The Center for Cooperative Media sees collaborative journalism as a way to share power among journalists, readers and others to deliver information that centers and addresses people’s needs. They believe that collaboration can be particularly impactful when it involves the community.
Their research analyzes three collaborative journalism experiments in Europe:
The Bureau Local in the U.K is a nonprofit collaboration of journalists and non-journalists (data scientists, academics, citizens, etc.) engaging in topic-driven reporting projects.
“L’Italia Delle Slot” in Italy is a collaboration among one legacy, and two start-up news organizations focused on a single topic.
Lännen Media in Finland is a co-op collaboration among regional news organizations through shared content production and distribution.
They conducted 29 interviews among journalists, senior management, community organizers, data analysts, technical experts, and others.
Collaboration models
Each of the three publications offers different collaboration models:
Lännen Media
This is a co-op model where similar news organizations join on specific topics and do not compete. They manage daily reports via video conferencing and skype with editors and share a content management system to follow what they work on in the different newsrooms.
This setup allows journalists to rotate into the cooperative from the regional newsrooms for two or three years and then return to their original masthead. While larger newspapers contribute more, all members share the costs of running Lännen Media.
“L’Italia Delle Slot
A contractor model that establishes a commercial contract to dictate the collaboration among organizations with specific areas of expertise. In this case, a large legacy news publisher combines efforts with two data-journalism-focused start-ups. In 2013, Effecinque, a start-up, began researching the increase in slot machines in Italy. Effecinque partnered with Dataninja, a data-journalism network, to investigate if slot machines in Italy correlated to the rise in gambling addiction. Effecinque and Dataninja partnered with GEDI Visual Lab to produce a web portal, data visualizations, videos, and other interactive content to showcase the details of the investigation.
This approach allowed the two start-up organizations, GEDI and 13 local newspapers, to define their roles based on areas of expertise. Further, the 13 local newsrooms provided local knowledge to tell the stories about their community using the data set.
The Bureau Local
This project-based collaborative model relies on a nonprofit to act as a central hub that coordinates and supports parallel investigations. It’s often a diverse collaboration from regional BBC bureaus to commercial, chain-owned newspapers to independent local dailies, community-owned sites, and freelancers. Many organizations share data managed by a NGO nonprofit newsroom focused on public interest. This also allows for non-journalists such as data scientists, designers, and others to work together. This type of collaboration often coordinates investigations across national and local levels to help drive discussions among local and national politicians and policymakers.
The digital media ecosystem is a great environment to start collaborations such as establishing networks across localities and shared resources. Jenkins’ and Grave’s research illustrates three collaborative journalism models to showcase each of their unique approaches. Lännen Media’s co-op model shares resources across regional newspapers, “L’Italia Delle Slot’s” contractor model engages expert journalists on short-term investigations. The Bureau Local NGO model manages a shared database by a nonprofit. Each model offers a viable model for publisher sustainability – maintaining a healthy structure of shared economics, goals, and healthy competition.
Sponsored content plays a sizeable role in publishers’ revenue model. According to eMarketer, ad spend on sponsored content in 2021 neared $57 billion. Advertisers find the high production quality of today’s sponsored content a compelling marketing vehicle. As a result, audiences often find it difficult to differentiate between sponsor content and actual news content. Therefore, the FTC requires publishers to label it as advertising. As the market for it grows, it’s essential to understand how the publishers’ production and reliance on sponsored content affects news content.
An advertising quandary
While sponsored content has been around a long time, it’s grown significantly in the past 10 years in the digital media sector. Marketers value the “halo effect” of a publisher’s editorial integrity offering strong reader engagement. Sponsored content is usually a narrative, which contrasts with display and video ads. It often includes custom video, interactive elements, and high-end graphic designs.
Many premium publishers have content studios dedicated to creating sponsored content. The New York Times (NYT) launched T Brand Studio, The Washington Post (WP) owns BrandStudio, and The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) has The Trust.
In a two-step process, Amazeen and Vargo identified 27 sponsored content articles in WP, the NYT, and WSJ across five years. They first scraped the content studios’ Twitter accounts to identify sponsored content links. They then used a custom Bing program to search for sponsored content links inside the news websites. The 27 sponsors include Verizon, Airbus, Volvo, American Petroleum Institute, Dow Jones, Qualcomm, Holiday Inn, Huawei, Purdue Pharma, Netflix, Gartner, Subaru, Oracle, Fox Sports, Deloitte, Walmart, Nordstrom, Allergan, Accenture, Lockheed Martin, Samsung, IBM, Wells Fargo, MetLife, Delta Air Lines, Aetna, and Starz.
The researchers then used the Global Database of Events Language and Tone (GDELT), a news article database, to match sponsored content mentions of corporations and brands to articles matching the corporate or brand sponsor. In all, they found 2,707 articles related to the companies and brands sponsoring content.
Analysis details
The research assessed the relationship of corporate sponsorship to news coverage of the same company across time. The analysis evaluated whether publishers filtered and shaped their news accordingly to accommodate corporate sponsorship. This practice is known as agenda setting. It refers to how the news publishers can influence which issues become the focus of public attention. In the case of sponsored content, publishers can add news coverage of a company and brand or reduce and cut their news coverage.
