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
Tracking and profiling remain standard practices and big business for ad-tech firms in digital advertising, though publishers don’t see much of the money. A new report, Sustainable without surveillance, from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL), reviews the practices of tracking-based advertising and its impact on the digital ecosystem.
The report, written by Dr. Johnny Ryan, highlights how tracking-based advertising diverts data and revenue from publishers to ad tech intermediaries, notably Facebook and Google. In addition, Dr. Ryan shares results from European publishers when they turn off tracking-based advertising.
The report outlines how real-time bidding (RTB) and auction-based environments allow thousands of companies to receive profile data about a person from a single ad. Tracking-based advertising diverts data and revenue from publishers to ad tech and, as a result, turns publishers’ audiences into commodities. Advertisers can now buy a premium publisher’s audience cheaply on low-value sites.
The research also recounts how tracking-based ads make ad fraud easier and how they trick advertisers and ad networks into paying them. Early estimates of ad fraud by HUMAN (formally White Ops) found Russian cybercriminals used Methbot to extract $3 to $5 million in video ad revenue from premium publishers. Methbots created fake pages on which they run real ads from actual advertisers. The bots simulated human activity (i.e., cursor movements and clicks) to mimic human action to make it appear as if a human impression occurred. HUMAN identified over 250,000 URLs that Methbots generated across more than 6,000 publishers.
Dr. Ryan also cites the 2016 Guardian study that used tracking-based ads to buy sales inventory in their newspaper. A detailed analysis of this media transaction found that for every ad dollar spent programmatically on the Guardian, they received only 30 cents. Intermediary technology firms executing tracking-based advertising received the remaining 70 cents. Each ad tech firm taking part in the transaction collects a fee, often hidden.
Publishers profitable without tracking-based advertising
The report presents evidence from European publishers that have profitable advertising businesses that do not rely on tracking-based advertising.
When Dutch publishers NPO Group replaced tracking-based ads with contextual-based ads, their advertising revenue increased 149%. Revenue continued to grow even with Covid-19’s significant impact on advertising spending.
The Norwegian news publishing group earned an average of 391% more over 12 months for contextual ads than tracking-based ads for websites it operates.
Further, TV2, a primary Norwegian news website, earned a 210% higher average price for contextual targeting than competing tracking-based ad targeting.
Time for change
It’s time for publishers to rethink their involvement in tracking-based advertising. With little potential for substantive yield, publishers must calculate the risk of data leakage and fraud. Supporting Dr. Ryan’s analysis is the U.S. based report, Online Tracking and Publishers’ Revenues: An Empirical, from lead researcher Alessandro Acquisti. It found that tracking-based advertising earns publishers only 4% more revenue than context-based advertising. It is clear that data tracking underpins the digital media economy and there are far more profitable, and less problematic, solutions.
Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter use algorithmic processing for image analysis and sharing. The platforms try to understand the content of these images, and they algorithmically detect the persons and objects within these images at the pixel level. Benjamin N. Jacobsen’s research, Regimes of recognition on algorithmic media, examines how algorithmic media shapes and controls how people see the social world. He defines the concept of regimes of recognition as the algorithmic tools, techniques, and practices that social media platform use to decide recognizability within their platforms.
The platforms use algorithms to crop images to generate engaging content. Applicable to Jacobsen’s research, the algorithm systems learn to detect and weight certain features in images rather than others. In other words, the algorithms actively generate what is recognized. He agrees with researcher Louise Amoore, who believes social platforms decide what images are interesting and recognizable. Amoore states, “they actively generate recognizability as such so that they decide what or who is recognizable as a target of interest in an occluded landscape.”
Twitter’s detection algorithm
In September 2020, consumers complained that Twitter’s image-cropping algorithm favored white faces over black faces. One example showed that the algorithms consistently cropped out images of former president Barack Obama. Experiments with stock photo models, cartoon characters, and even white and black dogs resulted in similar detection biases. Eventually, Twitter’s chief design officer, Dantley Davis, agreed there was a racial bias in the algorithm. He added, “the algorithm is not explicitly racist since it does not make its decision based on particular faces but rather on the contrasts that are calculated from the pixel values of the image.”
According to Twitter engineers Lucas Theis and Zehan Wang, the company first used facial recognition to auto-crop images. However, it often awkwardly cropped faces not centered within the picture. Twitter then moved to use deep saliency prediction networks to find the “most interesting part” of the image. Saliency maps use predefined areas of images to evaluate the pixel contrasts between different image regions. These data-trained neural networks and other algorithms find and then crop around the most engaging area of the image. Unfortunately, as the algorithms decide what is uploaded, they also determine what is nonrecognizable and set conditions for who is visible on the platform.
Deciding recognizability
The algorithm disregards socio-cultural contents and context in its processing of images. Regimes of recognition can easily make certain people non recognizable — focusing on specific features of an image and ignoring others. Algorithmic media platforms produce rules for what is visible and what is not visible.
