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

Menu

Category results for "Featured Post"

Featured Post | Marketing | Revenue

Local news: Forget national metrics and focus on your strengths

Regional papers depend on building communities based on geography. But younger people prioritize interest-based communities. So, how can local and regional papers build new relationships with digital natives?

At the latest World News Media Congress in Glasgow, the publisher of The Globe and Mail Philip Crawley spoke about the unsurpassed value of an engaged local audience. He argued that—while digital engagement metrics provide invaluable data about audience funnels and propensity to convert—there are metrics that are unique to regional media they consider just as important.

He used the example of the paper’s packed obituaries pages to illustrate how a local title can measure its tangible engagement with an audience through non-digital interactions. Ultimately, Crawley made it clear that the worth of a local title cannot be measured through ones and zeroes alone.

Regional titles have long been experts in measuring engagement. These metrics might be tallying attendance at events they organize, counting submissions to the letters pages, or by less concrete metrics like the willingness of the public to interact with their journalists.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t necessarily translate to sustainability, even for publishers that have the same drive to reinvest in news products. Whether it’s due to quirks of geography, unpredictable societal differences, or for any number of reasons, local news publishers have been hurting. Investment in the print product is no guaranteed panacea either.

The key issue for many is that they have struggled to find ways in which digital products can serve as a focus for local engagement as print editions once did. Another factor is the often top-down approach from regional publishers who try to use national-level engagement metrics for their regional titles. Crucially, they largely miss those specialist ‘obituary pages’ engagement measurements that are an indication that audiences are invested in a community with a news brand at its center.

What does local engagement look like?

The race, then, is for local titles to discover what local engagement looks like in the platform age before their business models become unsustainable. To the industry’s great credit, it has been quick to launch research projects designed specifically around that.

One, the Community Listening and Engagement Fund (CLEF), was co-founded by a group that includes the Knight Foundation and the Lenfest Institute for Journalism. The goal of this initiative is to develop tools that measure that engagement (as opposed to the many approaches around finding funding or cost-savings).

Meanwhile, Poynter launched the Table Stakes initiative, which focuses on diversifying revenue for local newspaper, public radio, or digital news organizations. And the recently announced Project Neon is explicitly focused on finding ways to intensify audiences’ engagement with regional publisher Archant’s titles. We can look forward to seeing useful findings from these efforts in a few years’ time.

Investment in an uncertain future

Those efforts are welcome—and exactly what the industry should be doing. The unfortunate reality, however, is that while regional publishers have the expertise and history of engaging regional audiences in print, digitally they are playing catch-up. This is particularly significant given their need connect with younger audiences—and from something of a standing start.

This is not a consequence of a lack of effort in engaging audiences. In fact, there has been plenty of excellent work done to discover how young audiences interact with news digitally. However, that hasn’t always helped local publishers build engagement with young people.

For instance, Research from Flamingo on behalf of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism demonstrates that, as a result of having grown up with ready access to the internet, younger readers do not necessarily share the same values or expectations about the purpose of news:

“They still need and want news to connect their world to the world – and fulfil an array of different social and personal needs – but they don’t necessarily see the traditional media as the best or only way to do that… They don’t need to seek it out, news comes to them.” As a result, the reality of engaging young audiences is that it is much harder to build a community around a geographical rather than an interest-based niche.

The Flamingo study also found that no news app was in the top 25 most-used app in their respondents’ phones. This implies that local publishers must have a presence on social platforms to reach those young audiences on which they are increasingly going to rely.

To make matters more difficult, social platforms do not typically offer user data or tools that are of value to local publishers. (Although Facebook’s most recent endeavor in this area is reportedly better in this respect than past attempts). Local publishers are stuck between a rock and a hard place, then, trying to build communities on platforms that don’t necessarily cater to them.

In an excellent thread on Twitter, The Los Angeles Times’ engagement editor Adriana Lacy argued that publishers having a presence on even the recently-launched platforms like TikTok will eventually help with that engagement issue. However, she also notes it might take precious time – something local publishers particularly are often short of – to see any real return.

Part of the solution

Local and regional titles have always relied on creating a community out of their local readers. Efforts like comments sections on pages are useful for eyeballing the levels of community engagement, but without a print title to provide those ‘obituary metrics’, and with younger audiences increasingly finding ‘news’ content through platforms and intermediaries, regional publishers have struggled to demonstrate they have the heart and trust of a community.

One potential solution is for regional publishers to double down on what the BBC World Service Group’s head of editorial partnerships Emily Kasriel has termed ‘Solutions-focused Journalism.’ As Kasriel put it:

“Another factor driving our SFJ initiative is the desire to better serve our audiences, particularly young people. According to recent BBC Audience Research, 51% of 16-18 year olds and 47% of 19-24 year olds in the UK ‘agree or strongly agree’ that they want news to also provide solutions. The figures were even higher in the developing world: 75% of Indians, 78% of Nigerians and 82% of Kenyans of all ages want their news to provide solutions and not just problems.”

Solutions-focused journalism, centered around local areas, are potentially how publishers can marry the interest-based communities of the internet to the local areas they cover. Here, they can happily use those platforms on which they have established themselves as both a place for discussion and to provide calls for action around those proactive, solutions-based causes they are championing. The UK’s Pink News, though an interest-based title, grew to be the largest LGBTQ+ publisher in the world as a result of its campaigning journalism, for instance.

In the city of Hull in the UK, that focus on providing solutions journalism appears to be bearing fruit for one regional digital publisher, for instance. Journalism.co.uk reports: “Constructive journalism project Hull Is This launched in November 2018 with early promise, reaching 37k hits in its debut month and 45k in January 2019. While page views alone are not always the best metric for measuring the success of editorial content, it does at least suggest demand for local, positive stories.”

Similarly, the Yorkshire Post’s high levels of trust in the community have been attributed in part to its campaigning journalism around loneliness in the region.