They divided the news articles into two segments for further analysis:
Elite publishers (NYT, WP, and WSJ), and
General (non-premium) news media landscape.
Omitting any seasonality mentions (i.e., earning calls), 20 of the 27 sponsored content companies showed at least one instance of agenda cutting or agenda building.
Further, of the 27 brands analyzed, only three companies showed an agenda-building effect among elite publishers: Huawei, Qualcomm, and Purdue Pharma. Amazeen and Vargo conclude that agenda building is a less likely occurrence with sponsored content companies or brands.
In addition, seven brands showed significant agenda-cutting effects among premium publishers: Netflix, Nordstrom, Starz, Wells Fargo, Aetna, Oracle, and Qualcomm. The researchers also found a significantly higher agenda-cutting effects across the entire U.S. media landscape — 14 companies and brands.
Amazeen and Vargo acknowledge that the news media is not immune to internal and external forces in their newsrooms. Publishers often set guidelines for creative and narrative executions in content studios. Amazeen and Vargo suggest publishers monitor and develop measures to assess the additional news coverage or lack of for companies and brands of sponsored content.
Some differences between generations seem irrefutable while others seem little more than the function of age and maturity. Without doubt, we have observed the many impacts of digital transformation on Millennials and Gen Z. Yet, while the rise of digital ubiquity is certainly one of the most profound impacts on culture (and certainly media usage), we also saw the pandemic accelerate and impact a slew of trends. In an interesting twist, it appears that it may have sped up some digital media consumption convergence between older and younger generations.
The IPA’s Commercial Media Landscape report offers a high level view of the media landscape today. The report looks at reach, share of time, time spent, and usage patterns across the day of all commercial media properties in order to illuminate where shifts are occurring. In particular, it delves into how adults in Great Britain spend their media day and examines the differences between age groups.
Convergence
One of the most striking findings of the fourth edition of the report is the changing nature of the relationship between the media consumption habits of 16- 34s and people aged 55+. Previous editions of the IPA’s report found steady declines in the correlation between the habits of these two audiences with a trend towards divergence. In a striking turn, the fourth edition finds a marked shift towards eventual convergence.
This seems to be driven by the fact that the 16-34 age group is nearing peak digital penetration as their patterns of consumption level out. At the same time, for those aged 55 and over, the advancement of technology usage brought on by the Covid-19 pandemic resulted in rapid digital media uptake.
Consumption
Online Video has seen the most significant growth of any media channel over the last five years, and it now commands a greater share of media time than Live/Recorded TV for 16-34s. As with 16-34s, the reduction in time spent with Commercial Live/Recorded TV for 35-54 was one of the largest shifts from 2015 to 2021. In 2015 Commercial Live/Recorded TV took a 42% share of the curated commercial media day for 35-54s. By 2020 pre-lockdown this had fallen to 29%, and again to 26% in 2021 post-lockdown.
For those 55+ Commercial Live/ Recorded TV and Newsbrands (Print) saw increases in reach, share and time spent during and post lockdown. On the other hand, Social Media was the clear winner for 16-34s.
For commercial media in 2021, more time is now being spent with digital rather than nondigital channels. For all adults, the split has grown from 58:42 towards non-digital in 2015 to 46:54 in favor of digital in 2021. For 16-34s in 2021, 78% of all curated commercial media time was spent with digital channels.
As is to be expected, share shifted the most among 16-34s, from 76% commercial in 2015 to 64% in 2021 post lockdown. And although 16-34s are seen as the subscription spear-headers, they actually spent almost two thirds of their media time in commercial spaces, which is greater than the average adult.
Overall, the report finds significant evidence of increasing digital media usage for 55+. In the 2021 post-lockdown era, Smartphone, Tablet and PC Laptop combined now account for 33% of their total commercial media consumption time for this group, up from 19%. As the report points out, those over 55 had to quickly adapt to stay in touch, shop etc., which made them more confident about digital media and devices.
Conclusions
The areas of difference are still significantly greater than commonalities. Unsurprisingly, the report does reinforce some of the expected generational differences in media consumption.
According to the authors, “although it is encouraging to see an increase in similarity between these two audiences, it should not be missed that a correlation of 18% still represents an 82% dissimilarity between the two audience’s time spent with media properties and a hope of one-size-fits-all media plans in reality would be more aligned to one-size-fits-none.”
However, it does find a greater degree of convergence than might be expected. While this was likely accelerated by the pandemic, the report ultimately suggests that, for 16-34s, their level of digital media usage has become so high, there is very little room for additional growth. However, for 55+ there was — and will be — continued room for growth in digital media usage. So, while it is critical to innovate and experiment to attract younger audiences, it is important not to overlook the growth opportunities across generations.
A trusted reputation is crucial for publishers. And, despite the clickbait appeal of fake news, most people value accuracy and truthful content. Research has confirmed time and again that people want to engage more with articles shared by trusted journalists and media outlets, especially on social media.
