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

Digital Content Next logo

Menu

Category results for "Industry-Research"

Industry Research

Industry-Research

The impact of Tiktokification on the news

As the Chinese social giant recently boasted over a billion active monthly users worldwide, even the White House is turning to TikTok influencers to deliver news to young audiences. And, given TikTok’s popularity, older social media sites like Facebook and Instagram are making big changes to their algorithms and content to compete. Because more people of all ages are getting news through social media, these shifts could have significant impact on delivery of news and information. However, there are steps media organizations can take to address this impact.

TikTokification includes:

  • Focus on quick video clips: In 2020, Facebook added “Reels” to user feeds. Reels are 60 second video clips – the same length as the current TikTok limit on video length.
  • Less social, more media:  Social media platforms are tweaking their algorithms to de-emphasize social connections, as TikTok has proven the “friends” angle isn’t necessary to engage users. Instagram recently rolled out changes giving less priority to content by users’ friends and family in favor of automatically “recommended” short video reels like those of TikTok.
  • Focus on fun: As TikTok’s stated mission is to “inspire creativity and bring joy,” other platforms are shifting to emphasize lighter content.
  • De-prioritizing news: News article links constitute only about 4% of what users now see in their Facebook feeds, a spokesperson from Meta told Today, adding: “We have learned from the data that news and links to news content are not the reason the vast majority of people come to Facebook, and as a business we can’t over-invest in areas that don’t align most with user preferences.” Facebook changed the term “News Feed” to “Feed” in February.

Misinformation concerns grow

A related concern is the number of Gen Z adults using TikTok as a search engine. A recent study by Newsguard analyzed 540 TikTok search results on prominent news topics – including school shootings, elections, and vaccines – and found that 19.4% turned up misinformation. The study also found TikTok results to be more polarizing than similar searches on Google. (However, TikTok did detect and remove several false or misleading videos planted by Newsguard as part of the study.) TikTok’s website states its content is vetted by technology, with a “safety team” to evaluate some flagged content.

Social media features problematic for news providers

As entertaining content captures more engagement from users, platforms are incentivized to deprioritize serious news, wrote Navene Elangovan for Today. Her interviews with experts in academia and journalism highlighted social media issues problematic for news providers: emphasis on engagement over content, emotion as a driver of engagement, and the opacity of social media algorithms.

Social media platforms are geared to maximize engagement by having as many users as possible. The goal is to have users spend as much time on the platform as possible, engaging in as many ways as possible. Because strong emotions trigger engagement, social media algorithms reward upsetting content- the opposite of the objectivity valued in traditional news journalism. “Outrage fatigue” can then lead to news avoidance.

Another problem is the opacity of social media algorithms. Changes made to reduce emphasis on quality news should be communicated to audiences. If users are aware of social media platforms downplaying news, they may be more likely to seek reputable news sources elsewhere.

Tips for news providers

Experts interviewed by Elangovan suggested steps newsrooms might take in response to social media TikTokification:

  • Separate marketing from journalism so that journalists can focus on content, not views.
  • Create incentives for viewers to return daily to news sites to build a habit.
  • Diversify channels of news distribution. 
  • Find ways to draw viewers from “lighter” platforms to more serious content, accepting social media sites as conduits rather than main sources of delivering news.
  • Newsrooms may consider setting up their own social media platforms as a means of diversifying how content is communicated.

Will outrage fatigue turn to fluff fatigue?

When Instagram changed its algorithm and content to align more with that of TikTok, a flood of user complaints forced Instagram head Adam Mosseri to defend the decisions at length on Twitter. In the wake of this pushback, Instagram rolled back some of the changes.

When it comes to news content on social media, some experts surmise that outrage fatigue may give way to fluff fatigue. As users are increasingly bombarded with frivolity in their social media feeds, they may turn to more traditional news outlets for deeper and more reliable coverage of major events.

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion | Industry-Research

Hispanic representation lags in media

Hispanic workers are underrepresented in the media industry compared to their representation in the rest of the U.S. workforce. Unfortunately, little progress has been made over the past decade when it comes to this under-representation, according to a new report on workforce diversity by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).

The report includes an analysis of data collected between 2010 and 2019 by the U.S. Census Bureau, as well as data from other government agencies. Media industry subsectors studied include radio and television; cable and other subscription programming; motion picture and video; newspaper and periodical publishing; internet publishing and broadcasting, and sound recording.

The overall percentage of Hispanic employment in all aspects of the media industry over the past decade was 12%, compared with 17% for all industries. Hispanic women were even more under-represented, making up only 30% of Hispanics employed in media occupations. The report finds only an estimated 1% increase in Hispanic representation in media fields from 2010 to 2019, compared to the 3% overall Hispanic employment increase during the same period.

A big part of the problem is lack of representation at top levels of leadership, where there is most opportunity to shape the future of the sector. Only 4% of senior executives and managers in media companies are Hispanic, the report found, based on analysis of 2014-2018 data from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Invisible women

The lack of representation is even more stark when it comes to Hispanic women. According to Census Bureau data drawn from 2015-2019, 10% of all media occupations during that time were filled by Hispanic people, and only 3% were Hispanic women. The disparity varied by subfield. For example, while 12% of media photographers were Hispanic, only 2% of those were women.

Of the 11% of actors that were Hispanic, only 4% were Hispanic women. Just 14% of television, video, and film camera operators and editors were Hispanic, of which only 3% were women. However, Hispanic women were more equally represented compared to Hispanic men in writing, editing, and news journalism.

