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

Digital Content Next logo

Menu

Category results for "Industry-Research"

Industry Research

Industry-Research | Video

Personalized content comes to FAST streaming

With a highly competitive streaming landscape, many content brands are adopting hybrid business models. Disney+ and Netflix now offer lower-priced ad-supported tiers, and Paramount+ and Peacock offer FAST services to deliver real-time streaming of channel-based linear content. Notably, AVOD and FAST channels serve as growth strategies for many content providers in that they offer low-cost options that attract viewers.

A select number of top services—such as Pluto, Tubi, Peacock, and The Roku Channel—currently dominate the market. However, given that there are now more than 300 OTT channels, how can streaming channels differentiate to appeal to viewers and make inroads into the growing market? Quickplay, an OTT cloud business that enables personalization for sports, media, and entertainment, partnered with the research firm Park Associates to explore this question. Their report, Personalized Virtual Channels: Maximizing FAST Engagement, examines new ways for media companies to maximize the monetization of consumer viewership, particularly through the promise of personalization.

Hybrid streaming marketplace

As cord-cutting continues, and internet-connected device penetration of Smart TVs and media devices grows, OTT usage is the new norm for consumers. Eight in ten (80%) U.S. internet households subscribe to an OTT video service, 49% subscribe to four or more, and 33% use an ad-supported OTT service in the last 30 days. 

As reported in DCN’s The Rise of and Best Practices for AVOD and FAST, the adoption of AVOD and FAST grew faster (55%) compared to SVOD (28%). Park Associates identifies “free cost” as the top reason consumers use AVOD (49%), followed by “content consumers like” (31%).

Consumers are attracted to the free offering of AVOD and FAST, with 38% stating that they do not mind viewing advertising on a free service. However, 41% of ad-supported customers do say that they dislike viewing video content with commercials, and 40% are dissatisfied with the frequency of ads.

Personalized virtual channels

First-party data collection is already in place with many content services requiring users to opt-in for data collection in exchange for a more personalized user experience. While other providers may not require an account, they often ask consumers to register to offer personalized favorite channels and recommendations. Content preferences and location (i.e., zip code) feed content recommendations – think local news, weather, and sports.

The report recommends combining cloud-based technology and programmatic operations to allow owned and operated brands to offer ad-supported personalized virtual channels. FAST platforms are cloud-based. They do not have channel or format restrictions and are easily adaptable for personalized virtual channels. 

For the content provider, personalized virtual channels maximize the lifetime value of content libraries by extending content shelf life. Further, reusing existing libraries and programming rights can also help offset content acquisition and encoding expenses. For the consumer, personalized virtual channels deliver a lean-back experience while enhancing individual content preferences in a stress-free navigation environment.  

Importantly, the data containing information on viewer preferences and habits allows virtual FAST services to deliver progressively smarter and more relevant content. The more engaged the viewer, the higher retention and, ultimately, the more effective advertising. It’s a win-win for all involved in the value exchange.

Personalized virtual channels’ delivery of personally relevant content yields higher content engagement and lower viewer turnover. They offer a better viewing experience for consumers while delivering new opportunities to monetize viewership.

Featured Post | Industry-Research | Perspectives

7 critical media trends to factor into your strategy

It’s been another breakneck year for the media industry. Every year at Media Voices we round up the biggest moments from the past 12 months, and explore how they impact publishers. This year was certainly not short of industry-defining events, and Media Moments 2022 summarizes these across 10 chapters, from advertising and subscriptions to newsletters and emerging technology.  

Stepping back from the big moments of cookie delays, Twitter takeovers, and bumpy ad markets, there have been a number of developments this year which have the potential to shape publishing strategies in 2023 and beyond. Here are seven key themes from the report that will inform your approach moving forward:

1. Adblocking has returned to an all–time high

The days of adblocking causing sleepless nights for publishers seemed to be long–gone. Between the demise of third–party cookies and vigorous blocklists costing huge amounts of revenue, executives in the ad department have had plenty of other things to worry about.