89% of Americans believe it is “very important” for a news outlet to be accurate and 86% that it is “very important” that they correct their mistakes (Knight Foundation, 2018),
85% say that accuracy is a critical reason for why they trust a news source (The Media Insight Project, 2016).
63% of Americans say they have stopped getting news from an outlet in response to fake news.
However, fake news and low-quality content are still prevalent, amplified, and generating tremendous engagement. Misinformation is not limited by reality and often feeds natural individual biases.
Fighting fake news
The question remains where do publishers place their efforts in the fight against fake news? New research from Alberto Acerbi, Sacha Altay, and Hugo Mercier, Fighting misinformation or fighting for information? explores whether publishers should fight the spread of misinformation or support the trust in reliable sources. Interestingly, the researchers found that it is just as likely that consumers will accept articles and sound bites of fake news reporting as it is for them to reject a piece of accurate news reporting.
The authors developed a model that estimates the effectiveness of increasing the acceptance of reliable news compared to decreasing the acceptance of misinformation. The model includes two main parameters: the share of misinformation compared to the share of reliable information and the tendency for individuals to accept each type of information.
Reliable information refers to news shared by sources that, most of the time, report news accurately,
Misinformation refers to news shared by sources that regularly share fake and deceptive information.
The model provides a baseline view of the informational environment and offers an approximate index of its quality. Using these broad definitions, the model design includes 5% of misinformation as people’s news diets, with the remaining 95% consisting of information from reliable sources. Importantly the model captures the main elements of an informative environment: the incidence of reliable information compared to misinformation and the tendency to accept each type of information.
The model computes a global information score. The calculation represents the share of accepted pieces of reliable information minus the share of accepted pieces of misinformation.
Simulated exposure
A small sample of individuals simulated in the model were exposed to both reliable and fake news. A larger sample of individuals simulated were exposed only to reliable news. The researchers tested different intervention rates of reducing the acceptance rate of misinformation compared to increasing the acceptance of reliable information.
The researchers analyzed the different interventions rates. The basic simulation illustrates that, even with a 10% incidence of misinformation, improving the acceptance of reliable information by 3% points is more effective than bringing acceptance of misinformation to zero. Therefore, interventions that increase the acceptance of reliable information have a greater effect than interventions on misinformation.
Acerbi, Altay, and Mercier demonstrate the importance understanding the impact of different interventions in the informational landscape. Publishers that place their efforts on increasing the acceptance of reliable information will have a greater effect in the fight against fake news.
These findings do not dispute the many efforts to fight misinformation. However, given publishers’ limited resources, more efforts should be dedicated to increasing trust in reliable sources of information rather than in fighting misinformation.
Streaming is popular but competition is fierce. It seems like every major network and media company has launched a streaming service.
Last week, Netflix released its 4Q 2021 earnings. The company closed the year with 221.8 million subscribers. However, Netflix fell short of its Q4 new subscriber forecast. Pivotal Research Group analyst Jeff Wlodarczak comments that streaming services are adjusting to the new norm of subscription growth compared to the accelerated sign-ups witnessed during 2020’s lockdown. Wlodarczak believes, “Streaming is not over; it is the future.”
A number of industry analysts have identified strategies and offer insight into the streaming marketplace’s next steps.
International growth
MarketWatch points to global programming investment as a top priority for streaming services. And the investment in content only bears this out.
Netflix’s hit series from South Korea, Squid Game, is one of many international success stories and a clear winner for the platform. Expect more foreign-language series to be developed as Netflix turns international growth, especially in Asia, India and Latin America.
Amazon’s Prime Video will offer more programming in India’s Hindi, Tamil, and Telugu languages. It’s India service registered tripled its viewing hours over the past two years there.
Apple TV+ will debut its first Russian-language show, the thriller “Container,” in the spring.
Disney+ plans 50 Asian originals by 2023, as it expands to South Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.
HBO Max debuts in Europe in early 2022.
Paramount+ also debuts in South Korea and Western Europe.
Peacock expanded to Europe (on Sky platforms), with more than 50 Spanish-language projects with Telemundo.
Mix and matching viewing strategies
While Linear TV marathons introduced us to binge viewing, Netflix’s flexible nature made it an everyday behavior. TheRinger identifies the different episode distribution strategies to keep viewers engaged and coming back to view more. As noted with Netflix, flexibility is essential and a reminder that different approaches offer different results. A buzz-worthy binge (all episodes released at once) can be great PR for a new series release. Additionally, a scheduled infusion of new episodes can draws viewers back week after week.
Apple TV+ offers a “demi-binge” strategy, debuting with a batch of three episodes, then airing the remaining seven one at a time.
WarnerMedia’s HBO Max uses a hybrid approach, breaking up seasons into packs of two or three episodes released over several weeks.
Interestingly, Peacock’s promotes binging but at higher pricing for specific series. Seasons 1 and 2 of The Office are available at the lowest-priced monthly subscription price of $4.99 a month. To unlock every episode, extended cuts, never-before-seen-footage, and watch commercial-free, consumers pay $9.99 — the highest tier.