Challenges to representation include:

  • Financial hurdles to entry and retention in media fields
  • Barriers to media-related education, including cost and awareness
  • Access to professional networks and internships
  • Difficulty meeting union requirements such as work experience levels
  • Lack of diversity among talent agents and other decision-making roles, which can result in the perception of lower demand

Representation matters

While Hispanic people remain under-represented in media careers, they are actually over-represented among consumers of motion pictures. According to a 2021 study by the Annenberg Inclusion Initiative, 25% of movie-goers during 2007-2019 were Hispanic, generating in 1.7 trillion in consumer spending. However, only 4.2% of directors of the 100 top grossing films during that time were Hispanic (61 out of 1,447) and only three were Hispanic women.

A recent Nielson report reinforces this unbalanced situation. It found that, while all audiences are leaning into streaming, the story is more pronounced for Hispanic audiences, as 43.6% of Latinos’ total TV viewing in July 2022 was attributed to streaming platforms. However, the report also found that many Hispanics feel that accurate representation is in decline.

The Annenberg study also found that roles available to Hispanic performers often stereotyped Hispanic people as criminals or foreigners. Not only do Hispanic audiences deserve to see themselves fairly and accurately represented in media, but all audiences benefit from experiencing more realistic and multifaceted perspectives.

The data gap problem

A big problem for federal oversight is the data gap. FCC and EEOC efforts to enforce anti-discrimination and EEO rules have been hampered by problems sharing data among agencies, the unreliability of self-reported data from media companies, and a lack of data on union compliance and union member demographics. The federal report recommends better data sharing between the EEOC and FCC regarding discrimination charges filed, and an improved approach for obtaining demographic data from unions.

What can be done?

Federal agencies are conducting compliance evaluations, random audits, and periodic reviews, sharing best practices, and operating a training institute. The FCC formed a federal advisory committee that advises on issues such as how to facilitate entry of small businesses owned by women and people from historically disadvantaged groups into the media industry. The Department of Labor (DOL) sponsors apprenticeship programs, and the FCC started an incubator program for radio broadcasters.

Meanwhile, major media companies have announced measures including:

  • Targeted recruitment efforts
  • Partnerships with multicultural advocacy organizations
  • Processes to identify and address pay inequity
  • Targeted development programs, including incubators and apprenticeships
  • Strategic succession planning among leadership
  • Incentives for leadership such as making achievement of diversity and inclusion objectives a factor in determining performance bonuses
  • Funding initiatives such as allocating funds to support content created by members of underrepresented groups

For the next decade to result in more progress than the last, media companies need to hold themselves accountable for reaching the representation goals they’ve set and publicized.

Industry-Research | Perspectives | Supporter Spotlight

The top opportunity for publishers in 2023 will be community. Here’s why.

The first era of social media is coming to an end. What replaces it is up to us.

New research from OpenWeb demonstrates a dramatic shift in attitudes among the public. With this shift comes a major opportunity for publishers, creators, and brands to build a better alternative.

In this article I’ll break down the findings of our research and outline the opportunity.

The first era of social media

When we think of online communities, we most often think of today’s largest social media platforms: Reddit, TikTok, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. Over the past 15 years, these social platforms have grown from start-ups to some of the largest and most influential companies in the world.

Broadly, we can think of these companies as the “first era” of social media. Their rise and reign has had many well-publicized negative externalities—flourishing toxicity and division, and their share of data use and misuse allegations, for a start. But they’ve been highly successful at building loyal online communities that keep users coming back.

Today, however, it seems the general public is ready for a change. 

Public opinion is shifting

OpenWeb’s latest research report, conducted in partnership with YouGov, surveyed over 1,400 Americans. In it, we found that:

  • 93% of Americans reported using social media regularly,
  • A whopping 64% view social media communities as “unhealthy,”
  • 54% say that the overall effect of social media on society has been negative, and 
  • Half of respondents said they believe social platforms don’t do enough to fight against toxicity, trolls, and misinformation. 

Americans use social media all the time, but they’re dissatisfied with the quality of their experience. They want a healthier alternative to social media. This sets the stage for a sea change in how, and where, users spend their time online. 

So, how can content publishers seize on this unique moment in the history of the web?

The answer is quite simple: be the alternative. I will explain how. But first, there is more to uncover from our research on public opinion. This time, we’ll look at opinions about publishers.

Publishers are poised to meet public demand and build loyal communities

Our research found that readers already want and engage in communities hosted by publishers.

  • 72% believe publishers and brands should host communities, and
  • 91% reported reading the comments—the community’s conversations—whenever they’re available on publishers’ sites.

You read that right: over 90% of readers reported sticking around for the community. What’s more: a thriving community is proven to extend time on site, increase return visitors, boost registrations, and generate valuable first-party and zero-party data. Community can be a truly indispensable and differentiating part of publishers’ core content offering.

At this point, we have demonstrated a few things clearly: the public want a healthier alternative to social media, they want publishers to host communities, and they participate in community as an extension of the onsite experience.

Publishers: It’s time to take action

The demand signals are clear. But how can publishers host healthy communities, especially at scale?

We hear this question a lot—and that makes sense. Hosting a community brings demands for user and brand safety, so how to effectively moderate remains a major obstacle to pass. 

Thanks to developments in user safety technology, fueled largely by artificial intelligence and machine learning, it is finally feasible for publishers to seize the opportunity to build a loyal and healthy community—and to do it at scale. 

The proof is in the numbers: our polling of thousands of users found 72% called online conversations powered by OpenWeb “very healthy,” “healthy,” or “neutral.” Importantly, that’s nearly 3/4 that did not find the conversation toxic.

As Nadav Shoval, OpenWeb’s co-founder and CEO, put it recently:  “Publishers can seize this opportunity and fill the gap by transforming their properties—amazing repositories of content—into true community destinations. That will be a major step toward what users want, and what we need as a society: better, healthier community experiences that bring people together.”

