the cookie has direct and negative implications for others in the ad stack.

Market dependency

Advertisers and publishers alike continue to use Google’s intermediation services. Otherwise, they can’t connect to Google’s must-have supply (YouTube and publisher inventory) or must-have demand (advertiser dollars). As a result, competitors have exited or become competitively irrelevant. A clear example is the fact that Google currently maintains a 90% share of the publisher ad server market, which means most ads cannot reach a publisher’s site without the go-ahead of Google.

This report clearly and persuasively demonstrates Google’s monopolistic practices. It provides an excellent resource for any researching the company and should inform the investigation by the states’ attorneys general and the U.S. Department of Justice.