Jacobsen questions the shaping, organizing, and automating parameters of cropping images. He sees decisions of inclusion and exclusion as a fundamental political question. Saliency detection algorithms rest on the assumption that some things deserve attention and others do not. Further, Twitter’s role in cropping people’s images (algorithmically) decides what elements in images are redundant. This begs a larger question as to why social media platforms need to edit people’s uploaded images at all?
Social media platforms algorithmically shape and organize people’s factors of attention. Twitter offers a prime example of the algorithmic processes in how it cropped out out black faces because it did not recognize the image. This sends a signal that that what is non-recognizable is unimportant. Further research is needed to examine the role (and potential biases) of algorithmic cropping, techniques, and results of these tools on other social platforms.
The pandemic amplified the value proposition of video streaming — giving consumers rich menu of high-quality content. Deloitte’s new research, Digital media trends, 15th Edition, finds that consumers are enjoying the diverse diet. They report an estimated 21% boost in consumer spending on subscriptions in the first half of 2021.
Increased viewership
According to the report, almost half of all respondents (48%) spend more time on online entertainment than six months ago. While digital entertainment consumption increased during the pandemic, there are distinct differences across generations. Boomers and Gen X watch TV shows or movies at home while Gen Z plays video games and listens to music.
Subscription services
Eight in 10 (84%) respondents now pay for a subscription video-on-demand service (SVOD). The average household has four subscriptions, consistent with one year ago. Consumers prioritize their sign-ups by new original content, a broad content library, and a low enough cost to subscribe.
While SVOD services release quarterly growth numbers, the number of people who canceled, or both added and canceled, a paid SVOD service is flat at approximately 38%. Deloitte surmises that a few top-tier SVOD services keep subscribers while other services are added and canceled.
Cancellation
Subscribers report that their top reason for canceling a paid SVOD service is high costs. (Note the opportunity for ad-supported subscription tiers.) Led by Gen Z and Millennials, there’s a growing market of ad-supported video tiers. Almost two-thirds (65%) of respondents report using free ad-supported video services. In fact, according to nScreenMedia, drive ad revenue earned by virtual linear channels will double in size from $2.1 billion in 2021 to $4.1 billion in 2023.
The second most common reason people cancel a paid SVOD subscription was that they finished the show they signed up to watch. Deloitte notes that this “churn & return” behavior — canceling and resubscribing to the same service later, is most common among Millennials (47%) and Gen Z (34%). Respondents note their top reasons for resubscribing include a new release of their favorite show, managing costs, receiving a free or discounted rate, or the content they wanted to watch moved to a different service.
Recommendations
Gaming and social platforms also offer entertainment choices for consumers, especially for Gen Z and Millennials. While streaming video services will continue as a dominant force in the entertainment industry, SVOD players must focus on attracting, keeping, and maximizing subscribers’ lifetime value. Deloitte’s recommendations include:
Introduce more pricing tiers while keeping premium content for full-paying subscribers. Further, consumers like the idea of loyalty programs that offer discounts on other services and products. Specifics include membership and loyalty programs that allow users to earn access to content and VIP programs that offer exclusivity to the highest-paying tier.
Create bundling options for paid subscribers but ensure there is freedom and flexibility with each offering.
Work with creators and influencers to create social connection points to content. Being part of social conversations offers new dimensions to the subscriber experience.
Today streaming video services offer a singular experience — lean back and view quality content. They may need to evolve their ecosystem to generate stickiness among younger cohorts. Developing and experimenting with connections to social, gaming, or music platforms is essential to growing their media and entertainment ecosystem.
Conspiracy theories have a long history in society, and social platforms offer a fresh new breeding ground for them. Yannis Theocharis, Ana Cardenal, and Soyeon Jin examine which social platforms effectively propagate fake news and conspiracy theories. Their study, Does the platform matter? examines the relationship between social media platforms and the spread of Covid-19 conspiracy theories. The analysis focuses on Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook, in a two-wave study across 17 countries.
Symmetrical or asymmetrical followership
The research correlates the spread of conspiracy theories to the construct of a communication environment. In other words, it looks at the structural features of followers within each platform. The authors classify a structural design as either symmetrical or asymmetrical followership.
Symmetrical followership environments imply that information is shared with friends and not with strangers. The primary use of this type of platform, like Facebook, is for socialization and entertainment; people predominantly follow people they already know. People see a symmetrical way of connecting as safe and in a comfortable environment — they know the connection points well. Facebook, Messenger, and WhatsApp connections are socially homogeneous.
An asymmetric follower structure runs on weaker social connections, and it’s a follower-based platform where most exchanges between users occur publicly. Twitter is an example of an asymmetric social platform. It is more heterogeneous, mixing in political views and information knowledge.
Interestingly, YouTube’s follower structure is primarily tied to people’s interests and not based on close social connections. Like Twitter, YouTube has an asymmetrical follower structure. Recommendations, including algorithmic ones, create new connections. YouTube’s design also encourages content generators to build audiences and promote themselves. This asymmetrical follower design makes it easy for YouTubers to share content around fringe ideas with their followers.