Industry-Research

How people under 30 define and engage with “news”

The young are restless when it comes to their news habits and preferences. Under-30 audiences prefer broad content and lighter tone. They are less likely to be loyal to news brands and more likely to consume news from a variety of media formats and platforms. While myriad preferences can be challenging for news purveyors, they also create new opportunities in the form of side-doors.

These observations stem from The Kaleidoscope report on research performed with 72 people aged 18–30 in Brazil, the UK, and the U.S. by market research agency Craft for Reuters Institute. This qualitative research adds specificity and texture to the wider statistical research leased earlier this year in Reuters’ 2022 Digital News Report.

News versus “the news”

Young people make a distinction between what they consider “news” – which includes a variety of lighter topics such as sports, arts, culture, and celebrity gossip covered by a variety of platforms and brands – from what they consider “the news,” which is comprised of weightier topics such as international affairs and “need to know” information more likely to be covered by mainstream media.

Emerging from The Kaleidoscope data are three types of news consumers among those aged 30 and under:

  • Hobbyist/dutiful users seek news for entertainment or out of a sense of duty to stay informed and contribute to civic conversation. They appreciate more frequent updates on news stories, engage on a deeper level, and seek news from a broader variety of brands.
  • Main eventers tune in for practical “need to know” stories and developments that impact their daily lives. They use a combination of mainstream and newer brands.
  • Disengaged people typically avoid ‘the news’ but are sometimes motivated by FOMO (fear of missing out) and the need to be aware of big stories that might come up in conversation or impact their lives. These users are often late to a story and seek quick summaries and explanations to catch up. They are more likely to turn to mainstream brands or use popular search engines.

Skepticism and news avoidance

A lack of trust in the motives behind news stories was cited by many of the 30-and-under participants in The Kaleidoscope study. They expressed weariness with depressing topics such as the pandemic and political polarization, and topics that seem to drag on without resolution. The following were often cited as reasons for avoiding the news:

  • It’s upsetting. Younger audiences report an interest in more mood-elevating and entertaining content.
  • It’s repetitive. Many under 30 report tiring of repetitious coverage of major topics, citing a preference for more variety of news stories, with a broader definition of news, including “softer” news topics such as culture and the arts, education, sports, and celebrity coverage.
  • They don’t trust it. The skeptical comments of young people in the qualitative study aligned with statistical findings of Reuter’s 2022 Digital News Report, which found that only about a third (37%) of people under 35 say they trust most news most of the time, compared with nearly half of those 55 and older (47%).

What DO younger audiences want from news?

  • More variety in media formats
  • More diverse voices and opinions
  • News tailored to their personal interests
  • More “softer” stories to balance the serious ones
  • Formats that enable participation through commenting and sharing

Study participants cited content tailored to personal interests as a prime reason for preferring social media to television news. However, they were also aware of how the filter bubbles and algorithms of social media feeds were likely to support bias.

Text and traditional media still matter

The Russian invasion of Ukraine began during the study period, enabling researchers to examine how participants reacted to a major developing news story. Participants responded to the magnitude of this event with greater attention to mainstream media, live and on-the-ground coverage.

Although younger audiences often engage with multimedia and video content, most still report a preference for reading news rather than watching it. Some cited the privacy factor of reading in public and described reading news as more “professional” and “serious” than watching video or television.

These findings again align with Reuters’ 2022 Digital News Report, which found that while under-35’s have a strong inclination towards video content, 58% claim to prefer to mostly read news. Only 15% reported a preference for watching news, especially when seeking live updates and summaries on a need-to-know basis.

Takeaways

Authors of The Kaleidoscope report suggest using content more in tune with contemporary internet culture. This might include:

  • Use of emergent platforms, and an understanding of codes and conventions therein.
  • Recruiting talent knowledgeable in the content and vibe of emergent platforms.
  • Creating new brands or sub-brands to engage younger audiences, while retaining the credibility of mainstream brands.

While variety in media and content is paramount to under-30 audiences, younger people still rely on traditional sources when they think it matters most. Therefore, maintaining mainstream options while developing novel offerings may be the best approach.

Industry-Research

Fake news sites impact readers and the entire industry

Since 2004 almost 1,800 local newspapers have closed their doors in the U.S. alone. Oddly, though — and despite an economic downturn — it appears that a slew of new local news outlets have emerged online. Unfortunately, one needs to take a good look under the hood before celebrating this trend.

In October 2019, the Lansing State Journal uncovered dozens of websites branded as local news outlets throughout Michigan that posed as local news but instead were outlets for political messaging. Again in 2020, The New York Times reported that the local site, Maine Business Daily, is part of a network of 1,300 questionable websites. They look like local-news outlets, but the stories are directed by political and corporate public relations firms. Algorithms create much of the content on these sites. 

While investigative reporting uncovered these sites, little is known about their impact on readers. The Tow Center’s new report, Reader perspectives on local partisan news sites, examines how local news audiences assess and interpret these so-called news sites. In particular, the research explores whether news consumers infer any bias in the reporting of these sites, how they navigate and respond to these pseudo-local news websites, and how this affects consumer trust in news.

Methodology

The Tow Center recruited 90 participants to assess these local news sites.

  • Participants completed an initial survey about their local news consumption habits and needs and assessed their assigned local website. 
  • They completed a daily diary exercise to detail their experience of using their assigned website and other local news outlets over five consecutive days.
  • Participants offered a final reflection about their assigned website, addressing issues such as how, if at all, it improved their understanding of local issues and assessed trustworthiness. 