Amazon’s The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel will switch from releasing all eight episodes at once to two a week for four weeks. Fear not, the binging release strategy is far from over. Rather, this is simply different viewing models in play. And they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Merger, acquisitions, and differentiation
As Netflix invests in gaming, Amazon looks to its NFL and Thursday Night Football. Both are clear points of differentiation. Other services look to corporate and sibling-studio deals to offer HBO Max, Peacock, and Paramount+ access to new movies releases 45 days after they open in theaters.
CNBC Tech Reporter Alex Sherman points to the significance of mergers. He believes that Paramount+ and Peacock won’t last as standalone streaming services, and a merger is likely in their future.
Discovery Inc.’s acquisition of WarnerMedia (expected to be complete in mid-2022) will combine the streaming platform of Discovery+ and HBO Max. Combined, they will have approximately 100 million subscribers.
Streaming platforms are making significant investments in new and innovative content and unique deal-making to differentiate themselves from competitors. They need to keep their customers consistently engaged, especially as consumers begin to reevaluate their multiple subscriptions to access the content they want to watch.
Remember cable television? How about consumers’ desperate plea for skinny bundles? Certainly, there is an entire generation (or two) that is entirely unfamiliar with historic issues around bloated offerings from traditional cable companies. However, for a few years there, things seemed better for consumers of all ages. Streaming afforded viewers the opportunity to handpick only the services they wanted. And even better: They didn’t have to sift through, or pay for, those they did not.
However, according to new Accenture research, consumers increasingly find streaming to be complicated, expensive, and difficult to use. In a survey of 6,000 consumers in North America, South America, Europe, South Africa, and Asia Pacific, the research identified room for improvement in how consumers navigate and search across various providers, the types and pricing of bundles they’re offered, and the relevance of the recommendations they receive.
Too much of a good thing
The proliferation of streaming services has given consumers options galore. It has enabled them to explore archives of their favorites and access a deep well of niche and enthusiast content. However, as many have feared, the research confirms that it has also created incredible complexity. With each additional service, consumers must manually browse through multiple platforms and screens just to find something to watch.
The survey found that 60% of consumers globally consider the process of navigating these different services “a little” to “very” frustrating. Nearly half (44%) spend more than six minutes trying to find something they want to watch.
Payment problems
Paying for more services is also a growing problem. In fact, many consumers are approaching their upper limit on the amount of money they’ll spend for streaming services. According to Accenture’s survey, 33% of consumers globally say they will “somewhat” or “greatly” decrease spend on media and entertainment across subscriptions and one-time purchases in the next 12 months. And, while Accenture doesn’t specifically mention this, it is likely that the inefficiency of having to pay for so many services, and tracking total spend is something consumers would like to simplify as well.
Discovery dilemma
Lastly, the research finds that discoverability is not just an issue of the sheer number of streaming platforms consumers must manage. Because each experience is siloed, consumers’ preferences do not sufficiently inform algorithmic recommendation engines so that they provide accurate suggestions.
Furthermore, the reliance on the algorithm to pitch shows doesn’t allow consumers to tune the model, except through actual show selection. A majority of global consumers said they’d like to be able to take their profile from one service to another to better personalize content (56%); and they’d be happy to let a video-on-demand service know more about them to make recommendations more relevant to them (51%).
Old problems in new platforms
The three issues consumers have with the current streaming experience and ecosystem all point to their desire to have far greater control over their experience. They want easier navigation and to pay for only what they want. For streaming to continue to grow and fulfill its potential, Accenture believes a big change to the ecosystem is needed: the addition of a smart aggregator that sits across multiple platforms and dramatically increases viewers’ control over the content they watch. Sound familiar?
It was a fourth quarter to remember…and a fourth quarter to forget. The main reason to remember is so other Q4s will look positively luminous in comparison. I’m not just talking about the wrath of Omicron, which ruined holidays for countless families and continues to cause illness, death, and emotional distress across the globe. I’m talking about an alarming rise in malvertising that endangers publisher revenue and consumers’ online safety.
As publishers struggle more than ever to balance user experience and monetization, the perils of the open programmatic marketplace require higher levels of vigilance, lest audiences be lost in a storm of malware. Let’s explore the factors behind the rise in malvertising and what publishers can do to combat its impact.
Malware incidents on the rise
While malvertising typically subsides in the fourth quarter with higher inventory prices, Q4 2021 malware levels were disturbingly high.
In the digital ecosystem, The Media Trust detected a 64% increase in malware incidents during the final quarter of 2021 — which can account for thousands of impressions or hits — as compared to the same time period in 2020. And 2020 levels were already high as the programmatic marketplace struggled to snap back during the early days of the pandemic.
Malvertising levels this high at the end of the year are unusual. It typically subsides a bit in the fourth quarter. Because increased advertiser demand enables publishers to increase CPMs and raise programmatic floors most malvertisers are priced out of the market.