Unfortunately, adblocking needs to move back up on the agenda. It has returned to levels last seen at the peak of the phenomenon in 2018, with 290 million web users actively blocking ads worldwide, according to the 2022 PageFair Adblock Report. This is an average of 21% across all geos and verticals. Solutions to tackle the problem are in short supply, and are likely to remain so unless it is prioritized again.

2. Streaming accounts for the majority time spent with TV

In August, streaming officially topped cable as the most popular method by which people in the U.S. consume television content. According to Nielsen, which runs a monthly Gauge study of TV consumption, streaming now makes up more than one–third (34.8%) of all television consumption, overtaking cable (34.4%), and far ahead of broadcast (21.6%).

Unsurprisingly, streaming powerhouses like Netflix, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, and Disney+ are leading the charge. However, this is a notable milestone for streamers across the board. It marks a major shift in how audiences – especially younger people – engage with what we’ve traditionally thought of as television content. This opens more opportunities for publishers in the video space to get well–told stories in front of audiences. But it also means that the video landscape is more fractured than ever. 

3. Local news can be profitable on just reader revenue

The past five or so years has seen local news start–ups grow all over the world as access to publishing and revenue tools has opened up. Some have shown real promise this year, offering tantalizing glimpses of a sustainable future for local publishers.

In the U.K., The Manchester Mill, a Substack–based local news publisher, reached profitability last month with just 1,600 paying subscribers. The two–year–old brand says they are profitable off annualized subscription revenue of around $164,000. Founder Joshi Herrmann has launched two sister titles off the back of its success: the Liverpool Post and Sheffield Tribune, which are at 650 and 900 paying subscribers respectively.

For local news to truly thrive, we will need to move beyond models of just one or two reporters per city. But the early green shoots of success are encouraging.

4. There’s no sign of subscriptions decline…yet

Following Netflix’s Q2 subscriber tumble, many analysts have forecast a downturn in subscriptions. As economic pressures begin to bite, almost 30% of consumers polled by Toolkits and the National Research Group said that they planned to reduce the number of online subscriptions they hold.

But the second half of 2022 has shown that the subscriptions market is resilient. Netflix saw a spectacular bounceback in Q3, adding 2.41 million new subscribers and beating its own and analyst expectations. Publishers are seeing continued growth too: AOP members reported digital subscriptions growth at almost 15% over the last 12 months. Some have reported record performances, from the New York Times’ 9 million subscriber milestone to The Economist posting its most profitable year since 2016 on the back of 1.2 million subscribers, and total subscription revenues accounting for more than 60% of its revenues.

We may yet see a downturn depending on how pressures on consumers play out over winter. But for now, people are happy to pay for content they find valuable.

5. Email newsletters are an unexploited revenue opportunity

Email may be one of the oldest forms of digital communication, but as a revenue driver it is still very under–used by mainstream publishers. Despite the wave of Substack–led paid newsletter creators over the past few years, few publishers have attempted anything similar themselves.

A recent report from WAN–IFRA highlighted the opportunity gap around email newsletters. 48% of publishers they surveyed did not monetize their newsletters. Of those that did, advertising and exclusive sponsorships were used by 32% and 16% respectively. Significantly, newsletters were used as part of a subscription bundle rather than standalone offering were used by 30% of publishers.

Quartz is one publisher who dropped its paywall entirely this year. Interestingly, they still kept the membership scheme, and instead have a suite of premium emails they send to members. “We found that 75% of Quartz members read us primarily through email, so we’ve been putting more of our best stuff directly in their inboxes,” said CEO Zach Seward.

When it comes to advertising, I wouldn’t wish the ad tech that plagues the rest of the internet on our email inboxes. But the tech to improve the advertising experience in email via personalisation and segmentation is getting there. Now, we just have to behave responsibly with it. Newsletters have a reputation as a premium engagement method for a good reason.

6. News headlines are in a negative spiral

Following the headline findings from the Reuters Digital News Report about the growing issue of news avoidance, there has been much discussion this year on how to rebuild trust with audiences. As publishers compete for attention online, they have found ways of standing out and getting readers to click and share content. But this isn’t necessarily positive. 