Local site general assessment

Two-thirds of participants recorded an initial negative impression of their assigned website. Reasons for a negative response included the lack of updates and relevant content. The remaining third reported a positive impression, they noted a favorable impression of the sites’ layout and design, lack of paywalls, and mobile responsiveness. Interestingly, only one-third of participants claimed there was conservative bias in their assigned outlet’s editorial coverage.

The most common response from participants throughout the five-day diary exercise was frustration at the lack of new content and the prominence of outdated content on the homepage. Upon repeated visits, they found the content mostly irrelevant to their daily lives and communities and noted it as “odd,” “weird,” and “bizarre.” 

Supplied with automated, data-filled stories, these local sites offered few articles with reporter bylines. Most participants found the automated stories to be disconnected from their communities. In addition, respondents reported that the sites were all about politics and little of anything else.

Perceptions of trustworthiness and bias

While most final impressions were negative, the question of these sites’ trustworthiness and potential bias was somewhat mixed. Many participants excused the sites for their low-cost, algorithmically generated output. While most participants rated the outlets as untrustworthy, there was a narrow majority rating the coverage as fair and balanced.

A strong majority did not look for information about site ownership until prompted and said it did not cross their minds to investigate even with an unfamiliar news source. Only a minority of participants investigated the ownership of their assigned site and describing the lack of transparency as “shocking,” “unsettling,” “odd,” and “worrying.”

Despite the industry’s emphasis on fake news and misinformation, some participants accepted these sites at face value, despite the site’s clear lack of objectivity and partisan status. Consumers do not seem to focus on identifying who owns and operates a news source. Unfortunately, their opinions of this sort of site will affect the broader industry as they fail to distinguish between these partisan sites and legitimate news sources. With the 2024 elections approaching, the news media must address consumers about the importance of considering the source of their information and reinforcing the value of trusted, reputable local news brands.

Industry-Research

Post-Covid TV viewership slows and goes on-demand

As in many countries, TV and video viewership in the UK registered a surge during Covid. However, as consumers re-emerged from lockdowns, TV viewing time declined. Ofcom’s fifth annual Media Nations UK 2022 Report offers insight into viewership patterns in the UK and the audience shift to on-demand platforms.  

On-demand takes time viewed

Total viewing time for TV and video in 2021 was 5 hours and 16 minutes per person per day, a decline of 25 minutes in 2020 but up from 2019.

Time spent on broadcasters, across live TV, recordings, and on-demand, declined by 9% compared to 2020 and 4% in 2019. As a result, broadcasters’ share of viewing continues to fall from 67% in 2019, to 61% in 2020, to 59% in 2021. Interestingly, broadcast video-on-demand (BVOD) increased by an average of three minutes per person per day compared to 2020, growing its viewership share from 6% to 8% in 2021.

Time viewing SVOD, at 58 minutes per day per person, declined by 6% from 2020. However, SVOD maintained its share of viewing, from 19% in 2020 to 18% in 2021.

SVOD market matures

Subscriptions to SVOD services (at least one service) declined slightly in the UK from 68% to 67%, or19.2 million households, compared to Q1 2022.

However, Ofcom’s analysis confirms a high concentration of multiple SVOD services among UK households. Nearly half of all UK households (46%), which is approximately 13.2 million, access two or more services in Q1 2022. Furthermore, of these households, 5.2 million—or about one in five homes—subscribe to the three most popular services: Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and Disney+.

Netflix remains the largest SVOD provider in the UK, with 17.1 million households (60%) subscribing. It’s followed by Amazon Prime Video (46%) and Disney+ (23%).

Maintaining subscribers is crucial in a competitive SVOD market. According to Ofcom’s report, 2% of Netflix users, 4% of Amazon Prime Video users, and Disney+ users canceled their subscriptions in the past three months. Ofcom’s Public Service Media (PSM) tracker identified cost as the top reason for cancellation.

Audience attitudes

In addition to time spent, the Ofcom report provides details on viewer satisfaction and offers insight into audience engagement. Eighty-six percent of consumers who used Netflix in the past six months said they were satisfied with the service, while 81% said the same about Amazon Prime Video and Disney+, respectively.

Top Netflix attribute scores: 

  • Provides services that are easy to find my way around (82%);
  • easy to find something I want to watch (80%);
  • Appeals to a wide range of different audiences (82%); and
  • has programs that are relevant to me (75%).

Top Disney+ attribute scores:  

  • Easy to find my way around (78%);
  • easy to find something I want to watch (74%); and
  • appeals to a wide range of different audiences (73%).

SVOD market growth

Overall, the SVOD market performed strongly in 2021. It generated approximately $3.2 billion (or about £2.7 billion), an increase of 27% compared to last year. The top three services—Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and Disney+—accounted for 89% of the market share.

Ofcom’s analysis highlights the evolving TV and video landscape and the divide between younger and older viewers. Almost nine in ten adults, 18-24, go straight to streaming, on-demand, and social video services when looking for something to watch. In contrast, 59% of adults aged 55-64, and 76% of adults who are 65+, turn to TV channels first.

The report also suggests that streaming services with hybrid business models may become more common among SVOD offerings. Introducing ad-supported tiers (e.g., Netflix and Disney+) subscription opportunities to hard-to-convert viewers may move the dial for new subscribers. As the on-demand market evolves, media companies must consider multiple access points, platforms, and price points to acquire new subscribers to grow their audience share.

Industry-Research

Concerned about algorithmic effects on filter bubbles? Watch out for TV too

The terms “echo chamber” and “filter bubble” are often used to describe social media’s selective exposure of news content to audiences. Industry research has found that platforms using algorithmic rankings and recommendations produce less diverse and more segregated audience opinions. However, television news is generally excluded from these analyses. New research, Quantifying partisan news diets in Web and TV audiences, seeks to illuminate the impact of television news as a driver of partisan ideology.