So, while there may not be a direct digital successor to the ‘obituary metrics’ that demonstrated there was a community around local print titles quite yet, it isn’t to say that it is impossible to recreate those communities in the age of platforms. Instead, it could be that regional publishers will find a new path by shifting from being passive but present in the community to a much more pro-active and campaigning force around which a new, younger community will form.

Featured Post | Marketing

How marketers and agencies can address increasing privacy regulation

Privacy has been in the spotlight more than ever before. Tech giants like Facebook and Google have been scrutinized in congressional hearings, fined, and are under investigation from the Department of Justice, dozens of states attorneys general, and the Federal Trade Commission.

Regulation has taken hold via GDPR. Now on the immediate horizon is the California Consumer Privacy Act, which is set to go into law Jan. 1, 2020. (And other state laws are on the horizon.) Though it is less comprehensive than GDPR, CCPA is the first significant data privacy law in the U.S. and will therefore set a precedent for how companies comply to privacy regulations stateside. It also effectively ends what has long been an environment of self-regulation.

These laws certainly impact how players outside the tech giants operate, including client-side marketers and agencies. Media buyers and sellers, for example, are left to make sense of how to handle the demands of reaching targeted audiences at scale while also not alienating potential customers by mishandling data or using it in a way that makes them uncomfortable.

Privacy is, unsurprisingly, among the top concerns for executives in the industry, given the potential to affect how they target their advertising. A survey from Marin Software polled marketers across categories and asked them what challenges will most impact their businesses in 2019. Atop the list was data privacy, tracking restrictions and ad blocking.

Legal fragmentation

CCPA allows people to know who is collecting their data, what is being collected, and with whom that data is being shared. Businesses of a certain size will be required to comply. As of now, the CCPA is not yet finalized, though approval of amendments are expected to finish this month.

What the ad industry wants is one national law. Four industry trade groups, including the ANA, formed a coalition called Privacy for America to lobby to “Congress to ensure federal online privacy legislation is less strict than a law scheduled to go into effect in California in 2020,” according to Reuters.

Dan Jaffe, group executive vice president of government relations for the Association of National Advertisers, said of the ANA’s problems with CCPA: “At the most fundamental level, it is that it is a single state law. We don’t think that privacy rules work on a state-by-state basis. The business has already gone through a substantial amount of fragmentation and that is only going to increase in 2020 unless there is a federal law passed that preempts state laws.”

Last year, tech giants like Google, Facebook, IBM, and Microsoft began lobbying the Trump Administration for a gentler federal law – one that would override CCPA. However, unless something major happens, it looks like the CCPA may set the tone for how online companies approach privacy in the U.S., at least in the near term. And the marketplace will have to respond quickly.

Privacy now

But despite cries for a federal law, CCPA will soon go into effect. So, what are agencies and marketers to do in the near term?

While companies have already had to make adjustments to comply with GDPR that can apply to CCPA, CCPA is  “still a bit of ‘wait and see,’ given that there are still negotiations taking place and amendments being made,” said Jon Taylor, SVP of Global Data Strategy at WPP media agency Essence.

However, the looming California regulation will almost certainly affect media buys and plans, according to Taylor. This could result in more contextual-based ads  (versus behavioral targeting based off cookies) and ads that are targeted to more general audiences. “Agencies and marketers need to be able to work more seamlessly across a spectrum of aggregated, normative data and granular, programmable data where it’s available. This may result in media plan that feature more generalized targeting options, but these are hopefully informed by more robust insights.”

For agencies, said Taylor, the challenge is around vendors and “predicting how these same new rules and regulations will affect partner offerings. For instance, the advent of GDPR saw some companies completely pivot their business models (Tapad), change the way data could be accessed and used (Google) or even exit the Eurozone completely (Verve).”

When agencies and marketers work together, Taylor says that “more marketers should bring their legal practitioners into discussions with their agencies around privacy issues” to ensure enforcement is happening everywhere along the supply chain. After all, “agencies have excellent points of view of these issues, and a broad market view, but are also not legal practices.”

First- and third-party data

Outside of agencies and marketers working together to ensure compliance, there is the issue of the growing importance of first party data. Tanya Forsheit, Partner and Chair of Privacy and Data Security Group, Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, told the Wall Street Journal that  transparency will be required, and that marketers and other companies like ad-techs, agencies, exchanges and intermediaries, will be among those held accountable. “Marketers will have to rely more on first-party data, the information they get from having a direct relationship with the consumer. They will rely less on third-party data that they don’t collect directly.”

Some, however, are concerned that the reliance on first party data resulting from privacy protections will only strengthen the hold that Facebook and Google have on the marketplace.  “It’s actually concentrating power and market leverage within the walled garden, because they have certain advantages, direct relations with consumers,” Adam Solomon, CMO of marketing technology platform Lotame, told Ad Age.

“The effects of regulation mean that the walls of the walled gardens only seem to get higher. But conversely, the likelihood that those platforms will ever share data between them – for the benefit of the marketer – only seems to get lower… In a sense, our industry is at an all-time low in terms of data portability,” said Taylor.

About the author

Maureen Morrison is a writer and consultant, working with agencies, startups, publishers and brands on editorial and communications strategies. She previously was a reporter and editor at Ad Age for 12 years, covering agencies, digital media and marketers.

Featured Post | Perspectives | Policy

Google continues its offensive, but we’re all smarter now

There is a certain musical rhythm to our digital media industry calendar. If there was a crescendo, I expect it would be in the Fall, as leaders migrate from execution to strategic planning. And with this shift, conference season begins. There are many forces at work shaping these agendas, not the least of which are businesses wanting to get their messages to market.  

As is so often the case, Google sits at the top of the influence food chain and its extensive industry relations efforts impact nearly everyone else’s agenda. Whether Google’s wishes and goals are delivered directly (as they are for a privileged few of their so-called “premium partners”) or through the company’s trade lobbies, press efforts, investments and research, Google’s impact is as predictable as the autumn leaves.  