However, Q4 2021’s record malware numbers weren’t the result of a few blanket attacks. The industry was assaulted by a wide variety of malicious code and content:
Redirects peaked in October, growing 170% over the course of the year.
In November, Digital media was awash in FizzCore, a notorious form of malicious clickbait that employs cloaking technology to hide its devious content. The amount of FizzCore detected grew 9X over two months.
An outbreak of fake antivirus/software update ads also hit hard in November, marking a 50% rise since the beginning of the year.
E-skimming typically increases in Q4 as bad actors hunt for consumer credit cards, but the amount detected in Q4 2021 was 63% higher than the year prior.
Scam ads, which surged in 2021 and made up nearly a third of malware in the space, stayed high and ticked up an extra 9% in December — nearly exceeding the summer peak.
A most malicious year
While 2020 saw a surge in malvertising caused by advertisers’ pandemic pullback, the amount of malware in the digital ecosystem in 2021 has been dramatically higher.
Unfortunately, these numbers are representative of 2021 as whole, where malware simply exploded. The Media Trust’s Digital Security and Operations team managed an average 2,210 malware incidents daily. That’s a 64% increase over 2020 and well above the ~1,000 historical average. During the summer — the height of the 2021 malware blitz — average daily malware incidents stayed above 3,000.
Overall, The Media Trust identified 26,664 new malware incidents in 2021, a ~30% increase over the number cataloged in 2020. And our creative blocker, Media Filter, halted four times more malware than in the year prior.
The proliferation of malvertising is simply breathtaking.
What’s behind the rise in malvertising
Certainly the 2020 surge in malvertising followed advertisers’ pause in spend; bad ads flooded the programmatic advertising space as publishers lowered floors to grab whatever revenue they could. But even as the pandemic drags on and on, programmatic markets seem to have rebounded. So, what’s behind this incredible 2021 surge in malware?
First, from a programming perspective, the malvertising barrier to entry is very low. The dark web is full of malware kits for sale including turnkey phishing solutions and the ever-popular ransomware-as-a-service. There’s a whole black market ecosystem for selling pilfered data and access to infected devices — and often no legal repercussions for bad actors (though there were some impressive arrests in 2021).
Secondly, research from eMarketer found that private marketplaces account for more RTB spend than the open programmatic marketplace. With $15.4 billion in advertiser spend in 2021, private marketplaces made up 56% of all RTB-transacted dollars. The open marketplace sat at $12.3 billion and had a 44% share.
According to eMarketer, the shift to private marketplaces is only going to accelerate in 2022. Spend is predicted to increase another 21% and make up 59% of all RTB spending. However, the open marketplace will only grow 5% and dwindle to a 41% share of RTB spend.
We also see premium advertisers are investing heavily in connected TV (CTV) — although they’re struggling with campaign measurement — direct, and programmatic. These advertisers shifting their buying power away from the open marketplace is likely depressing CPMs. It is also making more room for bad actors to spread a variety of malicious wares.
Is it time to give up on open programmatic?
So, if the open marketplace is suffering from a rapidly growing malware infestation, am I suggesting publishers turn off their open programmatic pipes post-haste? Heavens, no! That’s not really an option for most digital publishers. Can you imagine the amount of revenue left on the table? All the unfilled inventory?
It’s obvious why private marketplaces are increasingly attracting advertiser dollars: high viewability, actually engaged human beings rather than bots, and impressions on well-respected publications. We’ll see top-tier publishers layering in high-impact audience segments that will likely outperform third-party cookies.
But the challenge with private marketplaces has always been getting them to scale. I still hear publishers lament long-lingering Deal IDs with laughable fill rates. Truly getting private marketplaces to hum requires time and resources, something many publishers in the “fat middle” struggle with.
Premium advertisers will keep buying in the open market. This may be to cherry-pick super-cheap inventory on premium publishers or for prospecting purposes. Smaller advertisers may find it easier to reach target audiences across a wider crop of publishers. Publishers also use the open marketplace to find new advertiser prospects and evaluate the market value of various types of inventory and audience segments.
Your best defense against malvertisers is high quality data
The open programmatic marketplace may be getting seedier but diligent publishers can still drive a ton of revenue. It’s just going to take more work to keep audiences safe from all the fraudsters spread across the programmatic pipes.
Having a page/app-level creative blocker to bat away malware before it hits your property is table stakes. But with this massive expansion of malware in open programmatic, the quality of data fueling your blocker is more important than ever. Publishers can’t go cut-rate. Their ad-quality provider should be pumping data into the blocker in real-time from an in-house team of malware analysts. Third-party malware data isn’t going to be fresh enough. It may also lead to revenue-bleeding false positives.
And finally, publishers need to be a lot more discriminating when it comes to their open marketplace partners — and by extension, those partners’ partners. Especially during the pandemic, publishers have been willing to install most demand sources that might give them an edge with bid density. But open programmatic is getting too dangerous to be carefree about the companies you monetize with. Ensure all your demand partners are scrutinizing both tags and landing pages (preferably from a variety of device and geographic profiles). And if a high percentage of the ads they bring you get shot down by your malware blocker, maybe they’re not the right fit for you.