Authors, Daniel Muise, Homa Hosseinmardi, Baird Howland, Maarkus Mobius, David Rothschild, and Duncan Watts used nationally representative panel data between 2016 and 2019 to analyze minute-level usage from national TV tracking and second-level laptop/desktop browser tracking. They conclude that partisan audience segregation affects between three and four times more Americans via TV news than online news.

On average, the report says that 17% of Americans are partisan segregated through television news. However, they find that only 4% of Americans’ partisan-bias is a result of online news. This contrasts starkly with the belief that the digital ecosystem has amplified echo-chambers.

TV news’ partisan audience   

The research also finds that television news consumers are likelier to maintain their partisan news consumption for a longer time than online audiences. While right-segregated online news consumers are somewhat more likely to remain segregated after 1 month (29.1%), and more than three times as likely to remain after 6 months (6.3%), online partisan segregation—when it arises—is generally fleeting at the monthly level.

News source exclusivity

One significant factor is the number of sources for news available in each medium. While the online news environment offers numerous choices, TV news viewers still only have a handful of sources. And, once they’ve chosen, it becomes the default choice. The research finds that TV audiences do not stray from their most preferred sources compared to online audiences. Among partisan TV news viewers, those who consume mostly MSNBC rarely consume news from any other source besides CNN. Further, audiences that consume mostly Fox News do not go elsewhere for TV news content.

Online audiences, however, tend to be more inclusive in preferences for their news content and include some mainstream and moderate sources.

Demographic analysis

The authors also analyze TV and online news consumption by age, race, and educational level. Not surprisingly, partisan segregation is much more apparent among older adults in the TV audience. Interestingly, adults 55 years old and older viewers lean toward right-leaning biased segregation. In contrast, older adults are more likely than younger adults to be partisan segregated to the left via online news.

White Americans are far more likely to be partisan segregated to the right on either platform than Americans who do not identify as white. The most partisan-segregated news consumers are postgraduate degree holders on the left. Seventeen percent of highly educated Americans are TV news consumers whose news diet is mainly left-leaning.

This research finds that segregation is more prevalent, concentrated, and persistent on TV than online. While the overall TV news audience is shrinking, the partisan TV news audience is growing in absolute terms. TV news audiences are undergoing a cleansing process of alternative viewpoints, and there are consequences for our democracy. Significantly, this research establishes a clear need to consider television when examining the existence and impact of filter bubbles.

Industry-Research | Policy

Research explores the best way to balance big tech and journalism

The Australia 2021 News Media Bargaining Code and the European Union (EU) 2021 Digital Copyright Directive are two examples of policies that establish a more equitable financial arrangement between big tech platforms and digital news organizations. They center around the understanding that platforms derive a benefit from news content and that publishers are not compensated for the way in which these platforms profit from their content. Courtney C. Radsch examines the different policies in her report, Making Big Tech Pay for the News They Use to offer insight into the legislation and its implementation.

With the exception of non-profits, most news organizations employ a commercial model. In the simplest terms, advertising is used to drive revenue to support the news organization. However, intermediaries – notably Google and Facebook – now stand between the publisher and the advertiser. Since search and social media are key ways in which people discover and consume news online, these platforms benefit from the user traffic derived from publishers’ content. They collect personal data on users and group people into demographic and special-interest categories to target advertising to them on their platforms.

Radsch’s research examines how policymakers are working to redirect revenue to compensate news outlets more equitably.

Her report classifies the different policies into three distinct groups:

  1. Digital taxation,
  2. Competition policy (or antitrust), and
  3. Intellectual property.

Taxation

In recent years, taxing digital advertising has gained interest. In 2019, the U.S.-based Free Press proposes a small tax on revenues generated from targeted advertising. This policy was established with Google and Facebook in mind. The taxed revenue would be used to fund public interest media systems.

Radsch notes it’s problematic that the policy does not identify who will monitor and implement a payment distribution system for the news media companies. 

While not covered in this report, in 2021, Connecticut, Indiana, New York, Oregon, and Washington introduced state proposals for a new tax on revenues from digital advertising or to expand the state sales tax to digital advertising sales. Interestingly, none of these proposals allocate the tax revenue to news organizations. Connecticut plan suggested the revenue from the tax be dedicated, in part, to funding online bullying prevention efforts and training for social isolation and suicide prevention.

Maryland became the first state to enact such a tax in February 2021. However, these state tax laws face court battles since they likely run afoul of the Constitution’s Commerce clause. This clause restricts the ability of states to regulate commercial activity across state lines, and the Internet Tax Freedom Act prohibits states from levying taxes solely on digital goods or services.

Bargaining power

Other policies are exploring making platforms pay for the news they use, headlines, photos, and snippets. This type of policy forces the platforms to negotiate directly with publishers rather than the government. Australia made headlines in 2021 when it passed this type of legislation requiring Facebook and Google to share algorithmic information with and pay licensing fees to news organizations. The code states that news media companies can bargain individually or collectively for payment from platforms to use their content.

As a result, Google and Facebook threatened to pull their services from the Australian market. Facebook did shut down its service for one week. Both companies ultimately acquiesced and signed deals with Australian publishers.

Intellectual property rights

Many question whether the “fair use” exception in copyright law, the use of a small amount of copyrighted material without prior permission, applies to Google and Facebook.

The 2021 EU Digital Copyright Directive created a right for press publishers, not just authors, to claim copyright, including for snippets of news. In addition to individual publishers being able to strike deals with the various platforms, the Directive allows collective management organizations to negotiate licensing fees and distribute them back to publishers. 