But this year is different. 

As we wind down 2019, Google is a bit less focused on driving its own profits and a lot more focused on strengthening its fortress against scrutiny. Right now, it seems that Google’s first and only priority is to dispel or confuse any analysis being done on anticompetitive behaviors. This marks a more sensitive and controlled conversation for Google.  

For us, it is important to bear in mind that one of Google’s best defenses can be getting the industry to support its efforts. This is where all of us come into play. We need to be sure we clearly see (and accurately portray) how self-serving Google’s “industry relations” efforts are. The good news is that we are all smarter now. And we – the media industry, the press, and politicians everywhere – are in a position to take informed, proactive action to confront wrongdoing in the form of untenable industry dominance.  

The market today 

Here is what we know about the scrutiny of Google:  

  1. Everyone has upped their game. Everyone. The people involved in the many antitrust investigations have done a lot of homework. This isn’t 10 years ago; it’s not even three years ago. Global scrutiny by international regulators, the press, and the industry has made everyone smarter on the topics. These days, critics are unlikely to get lost in the complexity of Google’s digital business. (As an example, this time around regulators are asking questions about nuanced industry topics like auction mechanics and data rules.) 
  2. Everyone understands Google’s core business. Everyone. Google operates free services in order to devour as much data as possible in order to micro-target advertising to audiences. Investigations appear to be focused on Google’s vertical control over experiences and the entire advertising stack funding them. This is where Google continues to make more than 85% of its revenue. And dozens of Google products work together to enable it.  
  3. Everyone is significant. Everyone. Investigations happening globally from Australia to the U.K. In the U.S., it includes 48 State Attorneys General, Congress, and the Department of Justice. Put another way, a lot of serious antitrust experts across nations, and political aisles, are aligning to explore areas of concern.  

Growing concerns  

These investigations primarily focus on the intersection of Google’s data practices and its market dominance. Both are protected by Google’s command of search and mobile operating systems – two areas where the company has already been found by EU regulators to have violated antitrust law.  

Aggregating other’s content for searching the web was the original and easiest version of Google’s strategy to understand (and attempt to address). However, the company has extended into new services that exponentially increase its ability to collect data. And, as we now know, a majority of Google’s data collection occurs when users aren’t even choosing to interact with Google.  

So, the roll-out of privacy laws in Europe (and now the U.S.) present escalating risk to Google’s business. As Google attempts to comply with these new data protection laws while maintaining its profits, it needs to avoid tripping more antitrust wires as it did last year in Europe.  

Make no mistake, the cards are still stacked in Google’s favor. Its annual budget for academic research, think tanks, lobbying, publisher support, trade press PR, and event sponsorships likely matches the top lines of revenue for nearly every organization in the industry. No one wants to upset Google and therein lies one of the key symptoms of the problem.  

What can the industry do? 

But in the interest of transparency and support for a fair assessment of Google’s business practices, what can the rest of the industry do to be supportive? 

1. Press scrutiny. I would emphasize that the trade and policy press must continue your great work to cover the company fairly and with the healthy bit of cynicism it deserves. This has shifted significantly over the past few years in a positive way as newsrooms have ramped up their coverage of big tech. We’re seeing fewer instances of the industry press simply rehashing Google’s announcements or sharing its carefully crafted blog posts. Instead, they’re reporting on them with proper context and careful analysis.  

It is important to add that as an industry that seeks to inform, instead of simply propagating the spin of a corporate blog post, we have a responsibility to share the best coverage of issues, even when it’s written by the competition. With the advent of social, proliferating quality information must be one of our highest objectives.  

2. Independent academic research. We saw something remarkable play out this past quarter. Academics at Carnegie-Mellon and Minnesota released independent, empirical research that showed how little publishers actually benefit from third party cookies (around 4%). The research spanned three years and offers critically important analysis as publishers consider changes to data policy. For this reason, it also very much threatens Google’s interests.  

Recently, Google released its own “internal research” consisting of a single data point, which suggested that more than 50% of advertising revenue would be lost without third party cookies. It’s a ridiculous argument. After reporters and academics scorched Google for the claim, they eventually posted a thin three-page summary which they subsequently buried and backed off from (suggesting, perhaps, that they weren’t anxious for another careful analysis of the quality of this “research”). No doubt there are many more examples. 

As an industry, we must continue to question self-serving or corporate-baked research. The onus is upon us to seek out the best independent research and share it widely.  

3. Persistence. When Google’s Head of News put out a blog post defending its practices and unwillingness to pay publishers for use of their content despite competitors’ willingness to pay and new copyright laws rolling out in Europe, that’s not the last word. When Google sends a note to publishers in France extorting them to give Google permission to use their content for free or lose traffic to their website, there is only one answer: “No.” This all happened in the past week. Really, Google is not going to turn off Google News across Europe and they’re also not likely to want to be in an inferior position as other news platforms roll out.  

As an industry, and bound by ethics and the law, we need to continue to hold the line for the proper value of trusted news and entertainment and the trust of the users and advertisers we serve.  

The PR machine rumbles, but its workings are exposed 

Just this week, we witnessed the incredible power of the Google disinformation machine. A senior executive at Facebook and several industry influencers are sharing a piece that uses an arcane analysis of file sizes (yes, as in bytes) instead of referral traffic to confuse the issue of the company’s search dominance and disparage the knowledge of a vocal antitrust proponent. It is disheartening to see this get any air. At the same time, we clearly see that politicians have increased their knowledge of how Google’s business (and PR machine) works. Rather than being buried by obfuscation, we see clear-eyed and immediate push back coming from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle including Senators Josh Hawley and Elizabeth Warren. 

I considered titling this piece, “Winter is Coming” but that’s overused. I’ll just conclude with a note that there are significantly important investigations happening by competent authorities which will impact the future of our industry. And California offers new guidance for how data can be collected and used. Both issues play directly into publishers’ business interests.  