One study in particular from PLoS ONE showed just the extent to which media headlines have become increasingly negative over the past two decades. The research showed headlines expressing anger were up 104% since the year 2000, fear, 150%, and sadness 54%. This isn’t because the world has got worse, even if “permacrisis” is the word of the year for 2022. Rather, negative and emotionally–arousing headlines are more likely to attract clicks and attention, which in turn means more revenue for publishers.

It’s a difficult cycle to break. The sheer amount of competition for attention means that it’s understandable publishers have to find ways of breaking through the noise. But the long–term effects of stoking outrage and despair on a near–constant basis are just beginning to be recognized. 

7. Some emerging tech is good to jump on early. Others, not so much!

Publishers who tried early experiments in NFTs have been richly rewarded. From digital covers to archive images, NFT projects have generated millions for brands like TIME, The Economist, Forbes, and Playboy over the past few years. 

However, the bottom has since fallen out of the NFT market, driven by the tough year cryptocurrency has had. NFT trading volumes collapsed 97% between January and September this year. So it’s not surprising to see publishers like CNN wrapping up their NFT marketplaces and projects.

Caution in other areas, however, is wise. Apart from a couple of publishers like Vogue testing metaverse experiences, it has been mainly consumer brands rushing to the space. 

Audiences so far have not followed. Meta had aimed to have 500,000 monthly active users for its flagship platform Horizon Worlds by the end of 2022. By October, they had revised that figure down to 280,000, although the current tally is allegedly less than 200k. Other metaverse platforms are also struggling; audits on Sandbox and Decentraland have shown that user numbers are small. Platforms seeing success like Roblox are primarily built for gaming. As yet, there is little justification for publishers to lever themselves into the metaverse at great expense. 

Trends and strategy

What is more evident when compared with previous years is how quickly things can crash. We suspected when authoring last year’s edition that, for example, that the NFT bubble would burst. We couldn’t have foreseen that would happen just months later.

Instead, innovation – whether that be audience-building, revenue generation or product – is to be found in formats that have been around for decades. Podcasts, newsletters and apps have been used by publishers of all shapes and sizes this year to deepen relationships and reduce churn. The key is to be where your audience is with a product that they need. And so far, you won’t find them in the metaverse.

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion | Industry-Research

Newsroom social media policies need input from diverse voices

Social media platforms offer journalists a path to audiences and sources. They also give them a way to build their personal brands. However, social media also includes risks such as “dark participation.” We’ve all witnessed forms of dark participation, from hateful comments, manipulation of forums, and copious misinformation.

Journalists are often the target of online harassment. In many cases, these attacks specifically target African American, Latino, LGBTQ, Arab-American, Muslim, and Jewish reporters. As journalists face more online harassment, newsrooms are setting social policies to support and protect journalists from increasingly intense online abuse. But many journalists report concerns about social media’s policy development process in the newsroom.   

Kaitlyn Miller and Jacob Nelson’s research, ”Dark Participation” Without Representation: A Structural Approach to Journalism’s Social Media Crisis, looks at how newsrooms can adjust their values and practices regarding social media. The authors focused on women and journalists of color because these two cohorts experience the most hostility online.

And, while both groups face the highest risks, they have little control in setting social policies. Newsroom managers developing social media policies tend to be predominantly older, white men who are less active on social platforms.

Methodology and findings

Miller and Nelson interviewed 37 U.S. journalists. The interviews included 22 women and 18 journalists of color. By exploring the relationship between newsroom management and the journalists’ own experiences on social media, three key themes emerged:

  • Problems with newsroom social media policies.
  • Adjust policies through better representation within newsroom leadership.
  • Positive impact with better representation.

Newsroom demographics

Journalism lags behind the national averages regarding the representation of diverse employees. A 2018 Pew Research Center noted that 77% of newsroom employees and reporters (editors, photographers, and videographers, in broadcasting and internet publishing industries) are non-Hispanic whites, compared with 65% of the U.S. Population. Further, among newsroom employees 30 and older, two-thirds are male, compared to slightly more than half of all U.S. workers.  