Research hypotheses and analysis
The researchers developed four hypotheses to test:
There is a negative relationship between using Twitter for news and holding conspiracy beliefs about Covid-19.
There is a positive relationship between using Facebook for news and holding conspiracy beliefs about Covid-19.
There is a positive relationship between using YouTube for news and holding conspiracy beliefs about Covid-19.
There is a positive relationship between using messenger services (Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp) for news and holding conspiracy beliefs about Covid-19.
The researchers conducted a two-wave panel survey. Both waves measured core independent variables (use of social media platforms and messenger services) and controls. After the outbreak of Covid, wave two measured the dependent variables — six Covid-19 statements, three were related to conspiracy theories about the origin of Covid-19.
Depending on their affordances, platforms influence conspiracy theory beliefs (CTB) differently. More precisely, Twitter will have a negative effect on CTB, while Facebook, YouTube, and messenger services (WhatsApp and Messenger) will all have positive effects on conspiracy theory beliefs.
The analysis shows the relationship between social media platforms and messenger services with conspiracy theories. The platforms’ interactive and networking features supply active environments to spread conspiracy theories, and some social platforms offer more effective settings than others. The findings show that usage on Twitter is less effective and negatively affects conspiracy theory beliefs, reducing it by 3% on the conspiracy scale. In contrast, Facebook, YouTube, Messenger, and WhatsApp positively increase conspiracy theories, between 3% and 5%.
The takeaway
Social platforms offer different architectural features and consumer relationship designs: symmetrical and asymmetrical. Follower designs affect how consumers interact with conspiracy theories and intensify their beliefs. Understanding the spread of conspiracy theories and how it differs across social media platforms and messenger services offers insight into strategies to combat this situation.
Local news publishers understand the need to evolve their newsrooms. To attract advertisers, subscribers, and younger readers, change is essential—from digital conversion to newsroom diversity. The Tow Center for Digital Journalism’s new report, Life at Local Newspapers in a Turbulent Era, examines transformation progress at local newspapers through the eyes of those making the news.
The authors, Damian Radcliffe and Ryan Wallace, provide a candid industry perspective when they check in with newsrooms to look at the state of local publishing. The survey respondents include more than 300 U.S. editors, reporters, publishers in small-scale newspapers. It’s important to note that reporters and editors (section/managing) accounted for 66% of total respondents, and more than half of the sample (53%) worked 10+ years in the industry.
Local news landscape
Local news outlets are closing at an alarming rate. In the past 15 years, more than one-fourth of the country’s newspapers have disappeared, with 300 newspapers closing in the past two years. Further, during the first year of the pandemic, approximately 37,000 U.S. news media employees were laid off, furloughed, or had their pay reduced. However, while the pandemic brought many challenges, it also added relevance to local news.
Overtime is the norm for journalists. More than one-third of respondents (37%) report working more than 50 hours a week, and a half (50%) work 40 to 50 hours a week. Forty-five percent feel secure in their jobs, although they feel less secure than at the pandemic’s start. Given the overtime, it’s not surprising that half of the respondents (49%) report that they’ve increased the number of stories they produce each week compared to the 2016 survey results.
Transformation in progress
With the transition to digital, more than half of respondents (57%) state they spend more time on digital products than three years ago. Interestingly, the increased time spent on digital is not offset by spending less time on print.
Further, many reporters are wearing more than one hat. As one respondent noted, “An editor also has to be a reporter, photographer, newsletter writer, and social media expert, and a graphic designer also has to be the webmaster, community outreach point-person, and legal notice compiler/writer.” Unfortunately, wearing more than one hat and increasing workload concerns cause high burnout rates.
Focus on social, new tools and audience metrics
In addition, 62% of those surveyed believe that social media platforms are growing in importance to their newspaper, followed by increasing local coverage (36%) and the diversity of sources and voices (32%).
More than two-thirds of respondents (67%) report learning about new tools and technology through articles in publications like Nieman Lab, Poynter, and CJR. Use of new technology and tools include:
Analytics and metric tools 50%
Newsletters 44%
Video reporting 39%
Live video services (e.g. Facebook Live) 37%
Alerts and push notifications 36%
Chat and messaging apps 24%
Podcasts 21%
Investing in the future
Unfortunately, many respondents report low interest in (1-2 out of 5) in new tools and technology. Forty-two percent show low interest in learning more about automation, 35% report low interest in Story formats on social networks, and 31% show low interest in alerts and push notifications.
Local news media companies to experiment with new revenue models, adding revenue diversification and moving away from their reliance on advertising revenue. The pandemics’ spotlight on local and hyperlocal news was a catalyst for a renewed interest in subscriptions. Now is the time for local newspapers to fully engage in digital platforms, new technology and tools, and sustainable business models.