Fortunately, there are positive signs. We see well-informed, reasoned calls for a close examination of technology’s impact and its business practices. Journalists and industry watchdogs have begun to see biased research and self-serving statements for what they are. And that is progress.  

Featured Post | Innovation

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

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

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

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

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

The strategy starts with content

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

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

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

Advertisers want in

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

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

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

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

Evolving regulations require nimble strategies

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

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

Regulatory clarity opens new avenues for solutions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured Post | Innovation

Voice search offers publishers a big opportunity. Here’s how to make the most of it

Content providers have always known that word of mouth can work wonders. Now, they have to apply that principle by speaking up—literally—in order to reach more consumers via voice search.

Voice searches already account for about 20% of mobile queries. By next year half of all online searches will be performed via voice. Yet only 4% of businesses surveyed regard themselves as voice-search ready. Publishers who are behind this important tech curve risk being silenced by rivals intent on commanding the conversation.

The talk on the street

“It’s no surprise that voice as an interface for technology and information is taking off so quickly,” says Rachel Reed, senior innovation manager for food, lifestyle and entertainment company Meredith Corporation. “As consumers, we are drawn to technology that understands us, empathizes with us, and can ultimately predict our needs and wants. As publishers, voice paves the way for us to create more personalized and meaningful connections with our audiences.”

Bryan Osima, software engineer and CEO of Uvietech Software Solutions, says people are relying more on voice search for three primary reasons: convenience, speed, and accuracy. “We are bombarded with tons of information every day and we have shorter attention spans. So, the speed of getting the information we need is paramount,” he says. “The primary devices for that today are smartphones, smart speakers, and wearables with built-in smart home assistants like Alexa and Google Assistant.”

Publishers who choose not to optimize for voice search are leaving a lot of traffic on the table, Greg Secrist, cofounder of BKA Content, believes. “This area is especially beneficial for news organizations and other content providers who want to increase their chances of their content being found and consumed by readers,” says Secrist.

Real world success stories

Reed can attest to how crucial voice search is becoming for content companies. For years, Meredith has employed a predictive framework that enables its brands to dynamically serve content to targeted users. Now, they’re extending this personalization and predictive framework to voice to make informed predictions about and deliver useful voice content to individual users.

“We employ a two-pronged approach. First, we’ve implemented voice search optimization to ensure our content surfaces in response to general user queries. We are seeking to own the phrase, not just the keyword, by providing shorter responses to longer queries and implementing concise headlines and summaries,” notes Reed. “Second, we are building data-informed voice-first experiences designed for different platforms. This involves identifying the most meaningful use cases for voice and launching interactive experiences to address what we see as unmet needs in each space.”

Currently, Meredith is focused on voice search categories related to health and wellness, entertainment, and food. It recently launched two skills: Balance by Health, which offers daily wellness inspiration and motivation tips; and Entertainment Weekly’s The Must List, which provides an exclusive look at the top movies, TV shows, and movies that its editors recommend.

Secrist, whose business writes and packages customized content for clients, has also been working hard to ensure his team’s compositions are properly optimized for voice. “We use conversational language and semantics to make sure our content is compatible with voice search. Thinking about the way a customer would use their voice to access certain information is important when creating voice search-friendly content,” says Secrist.

Best practices for voice search

To improve voice search optimization (VSO) results, Osima recommends the following best practices:

  • Analyze all content carefully and think about as many contexts and questions users could have about that piece of content.
  • Provide concise yet comprehensive answers to those contextualized questions that could be returned in a voice search result.
  • Structure the content as clearly as possible with logical headings and sections that explicitly detail what each section is focused on. Content found in a frequently asked questions page often get the best returns on voice search. While you can’t make every page on your site FAQ, you can provide a similar structure: Employ a heading that’s descriptive and which could be a contextualized question or query a user would have, and then provide the answer immediately after.
  • Use structured metadata, rich snippets, and other tags made primarily for search engines to ensure that they precisely understand what your content is about.
  • Make sure your site and pages load very quickly.
  • Increase backlinks to your site to improve your domain authority. Search engines want to be sure that, as much as possible, they are returning results from very credible sources. Your overall domain authority is the biggest indicator of that.
  • Pay attention to semantics by targeting long-tail keywords related to the subject matter. For example, a consumer may be searching for “pants,” while others might refer to them as “trousers”; be sure your content addresses both terms.

Keep it simple for success

However, “skip buzzwords, as they don’t work in voice search. Drill down into the most generic keywords your business uses to attract an audience,” suggests Andrew Schrage, CEO of the popular personal finance blog Money Crashers. “Remember that voice search inherently involves brevity. So, you want to strip things down and find out what customers really want to know about your business in as few words as possible.”

Also, aim for content that reads in a conversational manner. That means ensuring a high Flesh-Kincaid readability score – 70 or higher is ideal.

“Having simple answers to questions is important, as voice search is looking for the simplest way to answer the users question. If your content has lengthy paragraphs answering something, it is not voice search friendly,” says Secrist.

Lastly, keep your eyes on the prize: Make a strong effort to identify the value and utility your brand provides and choose a unique way to deliver that utility via voice.

“Give users a reason to come back,” Reed advises. “Test, learn, listen to feedback, and continue to optimize.”

Featured Post

Opportunity lies at the intersection of data protection and healthy competition

Over the course of the past year or so, states have significantly ramped up their efforts to hold big tech platforms accountable. In fact, more than a dozen states either have new data protection regulations on the books or in committee. Efforts like the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and DC Attorney General Karl Racine’s lawsuit against Facebook are examples of states’ attempts to regain some measure of control for consumers. And just this week, 50 Attorneys General from 48 states, Washington DC, and Puerto Rico announced an antitrust investigation into Google.