Disconnect

Given the demographic composition of the newsroom, there is a disconnect between journalists who are active on social media and those setting social policy. Many social media policies often limit journalists’ comments because of concerns of bias.

Interviewees explain that anti-bias social media policies set by management often have a narrower lens and view social practices of demographically diverse journalists as biased. For example, some newsroom managers view the statement “black lives matter” as political and biased. Among younger and more diverse journalists, this statement mostly asserts equality.

Interviewees report feeling isolated when targeted with hateful comments because of their racial background. While some claim management is sympathetic, they report that those in leadership roles have limited empathy to understand the situation. Social media policies are also criticized because the policies for lacking depth in terms of protecting both the organization and the individual journalists.

Recommendation and positive change

Most interviewees suggest that younger and more demographically diverse journalists, especially those active on social media, should be included in developing newsroom social media policies. This starts with hiring more demographically diverse journalists in roles across the newsroom, especially in leadership positions.

Journalists with different roles and backgrounds working together allow for new conversations and offer more applicable social media policies, including to:

  • protect both organizations and journalists,
  • identify how to respond to social media harassment against their journalists; and
  • offer a more equitable response plan to accusations of bias against journalists on social media.

Miller and Nelsen conclude that “better representation in newsroom leadership hinges on a larger structural shift in newsroom culture that values representation, equity, and inclusion not just as a journalistic value, but as an organizational value.”

Increasing the diversity of newsroom journalists can reshape newsroom culture and allow organizations to better address mistreatment on social media. It also offers a stronger and more empathetic support system. it sends a message to journalists that they are not only important enough to be included in the decision-making, but a priority and asset worth protecting.

Advertising | Diversity, Equity & Inclusion | Industry-Research

LGBTQ+ representation impacts advertising

When brands connect to consumers through advertising content, it has an impact beyond selling products. Consumers are highly aware of what brands say, and what corporations do to support diversity, equity, and inclusion. Pragmatically, inclusive marketing makes sense, but how well is “purpose” integrated into the brand experience? A new report, LGBTQ+ and the future of CX from DISQO and Do the WeRQ, explores how people factor brand purpose into their purchase journey decisions.

DISQO and Do the WeRQ surveyed more than 9,000 people to explore the consumer experience with LGBTQ+ advertising content.

Marketplace

LGBTQ+ is the fastest-growing minority segment in the U.S., with an estimated $1.4 trillion in annual spending. The Human Rights Campaign Foundation (HRC) used U.S. Census Bureau data to estimate that at least 20 million U.S. adults identify as LGBTQ+. That’s nearly 8% of the adult population. Additionally, about 21% of Generation Z in the U.S. identify as LGBTQ+.

Getting involved 

This research shows that nearly three-quarters (74%) of people believe brands should get involved in social issues like DE&I, racial equality, gender equality, and social economics. Brands involved in diverse communities are recognized by consumers. Approximately 37% of participants in this research recall seeing LGBTQ+ ads outside of content made specifically for the community. Forty-seven percent of participants recall seeing ads within LGBTQ+ content. Those identifying as LGBTQ+ are more likely to recall seeing ads in content made for them (57%) but are less likely to recall seeing them in mainstream content (33%).

Almost half of those surveyed (46%) agreed or strongly agreed that advertising is adequately inclusive. More than half (52%) said LGBTQ+ ads felt “authentic.” Notably, 64% of people identifying as LGBTQ+ agreed that ads depicting their community felt authentic. However, older consumers are less likely to say that more LGBTQ+ content should be created.

Consumers recognize that brands are influential, and many want to see them exercise this power in support of the LGBTQ+ community. Eight in ten (81%) participants identifying as LGBTQ+ said that brands have some or a lot of influence. Close to half report that brands are essential in bringing about LGBTQ+ progress.

When asked if they ever think about a company’s social and political activities when making a purchase decision, 85% said they did. Less than 15% of people said they never considered this when purchasing.