Open programmatic is definitely becoming a more dangerous place for monetization. But that doesn’t mean it’s not worth the revenue. With the right tools and policies, publishers can make bank — and keep their audiences safe and happy.
Most digital news publishers registered growth in subscription and advertising revenues in 2021 as compared to the prior year. And, according to Reuters’ Journalism, media, and technology trends and predictions 2022, close to three-quarters of publishers (73%) are optimistic about this year. To understand future trends in news publishing, Reuters surveyed 246 executives in 52 countries during November and December 2021. The participants were senior-level employees in digital media strategies at news publishers.
Building scale
As publishers look to the future, scale is essential for most. These companies see a future with a mix of models to grow revenue including subscription, advertising, ecommerce, and events.
Pure plays look to scale: Digital publishers are acquiring and merging to give them more leverage with advertisers and to compete with the dominant tech players of Facebook and Google. Buzzfeed’s purchase of Complex and Vox’s acquisition of Group Nine are recent examples of this strategy. Publishers expect more mergers and acquisitions in 2022.
Traditional media looks to digital acquisitions to drive growth: Large traditional media players have focused on the acquisition of digital brands to add value to their subscription bundles and target a growing digital audience. Axel Springer’s purchase of Politico and the New York Times’ plan to buy subscription-based sports site, The Athletic, are two prime examples. These acquisitions are solid plays to drive audience growth with digital audiences.
New models fuel local start-ups: At a local level, low-cost reader-focused start-ups are using newsletter platforms like Substack to attract audiences. Digital newsletter companies are also building local footprints. For example, Axios is expanding its newsletter-led model to 25 cities this year.
Audience strategies and innovation
Publisher efforts this year focus on podcasts and other digital audio (80%), building and improving newsletters (70%), and developing digital video formats (63%). Publishers are focusing on new audio formats such as audio articles, flash briefings, audio messages, and live formats such as social audio.
New audio initiatives (e.g., Clubhouse, Twitter Spaces, Facebook’s Live Audio Rooms, Reddit Talk) show audience interest in audio discussions. However, executives are unsure how engaged audiences are long-term in these pop-up, discussion-based experiences. More content also means more competition and a need for more content moderation.
Still, publishers see audio as strategically important. It can deliver reach, loyalty, and revenue. Some publishers want to own the audio experience to control the full customer experience. The New York Times purchased Audm, an audio narration app, and they plan to launch a listening product this year.
Publishers also want to engage with younger audiences. They have a renewed interest in short-form video and look to native video formats to attract Gen Z. They are also using third-party mobile-friendly online video platforms to target Gen Z. Executives report that more effort is going to visual distribution and engagement platforms like Instagram (net score of +54), TikTok (+44), and YouTube (+43), and less effort into general-purpose networks like Twitter (-5) and Facebook (-8). Even with a renewed video interest, many news publishers still question the monetization strategy of short-form social video.
News publishers need to develop deeper relationships with audiences. In particular, they must reengage the disaffected and target the young adults. This year, innovation is an important cornerstone to attract new readers, with publishers investing in new audio formats and short-form videos. Investment is essential to build the future Web 3.0 experience.
Trust is a crucial driver of consumer engagement, especially in news reporting. Ed Williams, the CEO, Edelman, UK, and Ireland, notes that trust closely correlates to our sense of happiness. “The amount of trust that people are able to place in the institutions that govern or inform their lives accords closely with their sense of happiness,” he elaborates. “So, in a broad, societal sense, it matters whether or not our media is trusted.”
Unfortunately, recent studies show trust in the news media continues to decline. Edelman’s Trust Barometer 2021 shows trust in all news sources is at a record low with social media (35%), owned media (41%), and traditional media (53%). Gallup research finds trust in the news media news at 36%, down four percentage points from 2020.
In a new report, The Reuters Institute’s lead researchers take a deeper dive into the questions of trust in the news media. Specifically, Reuters explores how the news media can build trust with its audience. The report showcases discussions with 54 individuals from a mix of small, local, and niche online publications to large, industry-leading brands in the US, UK, Brazil, and India.
Concerns in the newsroom
The report details journalists’ frustration with their newsrooms’ inabilities to build trust with the public. Smaller media organizations also spoke about their concerns and their lack of control over the way audiences interacted with their brands.
They also view Facebook, Twitter, Google, WhatsApp, and YouTube negatively and believe these platforms cause increasing distrust in the news media.
Breadth and depth face fierce competition
Journalists believe the quality and depth of their reporting are the main reasons audiences trust their news organization. However, many news media companies look to social platforms for scale. Doing so often adds attention-grabbing headlines and a disconnect with the content.
Rohan Venkat, Deputy Editor at Scroll (India) responds, ‘It’s something that we find quite hard, and we have to keep innovating in trying to convey that the format, the medium, is more complex than just what the headline contains.” Many journalists are less interested in chasing after reach and scale on platforms and want to build a strong relationship with their audience.