For those following tech policy, the escalation is not surprising. Google and Facebook have built massive, unrivaled data collection operations. According to research from Princeton, the top 10 domains that track consumers across the web belong to Google and Facebook. This tracking, along with careless data practices, has given rise to a growing tide of consumer distrust that affects the entire internet. At the same time, these activities are a major factor in the widespread adoption of ad blocking.

A broken supply chain

Platform intermediaries with black box algorithms redirect more and more value from the supply chain. As a result, buyers (advertisers) and sellers (publishers) suffer increasing harm.

According to the Association of National Advertisers (ANA), approximately 30% of advertiser dollars go to fraud. At the same time, advertisers have suffered reputational harm as platforms negligently and haphazardly run ads for trusted brands against abhorrent content such as terrorist propaganda and child pornography. Thus, brands and marketers are increasingly wary of these opaque and irresponsible practices.

On the other side of the supply chain, publishers’ share of the advertising pie is shrinking as it is gobbled up by data-fixated platforms. And, given ad blocker adoption, the amount of metaphorical pie being served is also dwindling.  

What’s worse, however, is that rules and expectations of the digital advertising marketplace are being written by and for the big tech platforms. With all of that turmoil, state legislators and state Attorneys General, which tend to be younger and more digitally savvy than their national counterparts, are attempting to rebalance the scales in an effort to empower consumers and revitalize competition.

State led, nationally significant

The history of the United States is littered with examples of states taking the lead on policy issues. This was partly by design as the federal government lacked strong tools for regulating the economy prior to Teddy Roosevelt’s trust-busting campaign and FDR’s New Deal.

However, even in the modern era, states often take the lead. For example, civil rights were won first at the state and local levels. States continue to push the envelope on environmental protections. And now, states are now stepping up to serve as incubators for innovative public policy regarding consumer privacy and competition.

While it is heartening to see states assume their role as early advocates for issues of national importance, it’s more important than ever for the federal government to assume a leadership role in this debate. There are some promising signs: The Department of Justice has launched an investigation into the dominance of tech platforms, which could lead to a levelling of the playing field. Meanwhile, Congress is actively looking at setting a national consumer privacy standard.

Clarifying standards and policy

With more states expected to pass their own privacy standards in 2020, we are likely to see a mismatched patchwork of state privacy laws by this time next year. As a nation (and a global marketplace), we need to mend this situation – and fast. Given that data and competition are not bound by state lines, Congress needs to enact a single privacy standard that would empower and protect all consumers while at the same time paving a clear pathway to compliance for businesses of all sizes. Giving consumers real tools to protect their privacy would improve consumer trust and engagement online. It would also reward good actors and give regulators stronger tools to prosecute bad behavior.

At the same time, we must also expose anticompetitive practices and remedy the impact of monopolies on the digital economy. As we’ve seen over the last decade, Facebook and Google simply bought out their competition with the acquisitions of Instagram and DoubleClick respectively. Those acquisitions solidified their dominant position in the marketplace. They have also squelched the competition that drives innovation. Withouta level playing field, smaller companies and the next wave of innovation will be stunted.

The federal government should look to the states to better understand the issues – and envision the opportunity – before us. Empowering consumers and ensuring a healthy competitive landscape will do far more than help cure what ails the internet. It could usher in a new age of innovation and economic growth.

Featured Post | Revenue

Beyond subscriptions: Redefining the value exchange between audience and publisher

Publishers are pouring their hopes into subscriptions and memberships. That’s understandable. Consumers are exhibiting a (slowly) rising propensity to pay for digital news, which analysts hope heralds a return to the halcyon era in which subscription revenue was the basis of many newspaper and magazine P&Ls. Digital subscriptions offer the additional benefit of copious user data collection, which also buoys their advertising business as well.

The New York Times’ 4.7 million-strong subscriber base has given many publishers hope that subscriptions can work. Although the Los Angeles Times’ recently-revealed figures make it apparent that access to a large enough audience isn’t enough on its own if the renewal rate isn’t high.

However, even the most diehard optimists and proponents of subscription revenue have to admit that subscriptions alone are not a universal panacea to the need for digital revenue. Only a relatively small proportion of people are willing to pay for online news and only likely to pay for a single news subscription As the latest Digital News Report states: “the question of whether people will ever pay for an online news subscription has evolved into a question about how many subscriptions people will pay for.” The report concludes that, at least for the time being, the answer appears to be “one.”

Worse still, the report finds that the proportion of people willing to pay has not grown significantly in the past few years. This suggests that there is effectively a hard cap on how many people will ever pay for digital news. Those other consumers, effectively unwilling or unable to respond to requests for donations or subscriptions, present a problem. So, as cash-strapped publishers search for new sources of revenue, the question arises: How do you monetize the un-monetizable?

Information exchange

Some publishers have attempted to redefine the value exchange for the consumers that they don’t believe they can convert to paid subscriptions. Instead, they ask them to provide raw information in exchange for access. Some publishers in India, for instance, have asked users who arrive on the page to complete an action in exchange for the content. Google’s Madhav Chinnappa told me:

“[The idea] came actually from a group of students. They saw these moves to subscription and their concern in India was ‘what happens if all the good content goes behind a paywall, what happens from a democratic perspective.’ Yet they understand why publishers are doing that. So they said ‘is there a way to try and actually unlock content in a value transfer that isn’t around money?

“Their idea was creating a platform where publishers would allow access to their content for an action on the part of the user, something like labeling an image. I think someone described it as almost like a Mechanical Turk for access to content. I thought this was really clever because it they were coming at it from a point of making sure that there’s access to this information, but understand that it needs to be a value transfer.”

Other publishers worldwide offer access to content in return for answering a survey or providing some personal information. The Financial Times, for instance, has experimented with offering visitors the opportunity to answer questions around brand awareness for access.

This approach has the benefit of allowing the FT to extrapolate from that data its audience’s likelihood to buy from a brand, which it can then use to bolster its advertising sales pitch. Four years ago (which may as well be the Cretaceous period of digital publishing given how much has changed since then), Google estimated that publishers employing a Google Consumer Survey could earn $.05 every time a site visitor answers a survey question.