Generationally, those under 44 years of age are more likely to align a brand’s social influence with their wallets: 18-24 (58%), 25-34 (58%), and 35-44 (57%). Further, 22% of those under 24 said they “always” think about where a brand or company stands when making purchase decisions, 24% for 25-34 and 25% for 35-44. The percentages decline as age increases, with only 12% of people 65+ saying they have these considerations.

Targeting content to LGBTQ+ is growing; this year, fewer people report “not seeing” any LGBTQ+ advertising versus last year (7% versus 20%). The line of cultural margins is shifting, and representation across media platforms offers more racial equality, gender equality, and social economics. LGBTQ+ visibility goes far beyond shout-outs in June. More representation of LGBTQ+ in advertising shows consumers that you see and value them.

Featured Post | Industry-Research | Revenue

What young media users pay for — and why

Content may want to be free, but that’s not always a sustainable business model. So, what content are users — especially the highly coveted younger demographic — willing to pay for, and why? It’s a broad question but one that’s worth trying to answer.

Massive amounts of time and money have been spent trying to figure this out. So we are aggregating many of the most salient data points to find out what younger generations are opening their virtual wallets for — and what they can do without.

Gaming

Gaming is hugely popular among all generations — especially for young people — and it holds more meaning than mere entertainment. According to 2022 research by Deloitte, 80% of U.S. adults report playing video games, and the practice is almost universal among younger adults: a whopping 96% of Gen Z and Millennials identify as gamers. The study on media trends in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Brazil, and Japan found that these young adults play 11 hours per week. 57% of Boomers and Mature audiences identified as gamers in the same survey, reporting an average of six hours per week gaming. Gen Z adults rank video gaming as their favorite entertainment activity in all countries surveyed.

More than three-quarters (78%) of U.S. gamers in Deloitte’s study report that the practice relaxes them; 61% said gaming helps them express themselves. In addition, 59% agree gaming has helped them through a difficult time, and 53% say gaming keeps them connected socially. These numbers show video games’ importance to people’s lives, especially the more immersive, complex games.

Gaming also leads users to discover other media content. For example, in Deloitte’s survey, 51% of U.S. and 71% of Brazilians said they often discover new music while gaming. While online immersive gaming worlds like Second Life are typically free to join, gamers often choose to spend money on branded virtual goods or even physical merchandise bought in-world. In-game live events such as music concerts are popular, with a quarter of U.S. gamers attending an in-game event last year. According to Deloitte, 82% of those attending live in-game events have made a purchase because of the event. Worth noting is that 65% of the purchases were digital goods, and 34% were physical merchandise, an indication of the overlap between real-world and virtual selves.

Over half of Gen Alpha and Gen Z players have spent money on a game over the past six months, according to a recent report by Newzoo, and 33% of them did so on a mobile device. While young users appear less likely to pay upfront for games on mobile devices due to the prevalence of free games, they are likely to spend money in-game for virtual goods such as currency, gear, or characters. Newzoo reports these are a particular draw for young users, with 93% of Gen Alpha and 91% of Gen Z gamers reporting having made such purchases over the past six months. 

According to Voxburner, the most popular games among Gen Z are Minecraft (76%), Call of Duty (73%), and Fortnite (68%). Roblox and Animal Crossing are also popular. While the mobile versions of these games are free or low-cost to install, companies are raking it in via ads and in-app purchases. For example, Fortnite made over $9 billion in its first two years, even though it is free to join and optional purchases such as skins are aesthetic with no impact on gameplay.

Streaming Video on Demand (SVOD)

Perhaps habituated by customizable gaming experiences, younger audiences seem to be customizing their video streaming experience — at least when it comes to spending. As a result, younger users of SVOD services are more likely than older users to churn through services — by joining and then canceling, sometimes repeatedly, according to Deloitte.

The study found Gen Z consumers are especially sensitive to more expensive services, engaging in “churn and return” — repeatedly canceling and rejoining. This behavior enables them to acquire desired content — like a new season of a favorite series — while avoiding paying for a service when they aren’t using it. In the U.S., 35% of Gen Z users and 38% of Millennials surveyed had canceled and renewed streaming video services during the last 12 months, compared to just 7% of Boomers and older generations.