In 2021, members of the U.S. Congress proposed a new version of the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act of 2021. This bill would create a four-year safe harbor from antitrust laws for print, broadcast, or digital news companies to collectively negotiate with platforms regarding the use of the news companies’ content. In other words, media news companies could collaborate to discuss bargaining with Google and Facebook without fear of antitrust violation. Despite bipartisan support, the bill appears to have stalled.

Profits and progress

Google and Facebook claim that news content generates little revenue. However, their earning calls suggest otherwise. These companies benefit tremendously from the trusted content and audiences that news publishers deliver. 

Radsch’s report calls for platform transparency, including sharing traffic reports and the number of ads served around each news item. This would be a good first step to revealing the amount of revenue the news content generates on the platforms. Once this amount is determined and platforms equitably paid for news content, the relationship between the two can reset. Given the importance of advertising revenue to journalism, it’s important to get this right. Radsch’s report offers guidance and insights that will help policymakers move forward meaningfully.

Industry-Research

The shift to non-game app spending signals change in the mobile market

More than half of U.S. app store spending now comes from non-games apps compared to five years ago when games apps accounted for more than two-thirds of total app spending. The shift to non-game apps signals a change in the mobile market from early days, when consumers were less willing to spend on subscriptions or in-app purchases.

According to Sensor Tower’s Q2 2022 Data Digest Report, while spending on mobile games has slowed, the rapid rise of spending on non-games shows a strong potential for growth on mobile. In fact, the report shows that U.S. consumer spending on non-games grew at more than twice the rate of games. Non-games achieved a compound annual growth rate of 40% since June 2014, compared to less than 20% for games.

Spending on non-game apps continues to outpace the spending growth in mobile games. This trend was a reversal from 2019 and 2020, when mobile game spending was consistently higher than non- games apps. While mobile game spending surged at the beginning of the pandemic, by the end of 2020, non-game growth was about equal, then advanced ahead of mobile games by mid-2021.

As the market adjusted itself from the rapid growth registered in the early months of the pandemic, mobile app revenue overall declined year-over-year for the first time in May 2022.

The growing subscription market is helping app growth across a variety of categories. App download activity includes U.S. consumers spending one million dollars across 400 different apps, with a large percentage on subscriptions. Content companies in the U.S. and China controlled the top spots on the App Store, combining for 45% of all installs on the platform in Q2 2022. Top subscription apps include Disney+, HBO Max, and Hulu.

The Sensor Tower methodology includes App Store and Google Play download estimates for April 1, 2022, through June 30, 2022. The estimates use downloads per-user base and only one download per Apple or Google account counts in its total. Downloads of the same app to multiple devices like updates, or re-installs by the same person are not included in the total.

App market overview

Like many entertainment and informational products, U.S. consumer spending on apps soared in April 2020 at the start of the Covid pandemic. Year-over-year growth jumped from around twenty to thirty percent in 2019 to thirty-five to fifty percent in 2020. With app revenue readjusting itself from the rapid growth of Covid’s early days, revenues declined year-over-year for the first time in Q2 2022. It’s important to note, that even with a year-over-year decline, Q2 20222 is up 71% compared to Q2 2019, before the pandemic.

Interestingly, Apple’s App Store generated approximately $43.7 billion from in-app purchases, subscriptions, and premium apps and games in the U.S., up 5.6% year over year. In contrast, Google’s store registered $21.3 billion, down 7.4% year over year. 

TikTok was the number one download app globally and the number one spot in the U.S. With close to 14 million downloads, it was four million downloads ahead of the second-place app, Facebook.  Amazon led as the top shopping app since Q4 2018 in the U.S., however, this ended in Q2 2022. SHEIN, a fast-fashion retail app based in China, ranks as the number one shopping app with the most U.S. downloads.

App downloads signal a return to norms

The Q2 report shows U.S. consumers returning to pre-pandemic activities. Travel apps received record high downloads while airline mobile apps increased more than 30% compared to Q2 2019. Further, consumers want to attend concerts and in-person sporting events, with the top five ticketing apps registering more than 10 million downloads combined, an increase of 70% compared to pre-pandemic Q2 2019.

Tracking mobile downloads, app popularity over time, and spending across app categories offers insight into consumer actions, activities, and shifts in behavior – all drivers of market share. Sensor Tower app download and spend analysis identifies a positive shift in consumers’ willingness to make purchases on their phones. It also shows consumers shifting app categories from mobile games to non-game apps, namely subscriptions, and a return to some pre-Covid activities.

Advertising | Industry-Research | Supporter Spotlight

Ad quality trends up and blocking trends down according to new report

In today’s constantly changing digital advertising ecosystem, it’s critical to monitor trends across the industry. This is especially true when it comes to ad verification, with utilization being heavily impacted by specific issues important to various brands, verticals and geographies. Knowing how these trends are playing out gives teams an upper hand in strategic planning and conversations with buyers.

Every year, DoubleVerify analyzes trillions of impressions delivered across over 2,100 brands across 80 markets to provide publishers and advertisers with insights into key media quality and performance in our annual Global Insights Report. While the report includes extensive regional data, global benchmarks, vertical spotlights and more detailed analysis, here are some key trends for publishers to consider. 

Ad quality improves and blocking declines

As advertisers and agencies continue to refine their verification strategies, we saw reduced instances of blocking that can negatively impact publishers. Last year saw a 9% decrease in brand safety and suitability violations, with the overall violation rate continuing its trend downward from 11.7% in 2019 to 10% in 2021. Violation rates are defined as impressions that do not comply with a brand’s specific settings, but do not always indicate that a block occurs. Viewability rates have also continued to improve, led by video viewability increasing 4% year-over-year.