Finding your audience
Maintaining a strong connection with loyal readers is a priority for most newsrooms. However, publishers often disregard harder-to-reach and wary audiences. It doesn’t help that there are few incentives to build trust with an uninterested – and sometimes antagonistic – audience.
Many journalists feel it may be easier for publishers to change the minds of readers resembling their audience. However, if those most critical of the news media and its journalists are left untouched, they will continue to spread distrust in media news.
The research participants identified strategies to help build trust with audiences. The strategies include:
Maintaining a focus on accuracy. Differentiating fact from opinion is critical in building and keeping audience trust. News publishers should use fact-checking as a key differentiator.
Using editorial initiatives to cater to audiences who are underserved, overlooked, or criticized by the press.
Ensuring transparency about reporting practices, editorial stance, and journalists’ backgrounds. Disclosing the identities of those producing the news can also help.
Engaging in partnerships with other news or civic organizations. Offering practical advice to an audience centered around consumer products, recipes, and other information relevant to daily life.
Journalists and news publishers are finding ways to stand out and engage audiences. Creating, experimenting, and analyzing content in different formats, such as audio, visual, and text can offer insight into the impact on trust and distrust. Notably, the publishers need to incentivize the content most likely to build trust with audiences.
The pandemic influenced business and consumer ecosystems worldwide. New behaviors include wide spread adoption of cashless transactions, contactless shopping, Zoom calls, and virtual conferences. Today’s world differs significantly from the pre-pandemic norms of 2019. Deloitte’s new Technology, Media & Telecommunications (TMT) Report looks at our transformed landscape and offers insight into consumers’ TV viewing habits and video consumption and predictions for 2022.
TV evolves
While overall television viewing increased during the pandemic, that growth did not occur on linear TV. Deloitte’s report sees this year’s impact on TV broadcast as a tipping point. It attributes this to the changing television landscape to new platforms and rich content. The report cites declines in the U.K. and forecasts further decreases in 2022 across TV broadcast live, time-shifted, and on-demand. In all, the share of viewing in the U.K. for TV broadcasters will account for only 50% of video viewing on all screens.
As a result of declining viewership, broadcasters and cable networks are launching streaming businesses (i.e., Discovery+, Disney+, and Paramount+) to add reach and compete for viewers’ attention. Approximately 80% of U.S. households now have a paid streaming video-on-demand (SVOD)subscription, with roughly a 35% churn rate this year. Deloitte expects the younger European SVOD market to replicate the US model.
Managing SVOD
Consumers are price-sensitive and likely to find less expensive ad-supported offerings to manage their wallets. Deloitte estimates that at least 150 million paid subscriptions to SVOD services will cancel worldwide. However, Deloitte forecasts that consumers will add more subscriptions than cancel in markets with high churn. In fact, the average number of subscriptions per person will increase. Deloitte sees churn rates at 30% in the U.S. for 2022 compared to 35% in 2021.
Attracting and retaining audiences
Deloitte forewarns publishers that content development and acquisition costs are likely to increase. Therefore, the pressure to attract and retain audiences is a top priority. Their recommendations include:
Multiple tier offerings
Multiple pricing tiers will help protect against churn. Asia/Pacific offers multiple tiers from free, ad-supported video-on-demand (AVOD) to premium. They also provide service bundles with video, gaming, and music. Bundling different services allow providers to aggregate large audiences for advertising and helps prevent churn. Deloitte expects to see more multiple-tier and bundled offerings in the U.S. and European markets.
Partnerships
Partnering with telecom and cable TV operators offers access a sizeable mobile market. Partnerships can help SVOD providers with distribution, customer costs and offers a compelling bundled choice. Partnering with studios can help manage content development and attract a broader audience.
Better data usage
Use data to understand a customer’s lifetime value can develop more enduring relationships, especially with more-profitable age groups. Identify and track customer segments to create compelling content personalization, acquisition, and retention tactics. Establish a strong understanding of price sensitivity and content preference to find valuable subscriber segments.
Learn from the experts
Telcom and MVPDs spend years learning and managing churn. Leverage and learn from their expertise in maximizing customer lifetime value.
Manage a positive experience
Publisher SVOD services must deliver a valuable and positive user experience. It’s crucial to offer a good user experience from sign-up to cancellation.
Deloitte also reminds publishers to be flexible, be the prized alternative to the constraints of cable subscriptions and pay-TV. Churn is inevitable but controllable as competition grows in the marketplace.
The Covid-19 pandemic drove a surge in digital media usage. However, as consumers slowly return to work and to everyday life outside the home, digital media consumption been impacted. New research from GWI, Connecting the Dots, finds that the gradual shift to our pre-pandemic habits has downshifted digital consumption.
However, GWI sees the present as an interim period. For now, it remains unclear whether consumers will return to their previous content consumption levels — or perhaps reach new heights. This report offers an early look at consumer’s media behavior and attitudes as they slowly resume post-pandemic life.
Consumer attention serves as a commodity in today’s media marketplace. The attention metric took on new importance during the pandemic. Marketers and advertisers seek digital properties that offer large viewer and reader data that exhibit high levels of time spent. However, the attention economy concept as currency is only part of the advertising equation. GWI believes understanding consumer attitudes and feelings is a necessary part of the calculation and offers insight into their behavior.