Similarly, a Morning Consult study demonstrated users of all ages prefer ad-sponsored content that is free or lower cost to higher subscription costs — and Gen Z adults are the most cost-averse when it comes to monthly fees. Only 16% of Gen Z adults surveyed spend more than $30 a month on streaming services, compared to 31% of Millennials. These findings suggest ad-funded tiers could cut churn rates, as subscribers are unlikely to cancel a service with no monthly fee.

Research also suggests that combining media offerings is appealing to younger users. For example, 51% of Gen Zs and Millennials in Deloitte’s survey indicated they would stay with their SVOD subscription if it included gaming, a music service, or another SVOD service.

Social Media

While social media platforms offer free admission, time spent there often leads to purchases. Deloitte found 70% of people in the U.S. say they follow an influencer, and more than half of Gen Z and Millennials say these influencers sway their purchasing decisions.

Social media ads are highly targeted and personalized. More than half of American respondents, 72% of Brazilians, and about 40% in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan surveyed by Deloitte say they see ads on social media for products or services they have been seeking. Additionally, 39% of Japanese respondents say that shopping is among the top three activities they engage in on social media.

News

Research by The Knight Foundation found most U.S. Gen Z and Millennials surveyed (65% and 64%, respectively) said it is fair to pay for news, at least under some circumstances. Only 39% of Boomers agreed. About half of Gen Z and Millennials say it is reasonable for news organizations to charge for events; 37% of Gen Z respondents say it is reasonable to charge for exclusive or special content.

Although Gen Z through Gen X report paying less attention to all forms of news compared with the national average, more Gen Z and Millennials say they are willing to pay for news in the future, compared to older generations (22% of Millenials versus 12% of Boomers). Conversely, younger audiences were also more likely to agree that news should be free for all users via government funding and/or private donations: 30% of Gen Z agreed news should be free, compared to 17% of Boomers. Gen X and Boomers are more likely to agree it is fair to support news through advertising (38% and 31%, respectively) than Gen Z (20%).

Research from the American Press Institute’s Media Insight Project showed Gen Z and Millennials are more likely to pay for streaming services that include news content (57%) than pay for news directly (28%).

According to the Knight report, 52% of Gen Z — compared to 45% of Boomers— say they look elsewhere for news content when encountering a paywall. About twice as many Gen Zs (10%) as Boomers (6%) and the Silent Generation (5%) say they try to find the story on social media instead. In addition, boomers (29%) and Gen X (33%) are more likely to skip the news story altogether when encountering a paywall compared to Gen Z (21%). So while younger adults may believe it’s fair for news organizations to charge fees, they also appear to think it’s fair game to try to evade those fees by seeking similar content elsewhere.   

Key takeaways for media companies

  1. Young consumers avoid paying for costly subscriptions by churning through the service. Therefore, SVOD companies should explore low-cost or free ad-supported tier options less likely to be dropped by frugal users.
  2. Young people tend to be committed gamers willing to spend money on in-game enhancements. So bundles and perks that include gaming could help SVOD services — and other media companies — retain more subscribers.
  3. While younger generations believe it’s fair for news providers to be publicly funded and/or charge for unique content, they also seek news elsewhere when faced with paywalls. A twofold approach of bundling subscriptions while enabling premium single-serving content to be purchased ala carte may succeed with younger users who expect interconnected experiences with optional or customizable payment options.

Younger audiences may be highly sought after, but their preferences are pretty straightforward. Publishers paying attention to these desires can build packages that cater to them and build a loyal audience for years to come.

Advertising | Industry-Research | Video

TV ads create stronger brand memories compared to other contexts

The age-old question of advertising effectiveness remains front and center in today’s media ecosystem. Given the breadth of content distribution options, how do different platforms such as streaming, mobile, and on-demand compare for building advertising engagement? Comcast Advertising partnered with MediaScience to investigate the impact of watching ads in a traditional TV environment compared to other video environments, like YouTube or Facebook feed on mobile devices.

The report, TV Makes Memories, uses three factors from academic research on memory influencers: attention, connection, and repetition. The research analyzes these three conditions to provide a framework for understanding how effectively TV and mobile environments influence brand memories. 