However, developments around GDPR and increased public awareness of data privacy have re-established the value of the publisher when it comes to user data. Thus, the potential value of those answers has increased. As ever, the devil is in the details when it comes to schemes like this. Really, the execution of an interruptive survey can make or break the establishment of a value exchange in the mind of the audience.

One-offs

The focus on long-term subscriptions is, as discussed earlier, a smart one on the part of publishers who command a serious share of the market. However, smaller publishers face a choice between going incredibly niche (effectively becoming the only game in town for a particular bit of information) or finding other ways of generating direct consumer revenue.

The Guardian, with its exhortation at the end of articles for its readers to support the paper, has seen success with one-off donations. Of the one million people who chose to contribute, 600,000 were one-off donations.

It is notable, however, that even Wikipedia has had a hard time convincing its audience to pony up and support the site through donations. That is despite ranking in the top ten websites by traffic and offering users a slew of ways to pay. This suggests that a campaign that encourages one-off donations is a Sisyphean task, and one that carries more inherent risk than a regular subscription.

Still, just as some publishers are attempting to redefine the value exchange by offering access in exchange for information, other organizations are attempting to make one-off payments more viable. Axate, for instance, which allows users to pay funds into an online wallet that can then be used to buy access to individual articles, is already being used by popular sites including Popbitch.

Axate’s CEO Dominic Young said that the long-term value exchange of hard paywalls doesn’t work for many consumers of digital news: “Our observation about the market is… the consumer behavior is strongly driven by habit. Media consumption generally exists in a kind of casual part of most people’s [habits], in the same place as cups of coffee. In other words, people casually but frequently buy, but very rarely make commitments. You don’t subscribe to Starbucks.”

However, Axate joins a long line of those who have tried to make micropayments work for the media business. So, while there’s debate over the terminology of the one-off payment (with ‘tips’ and ‘donations’ both carrying a sort of semantic weight that puts some publishers off), the reality is that some consumers would welcome an easy way to have one-off access.

Off the wall

Beyond those quite reasonable attempts to change the value exchange, there are others worth noting. Traditionally, content consumers who opt not to pay directly have been monetized through advertising. However, despite improvements over the past few years, the ad ecosystem has been stacked against individual publishers.

It’s a situation that has been exacerbated by the rise of ad-blockers. In February of this year the Internet Advertising Bureau UK commissioned YouGov to conduct a survey on ad-blocking, and found that roughly 22.6% of adults in the UK choose to block ads, a figure that has remained steady for the previous three years. And in the US, nearly 26% of internet users (and climbing) block ads. Meanwhile, an Association of Online Publishers’ survey estimated that adblocking was costing UK publishers “more than £18.4m in 2018, up by more than a third from £13.7m in 2017”.

In this well-reasoned post from February 2018, Salon noted that “with the increasing popularity of ad-blocking technology, there is even more of a disintegration of this already-tenuous relationship; like most media sites, ad-blockers cut deeply into our revenue and create a more one-sided relationship between reader and publisher.”

Salon took an unusual step in an attempt to re-establish an equitable value exchange for audiences. They asked consumers to allow Salon to use their computing power while they were on the site to mine crypto currency. This made headlines at the time, with responses noting variously that it was a controversial yet brave attempt to find a new revenue stream. (Mind you, other less courteous sites had been doing exactly the same without informing their users.)

However, despite all the noise at the time, Salon has since moved to offering ad-free premium offerings. Its subscription offerings range from a year in duration to one-hour long.

Walled-in

Unfortunately, news subscriptions – and the move to harder paywalls – do not serve the vast majority of news publishers well. Their widespread adoption may well encourage more people to pay for access to news content, but it will be the largest publishers who benefit from that increased propensity in the short to medium term.

For others, efforts to redefine the value exchange between content creator and consumer – whether through information exchange, in one-off payments, or anything else – are essential in order to learn how to monetize seemingly un-monetizable audiences.

Featured Post | Policy

Confused about section 230? You’re not alone.

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

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

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

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

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

Conspiracy theories

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

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

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

Historical perspective

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

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

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

Net not neutral

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

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

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

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

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

Featured Post | Industry-Research

Viacom dispels stereotypes and reveals actionable insights with its “Generations” study

As data and becomes more important for advertisers and other players in the ecosystem, media companies strive to provide more insights that illustrate their understanding of their audiences. One such company is Viacom, whose global insights team launched a research project this year called Generations.

The project includes videos that aim to dispel some stereotypes of Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Gen Z. “We’ve all heard the terms Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Baby Boomers,” begins a video introducing the research. “But what do you really know about these groups? A lot of what we think we know is based on opinions, assumptions or stereotypes, instead of real data.”

Insights for everyone

Research spanning generations is a broad topic. However, Colleen Fahey Rush, chief research officer at Viacom, said that the Generations project “helps our company and our partners to better understand how people of all age ranges and demographic groups see the world. Plus, they allow our brands and businesses to stay ahead of the trends to make sure the stories we tell are resonating with our audiences.”

The videos can be seen on Viacom’s website, though the company said it shares much more detailed research with advertisers, agencies, distribution companies, and other partners. “We see it as our mission to understand how our audiences see the world and how that affects their attitudes. This allows us to stay ahead of the curve and ensure that the content we create continues to resonate with our viewers,” said Rush.

Research that informs the business

Viacom, which owns Comedy Central, MTC, BET, CMT, and Nickelodeon, has done a number of large-scale studies, which have found emerging trends among its audiences around the world. “Viacom differentiates itself from other media and content companies with its longstanding legacy of data and insights, giving us a competitive advantage in the industry,” said Rush.

She added that Viacom also sees Generations as “one of the added benefits of collaborating with Viacom. We are committed to knowing our audiences and sharing that knowledge with partners.” This allows them to “craft messages, products and propositions together that best speak to consumers.”