This steady improvement in ad quality shows how adoption of quality measurement affects the industry overall. This, combined with education that leads to more nuanced brand suitability settings from brands can help publishers monetize more of their inventory while also having a positive impact on campaign performance.

Fraud violations decline while schemes continue to be uncovered

Online ad fraud schemes are an ever-present threat. They adapt to new technology and trusted industry safeguards, such as ads.txt, or through device spoofing and other insidious attack vectors. The good news is that publishers are being impacted less, with overall fraud violations declined by 7% compared to the year before.

Unfortunately, signs indicate that fraudsters are more active than ever. DV saw a 70% spike in schemes uncovered in 2021 when compared to 2020, especially in video and CTV. Emerging channels with high demand are breeding grounds for bad actors. Verification vendors will need to continue to evolve as fraudsters attempt new forms of misrepresenting inventory and funneling ad spend away from legitimate publishers.

Attention looms as an advertiser focus

Advertisers are constantly searching for the best ways to improve the performance of their creatives, and attention metrics are an increasingly important way for them to do just that. Beyond viewability, attention metrics can capture that elusive moment where consumers are intrigued by a product or brand, motivated to engage, and ultimately, driven to convert. In a world where consumers see upwards of 10,000 ads per day, measuring attention can provide powerful insights into which ads are likely to perform.

For example, a global technology brand working with DV saw that high engagement impressions were 32% more likely to convert to sign-ups or sales relative to baseline impressions. Where a user’s attention is on the page can make a marked difference in ad performance.

Attention measurement informs buy-side and sell-side teams about key video and CTV metrics such as ad audibility, in-view rates, completion rates, fully on-screen rates and more. In 2021, DV saw Audible and In-view On Completion (AVOC) rates increase by 23% YoY across all devices, indicating improvements in how video advertising is seen by users. Clearly, the ability to monitor and optimize for attention metrics will be a differentiator in the space. The ability to sell segments of inventory based on attention metrics shows buyers that you have optimal ad performance in mind.

While not indicative of all verification vendors, publishers should look to understand how buyers are utilizing verification tools and how it may impact them. A lot has changed in ad verification since its inception, and publishers that consider the same quality and attention metrics that brands care about stand to benefit the most.

Access DoubleVerify's full Global Insights Report containing methodology, definitions and additional information here.
Industry-Research

Advertisers should be watching CTV

As consumers find their way to connected TV (CTV) content, so do marketers. CTV and streaming products help media companies extend their content reach and tap into a strong-growing demand for content. To that end, we’re witnessing the rise of AVOD and FAST services, which broaden the reach of streaming beyond the premium content consumer. While consumers benefit from lower-cost alternatives, advertisers are keen to capitalize on a broader consumer base.

Attractive marketplace

Advertisers see a significant advantage in CTV as it combines the value of television engagement with the precision of digital buying and targeting. The ads are usually not skippable, appear in regular ad breaks, and are indistinguishable from cable television ads in production quality. 

eMarketer forecasts 204.1 million connected TV users, representing 60.1% of the population this year. They also project CTV ad revenues to increase 35% to $6.41 billion this year from upfront sales and to grow another 35% to $8.14 billion in 2023.

In fact, a new survey by Advertiser Perceptions and Premion reports that 66% of advertisers are shifting budgets from digital, social, and linear TV to fund CTV/OTT spend increases.

Quality, volume, and device

CTV streaming content is in the early stages of developing effective optimization for programmatic inventory. Peer39, an intelligence platform for contextual targeting and analytics, offers insight into CTV’s inventory quality. Their Programmatic CTV Benchmark report provides an additional level of transparency to better understand how CTV campaigns compare to the rest of the industry. 

The Q1 2022 report found that fake CTV content accounted for 4.43% of all ad calls. Fake content is content that doesn’t fit the scope of TV content. It’s likely to be screensaver channels, photo widgets, games, and mobile. Peer39 found the largest share of fake CTV content was among mobile apps pretending to be CTV streaming content in programmatic marketplaces. Approximately 2% to 18.5% of CTV inventory ran on fake content and about 13% of total impression volume per campaign ran on user-generated and non-professionally produced content. 

The programmatic CTV market is run primarily on three key devices, with Roku, Amazon Fire, and Samsung accounting for nine out of ten impressions. Not surprisingly, CTV is a medium for series and movies, and to a lesser extent, live tv for sports and news. 

Regarding the top OTT services by impression volume, Pluto TV stands above all, accounting for 59% of total impressions in open programmatic auctions. Hulu, Sling, and Viacom’s EyeQ only account for 2% of impressions, each.

Effective ad market

According to ExchangeWire, CTV streaming advertising is proving to be more effective than traditional TV advertising, as CTV viewers are 42% more likely to buy advertised products because of the ads viewed. Importantly, content players have insight into what viewers watch, when, and how often. Extracting data in a privacy-compliant manner is essential for profiling and targeting a valuable CTV audience.

The combination of digital reach and television content makes CTV streaming ad inventory especially valuable to marketers looking to reach broad audiences. It allows media companies to attract younger audiences of cord-cutters and “cord-never” consumers, the early adopters of CTV platforms. It presents an additional advertising route for media organizations and uses their first-party data and contextual insight to reinforce the value of video monetization. 

Industry-Research | Supporter Spotlight | Video

The next-generation news consumer is older than you think and wants more video. 

Publishers should target the medium, not the platform to capture the next generation of news consumers.

The 2022 Digital News Report from the Reuters Institute and the University of Oxford paints a grim picture. More people are avoiding the news than ever before, especially younger generations. But these social and digital natives are not necessarily next up in the queue of eventual news consumers nor are they a target audience, yet. This article aims to highlight who publishers should target and how. 

Targeting too young, too soon. 