Multiple streaming services add up
Television consumption increased during the pandemic and so did consumer spending on subscription services. Though GWI’s research finds that some consumers think they spent too much money. Over one-third (34%) of consumers state that TV services are too expensive in Q2 2021 compared to 27% in Q2 2020, an increase of 26%. In addition, in May 2021, a quarter of consumers were thinking of canceling or already canceling a streaming service.
Gaming grabs consumer attention
The pandemic ignited a period of exceptional growth for gaming. GWI cites a Google Trends’ analysis that compares the popularity of video gaming to a TV program, a theatrical release, and a new album release. The analysis tracks the popularity of Animal Crossing, a social simulation video game series, Tiger King, a popular Netflix program, Tenet, a new movie release, and Folklore, Taylor Swift’s album release — from January 5, 2020 to September 27, 2020. Tiger King, Tenet, and Folklore each had short-lived peaks, while the popularity of Animal Crossings, after an initial peak, maintains relatively steady interest.
Gaming is a strong contender for consumer attention, especially among Generation Z. According to GWI’s survey in Q2 2021, more than half (54%) of Zers are interested in gaming compared to 42% in Q2 2020. In contrast, Gen Z’s interest in television declined from 44% in Q2 2020 to 42% in Q2 2021.
Audio is screen-free
GWI’s report also shows audio entertainment, including streaming music and podcasts, is an integral part of consumers’ lives, especially when at home and during exercising. Interestingly, based on Q2 2021 data, streaming music is the only media type outperforming its Covid peaks that took place during lockdown.
GWI suggests that one of the reasons for audio’s success is that it doesn’t compete for screen time. Audio streaming offers an escape from screen fatigue. Using different screens all day may boost usage of audio media at the expense of visual media platforms.
Attention retention
As out-of-home activities become the norm once again, media channels need to think about re-engaging consumers. Transitioning from a pandemic mindset to a new normal is not easy for anyone. Media companies need to rethink their success and sales metrics and move beyond consumer attention. Offering quality content, positive experiences, a relatable community, opportunities of fandom, and possibilities of escapism, can present new opportunities of engagement.
Reader-revenue strategies offer publishers a recurring revenue stream and positive audience relationships. A strong subscription business requires measuring and monitoring the core metrics of consumer engagement. More than likes and clicks, though, true subscriber engagement is characterized by regular usage. The Medill index developed by the Medill Spiegel Research Center provides insights to identify this important metric of at-risk subscribers for local news outlets.
The research includes data from close to 50 news outlets. On average, across all publications, 95% of subscribers pay for their subscriptions each month. However, they do not visit the sites that they subscribe to daily. And that could spell trouble.
Know your readers
The Medill’s subscriber index segments readers into three tiers based on outlet size to identify at-risk subscribers.
Tier 1, large newsrooms, shows a monthly retention rate of 95.4% and visit an average of 5.7 days per month.
Tier 2, mid-sized newsrooms, shows monthly retention at 95.7% and visit an average of 9.2 days per month.
Tier 3, small newsrooms, shows monthly retention at 96.2% and visit an average of 10.5 days per month.
Subscribers in smaller communities tend to look at their local news organizations for multiple purposes. These include local news events and sports sports, as well as national and international news. In contrast, many readers of medium and large newsrooms turn to secondary sources for national and international news.
Deep dive into audience analyses
The Medill index tracks both subscribers and registered non-subscribers to assesses whether they are “at-risk” or “established” based on their regularity. “At-risk” is defined as two or fewer visits per month, while “established” means more than two visits. The research concludes that regular visits to a website is more important for retention than the number of stories subscribers read. Building toward habits of daily usage is a necessary retention metric.
Engaging with at-risk subscribers is vital to keeping retention high. Tim Franklin, Senior Associate Dean and John M. Mutz Chair in Local News at Northwestern’s Medill School of Journalism, suggests getting subscribers engaged through regular communications. This connection point can be a newsletter, a news alert, an email from the editor or the publisher, or even emails about events. Reader retention needs to be a central focus and play a prominent role in a publisher’s strategy.
Experiment to engage
In addition, experimentation is essential to evaluate the effect of different pricing offers on churn. Lenfest’s Herts, a former Finance VP of the Dow Jones Consumer Media Group, recounts an experiment at a major metro news outlet. They offered an introductory price of $1 for six-month access. A higher number of sign-ups for the long-term introductory offer resulted in more total subscribers after one year than previous short-term offers.
Understanding cross-platform consumption is also crucial in understanding the total engagement picture. How often a reader engages in the site, app, newsletter, comments, etc., all represent an integration into the reader’s lifestyle experience. The publisher’s goal is to make its product a constant touchpoint and — as such — valuable to the subscriber.
Identifying and engaging with at-risk subscribers is necessary for reader retention. The Medill Index demonstrates the importance of publisher attention to reader regularity to build a long-term relationship with a core cohort of paying subscribers