A spokeswoman for Viacom said that Generations was conducted by Viacom’s Global Consumer Insights group, which is not exclusively tied to advertising sales. Therefore, the research is not solely focused on the needs of marketers, nor can the company quanity how it directly impacts ad sales. Viacom Velocity, which sits within Ad Solutions, is primarily responsible for driving the company’s Madison-Avenue related research.

This week, Viacom reported that ad sales rose 6% to $976 million in its most recent quarter, marking “the first growth in ad revenue for the home of MTV, Nickelodeon and Comedy Central since the third quarter of 2014,” according to Ad Age.

Lessons to be learned

Viacom said that last year alone its research “connected with over 1.8 million kids, teens, young adults and adults through consumer insights, covering 79 countries globally, from Sweden to South Africa and Argentina to Australia.” 

Key takeaways from the Generations study include:

  • The stereotype in media and marketing is that Boomers are feeble grey-haired people living in retirement homes. “We know people are living much more active lives for longer than ever before,” according to a Generations video. Viacom also noted that the boomer stereotype that they’re all technically inept is false. In fact, many are much more tech-savvy than people realize.
  • As Gen Xers were growing up, new technology, communications, and cable TV channels like Viacom-owned MTV were spreading American culture around the world. The result is that Gen X a single global generation, with more cultural interests in common than previous generations.
  • According to Generations, the biggest misconception about Millennials is that they’re “lazy, no good for anything and that they’re spoiled,” according to Christian Kurz, SVP of Viacom’s Global Consumer Insights. Instead, he said, many don’t have much money, they’re very entrepreneurial, open-minded, and prospering in the face of adversity.
  • Born after 1997, Gen Z account for 25% of the U.S. population and 33% of the global population. By 2020, they will account for 40% of U.S. consumers. Since they are still growing up, Viacom said not much is known about them. However, they predict that events like climate change, Brexit, and the elections of Barack Obama and Donald Trump will surely impact their lives, the extent to which we don’t yet know. The Gen Z Generations video noted that growing up in an increasingly fractured world can lead to stress and anxiety. And, Viacom reports that Gen Z is the most diverse U.S. generation we’ve had yet.
About the author

Maureen Morrison is a writer and consultant, working with agencies, startups, publishers and brands on editorial strategies. She previously was a reporter and editor at Ad Age for 12 years, covering agencies, digital media, technology and marketers.

Featured Post | Innovation

The scoop on why The Washington Post is way into TikTok

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

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

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

Why is this news?

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

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

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

A culture of its own

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

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

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

The scoop on TikTok

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

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

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

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

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

Featured Post | Industry-Research | Marketing

The halo effect is real: New research confirms that ads perform better in quality contexts

Media companies have long declared that it matters where advertising campaigns run. Unfortunately, when the ability to micro-target users at scale became available, particularly on massive social media platforms, it was simply too attractive for advertisers to ignore.

Despite countless media reports on the risk for brands running alongside toxic, user-generated content on YouTube or Facebook, behavior has never changed for the long-term. Instead, many advertisers used unsophisticated keyword blocking strategies or stopped advertising in the news category and considered themselves “safe.” Regrettably, that something amounted to little more than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Last week, however, two new research studies released last week clearly demonstrate why this short-sighted strategy needs a serious rethink.

Reports from World Media Group (WMG) and Integral Ad Science (IAS) found that digital ads viewed on trusted editorial sites generate a more engaged audience for advertisers. These reports confirm comScore’s 2016 research that showed ads viewed within a premium publisher environment drive significantly better advertising effectiveness, particularly for mid-funnel consideration.

comScore’s independent research came at a time when the industry was in the midst of proving the basics to the market: that ads were being delivered to real computer screens and being seen by humans, not bots. comScore’s empirical research showed that running ads on “premium” publisher sites had significant impact on brand effectiveness and the lift to advertiser brands was attributed to the “halo effect” from the premium environments.

Quality context delivers real results

Fast forward to 2019 and WMG, a global alliance of a dozen leading news and media companies (e.g. The Atlantic, Bloomberg Media Group, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post) commissioned Moat, a digital marketing measurement service, to conduct research on the quality and engagement towards premium inventory across desktop display, mobile display and desktop video.

The findings showed that premium digital inventory running across quality content brands in Q3 2018 outperformed Moat’s benchmarks by between 13% and 144%. WMG’s research also concludes that the primary driver of increased engagement is the “halo effect” that comes from the value of the contextual environment in which the ads are seen.

Key performance metrics

  • Desktop display ads viewed achieved an active page dwell time of 66 seconds, 39% higher than the industry average. The in-view rate (where 50% of the ad is viewable for 1 second) and in-view time both exceeded Moat’s benchmarks by 27% and 25% respectively.
  • Mobile display performed 35% more interactions than average. Viewability rates were 32% higher than the benchmark and engaged consumers for 13% longer.
  • Desktop videos viewed achieved 22% higher-than-average rates for viewability. Consumer attention to videos was also high, with audible and visible completion rates at 144% higher than the Moat Q3 2108 benchmarks.

People react to context

Additional biometric research by IAS, a technology company that analyzes digital advertising placements, identified the impact of high quality and low quality mobile environments on people’s reactions to digital ads. This neurological research – looking at the brain centers responsible for positive and negative affinity – further substantiates that the environment in which an ad appears has significant impact on consumers’ reactions to that ad.

IAS’ research found that ads viewed in high-quality mobile web environments are perceived 74% more favorably than the same advertisements seen in low-quality environments. Advertising in high quality content environments resulted in 4% greater favorability, 20% greater engagement, 7% greater emotional intensity, 29% memory encoding detail, and 30% memory encoding global.