It’s easy to read the aforementioned report and feel exasperated. Thirty eight percent of people surveyed around the world are selectively avoiding the news, up from 29% in 2017. In the U.S., it’s 42%, up from 38% in 2017.

The percentage of avoiders grows the younger the dataset gets with 20-somethings actively avoiding certain genres of news as a form of self-care.

“I actively avoid things that trigger my anxiety and things that can have a negative impact on my day. I will try to avoid reading news about things like deaths and disasters.”

—Male, 27, UK

This is distressing for any journalist to read. However, there’s an interesting yet subtle distinction in how younger consumers are classifying news which helps explain it. 

“…younger audiences often distinguish between ‘the news’ as the narrow, traditional agenda of politics and current affairs and ‘news’ as a much wider umbrella encompassing topics like sports, entertainment, celebrity gossip, culture, and science.”

This means that younger generations are lumping proper journalism in with their entire digital diet. This makes sense based on how different types of information bleed together on social feeds. A video from the New York Times on the war in Ukraine might be sandwiched between a video from an influencer doing the latest viral dance trend and a video showing how to make burrata caprese. If you’re on your phone for another dopamine hit, “the news” isn’t going to satiate.

So called “older generations” (35 is the cutoff in the report) are much more interested in “the news” as opposed to “news”. They seek out the news because they feel it’s important, useful and a good way to learn new things as opposed to younger generations looking for entertainment or something to discuss with friends.

This sense of duty to be informed is the perfect audience subset for publishers and that passionate niche only grows larger with age. Some publishers are setting the bar even higher than 35. The Washington Post’s Phoebe Connelly, director of Next Generation Audiences told Poynter’s Senior Media Writer Tom Jones that younger audiences are anyone under 45. That’s just ten years younger than the average news consumer. 

The Reuters report shows that younger audiences are less engaged and are even having a difficult time understanding the news. I should be clear that these audiences shouldn’t be ignored. It’s worth exploring how to increase media literacy and develop a sense of duty to be well informed. But newsrooms need to be strategic with their limited audience targeting resources, so whether it’s due to self-care or just wanting to be entertained, publishers should mostly put the millennial and Gen-Z generations on the shelf while they mature into vintage news consumers and focus on the tier below their current audience. 

45 is the new 55

Most consumers are getting their news from social media on mobile devices, even this older demographic. But there are key opportunities in this subset for publishers compared to the younger audiences. 

  • They are about 13% of the U.S. population (37 million and the third largest set)
  • They are twice as likely to have a digital subscription to news than 35-45 year olds. (8% or 3 million)
  • About 25% either mostly watch or have a balance of watching and reading the news. (9.2 million)

This last bullet point is key because it highlights a consumption trend that can result in huge engagement and revenue growth for publishers. 

While only about 25% of older consumers mostly watch or consume the same amount of content via video or text, the younger generations are consuming nearly 35% via video. Our research at Oovvuu finds this to be true across its publishing partners as well. A global average of 34% of news consumers prefer video while on a publisher’s website, not just social media.

This trend isn’t going to change. TikTok is a video-only platform and it’s the most popular social media platform in the world with the youngest users. TikTok will come and go, but those users have been conditioned to consume video from the days of Facebook and Twitter to Instagram, YouTube and now TikTok. When they grow up and fit nicely into the 45 to 55 news-hungry demographic, odds are they’ll still want video.

Engagement and revenue opportunities

Already, 41% of consumers who prefer video say it is more engaging than text. When publishers embed contextually relevant video on a news story the time spent on that page doubles. It also increases the likelihood of that viewer returning to the site. 

This strategy isn’t new. It’s usually mentioned every few years when a publisher “pivots to video” for the umpteenth time. The problem lies in the execution of that strategy. The road to proper video implementation is riddled with landmines: auto-play, long non-skippable pre rolls, too many ads, loading too many videos and weighing down the page, and a lack of contextual relevance are all recipes for disaster with news video consumption. One landmine can turn off a consumer or an advertiser. They’ll still want or pay for video, it just won’t happen on your site. 

The winning formula is the right video, at the right time, in the right place.

This formula works because video is 34 times more profitable than display advertising when implemented correctly. At Oovvuu, we’ve found that publishers who are willing to follow the formula are rewarded with media agency partners who are willing to pay premium CPMs for those videos and consumers who actually engage with the content. Here’s the formula again with more detail. 

Contextual Relevance + Premium and Timely Placement + Click-to-Play = Premium CPMs

The reality is that journalists still need to do the work, and publishers can empower them with this strategy because it translates across all levels of the organization. Contextually relevant video journalism making more money for the publisher means newsrooms could do something they haven’t done in a long time…grow. 

Contextual relevance applies to video, but also the consumer

There is one more potential pitfall to this strategy worth mentioning. A digital publisher or broadcaster can have a 1:1 perfect match between an in-house video and an article, but over time the publisher will still see a lack of loyalty from its consumers. But why if the video and article are in perfect harmony?

Social and digital native audiences are more casual, less loyal, less trusting and more skeptical in their news consumption. Loyalty and trust are built through representation and diversity. A publisher who relies on one brand or one internal group of talent – no matter how good – is likely turning off younger consumers. 

Publishers can’t hire every demographic. They also can’t source every video. This means that publishers and video providers need to work together to have the best audience representation possible. Publishers who have video from hundreds of providers around the world are able to publish a larger variety of reporting perspectives and viewpoints with more races, accents and dialects offered from news presenters. 

Contextual relevance through diverse video sources will leave audiences feeling represented, empowered, and part of the news. Couple that with a proper video strategy and consumers will be more likely to engage with “the news” and less likely to disassociate with it. 

©2024 Digital Content Next. All Rights Reserved.