For several years now, advertisers have struggled to use digital advertising to grow demand and desire for their products, particularly as direct-to-consumer brands and other low-cost, “brandless” options (see Amazon Basics) are starting to flourish. Like the earlier comScore Halo Effect research, these new studies prove that advertising on high quality content sites drives higher brand attention and engagement for both display and video advertising. Context matters and research continues to prove this: Ad performance is better in a premium content environment.

The only question is when brands will act.

Featured Post | Innovation

What the news media is doing to defend against deepfakes

Image Credit: Wall Street Journal

Anyone who watched the doctored video of congresswoman Nancy Pelosi in which she appears drunk—a clip that quickly went viral a few months ago and which Facebook refused to delete or flag as bogus—can appreciate how quickly and suddenly the world is changing. That unsettling event marked a turning point for many, one that signaled the dawn of the deepfake era.

While the Pelosi video was only mildly altered, it turned attention on the rising issue of deepfake videos. For the uninitiated, deepfakes use artificial intelligence and software to manipulate video and audio to such a clever extent that it becomes increasingly difficult to vet content and determine its authenticity. While deepfake videos and the means to create them have actually been around for a while—particularly in the form of counterfeit celebrity pornography and revenge porn—they’ve increasingly captured the public’s attention.

And that’s for good reason: People are worried about the damage deepfakes can do and the inability of the news media and the government to curb this disturbing tech trend. With a national election looming and tensions between nations simmering, combined with the ability for bad actors to sabotage these delicate circumstances, the stakes couldn’t be higher.

Seeing is not always believing

“We have seen deepfake technology improve dramatically over the past year, and it’s getting harder to identify AI-synthesized media,” said Till Daldrup, training and outreach programming coordinator for The Wall Street Journal. “We’re observing two unsettling trends. First, deepfake technology is being democratized, meaning that it’s getting easier for forgers to create convincing fakes. Second, several startups and internet users are commercializing deepfakes and offering to produce AI-synthesized fakes upon request for money.”

While he can’t name a major national news organization being hoodwinked by a deepfake to date, “we have already seen journalists from other news organizations become targets of disinformation campaigns, including deepfakes that are trying to humiliate, intimidate, and discredit them,” said Daldrup. He cited as an example the notorious deepfake of Indian journalist Rana Ayyub.

Mike Grandinetti, global professor of Innovation and Entrepreneurship at Hult International Business School, said the number of deepfakes has risen exponentially over the past three years as access to new tools has grown.

“Today, powerful new free and low-cost apps like FaceApp and Adobe’s VoCo enable anyone to manipulate facial images and voices, respectively,” said Grandinetti. “Think of this as fake news on steroids. As a result, deepfakes are becoming increasingly problematic for the news media.”

Deborah Goldring, associate professor of marketing at Stetson University, suggested that it’s easy for the public to be fooled by this fraudulent content. “According to a Buzzfeed survey, 75% of Americans who were familiar with a fake news headline perceived the story as accurate,” she said. “And because social media makes it so easy, consumers are more likely than ever to share news with their network, which further spreads inaccurate information.”

The fourth estate fights back

What can the news media do to deter the decepticons, call out the counterfeits, and prevent further Pelosi-like phonies from hogging the headlines? Plenty, say the pros.

“Increasingly, it felt like the news cycle would become dominated by a clip of video that was false in some way. Our reporters were spending more time telling stories about manipulated video and the ways it was used to attempt to sway political opinion,” said Nadine Ajaka, senior producer of video platforms for The Washington Post. “Politicians, advocacy groups, and everyday users are sharing manipulated video, and there is a sense that the public can’t trust what they see. It feels a bit like the wild west.”

Consequently, Ajaka and the Post’s fact checker Glenn Kessler and video verification editor Elyse Samuels helped create a classification system for fact checking online video and a guide designed to assist consumers and journalists alike in navigating the treacherous trail paved by deepfake videos. The guide defines key terms and organizes the problem into the categories of missing context, deceptive editing, and malicious transformation.

“Fact checking video is different than fact checking a statement. You’re not just parsing words but many factors—images and sound—across the passage of time. With this initiative, we can give journalists a shared vocabulary they can apply to the different ways video can be manipulated, so their readers can be more informed about what they’re viewing,” Ajaka added.

The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, has formed a committee of 21 newsroom members across different departments that helps reporters identify fake content online. “They know the tell-tale signs of AI-synthesized media and are able to spot red flags. Each of them is on call to answer reporters’ queries about whether a piece of content has been manipulated,” said Daldrup.

“We want to be proactive and are raising awareness for this issue inside and outside the newsroom. We are also collaborating with universities and researchers and are constantly experimenting with new detection tools and techniques.”

Other weapons in the war on deepfakes

Daldrup said there are several promising detection methods emerging, most of which have been developed by researchers at universities like UC Berkeley and SUNY; the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has also been trying to perfect machine-learning algorithms that can spot deepfakes.

“A potentially significant component of any meaningfully effective solution would likely include blockchain technology,” said Grandinetti. “Trupic, a photo and video verification system, uses blockchain to create and store digital signatures for authentically shot video as they are being recorded, making them easier to verify later.”

Additionally, partnering with media forensics experts at universities and other research institutions that have access to these tools can be a smart strategy for newsrooms.

However, “this is an ongoing cat-and-mouse game. Every time researchers come up with a new detection method, forgers will alter their techniques to evade being caught,” Daldrup said.

That’s why editors and reporters will need to work harder and rely on proven vetting methods. “Journalists must collaborate to better verify sources through third parties,” recommended Grandinetti. “And they need to spread the message to news consumers that they need to be much more on guard with healthy skepticism when a video strains credibility, too.”

The right approach for a news organization depends on its size and mission, Daldrup suggested. If you’re a journalist, “in general, it is good practice to think twice before you share video of unknown provenance on social. It is also helpful to monitor research on deepfakes in order to stay on top of the latest developments in the field.”

Lastly, remember to “share best practices with the rest of the news industry,” added Daldrup. It is essential that the entire media industry keep pace with issues that threaten the quality of news and the public’s trust.