Methodology

MediaScience recruited 188 participants to view 30-second ads in TV and mobile environments. The TV environment consisted of live TV or a streaming environment with a typical ad load viewed on a large screen. The mobile environment consisted of participants watching short-form video clips on YouTube or in a Facebook feed with ads embedded on a mobile device.

The study exposed viewers to an even mix of well-known and unknown brands, and measures included:

  • Biometrics Eye Tracking to quantify the visual attention to the ads by tracking where viewers are looking on the screen. 
  • Cardiac Deceleration (slowing heart rate) to identify cognitive attention and links to memory formation.
  • Neurometric Intensity to gauge emotional response linked to improved memory formation.

Attention 

Overall, premium content viewed in a TV environment rated more favorably than short-form video and feed-based digital. Additionally, ads viewed in the TV environment had a greater unaided recall and purchase intent than ads shown in a mobile environment. Like this study, earlier Halo Effect research and The Benchmark Series show that ads in a premium environment significantly improve advertising effectiveness scores.

MediaScience’s analysis also showed that cognitive attention improves when participants view an ad in a TV environment preceding the same ad in a mobile environment (versus two digital ads).

Ads viewed in a TV environment receive more visual attention among full TV screen viewers (71%) versus those viewing digital mobile (30%). One reason suggested is that larger screen viewing may be subject to fewer distractions. Interestingly 36% of digital viewing participants never looked at the mobile ad compared to only 6% of TV viewers. 

Connection and repetition

Strong creative messaging is an essential component of memory building. The research found that participants viewing an ad in a TV environment preceding an advertisement in a digital mobile environment rate the creative message better than viewing ads exclusively in a digital environment. 

Ads viewed in a TV environment in their first exposure have 3.4 times better recall than ads viewed in a mobile environment. Addition exposures build upon the original memory and experiences the viewer has about a brand. Notably, while unaided recall increases with a second exposure for both TV and digital mobile, the TV environment viewing experience outperforms mobile. Viewers of one exposure on TV were 40% more likely to recall the brand versus two exposures on digital mobile.

This research offers new empirical data on ad performance in premium content environments, especially in a lean-back TV setting. With advanced media distribution expanding, marketers must know that not all video environments perform similarly. Importantly, ads viewed in a premium TV environment have greater unaided recall and purchase intent than ads in short-form, mobile environments like Facebook or YouTube.

Industry-Research

Key podcast trends: from production to monetization

Most podcasters believe the medium will become even more prevalent over the next two years though metrics and monetization still remain a challenge. Muck Rack’s annual report, The State of Podcasting, shows that while fewer podcasters started their own show this year (41% in 2022 vs. 68% in 2021), productions are emerging across the board.

Muck Rack’s data is based on the responses of 591 professional podcasters surveyed between September 15, 2022, to October 5, 2022.  Overall, survey participants note increased podcast activity. This includes hiring of podcasters by media companies (16%), new offshoots of previous podcasts being produced (13%), and new productions by existing podcast teams (5%).

Further, Muck Rack finds that, while there are fewer full-time podcasters (31% vs. 37% last year), there are more part-time podcasters (69% this year vs. 64% last year). Among the part-timers, 53% work on two or more podcasts, and more than half publish new episodes once a week or more.

Many podcasters note that podcasting is a product of their enjoyment and passion (29%) as well as revenue (27%) and awareness/education (24%). The average podcaster covers three roles at once. Their hats most commonly include promotion/marketing (45%), hosting (43%), and booking guests (39%).

Forty-five percent of professional podcasters have a self-reported audience size of 10K or fewer listeners. Another 25% report having between 10K and 100,000 listeners. While audience size is a good indicator of popularity, many podcasting measuring and hosting services use the number of downloads as a metric for listens. According to Buzzsprout, the top 1% of podcasts generate 4,683 listens or more (downloads). Podcasts that receive 29 listens per episode, or more are within the top 50% of podcasts.

Muck Rack finds that most podcasters use three metrics to measure success: downloads (46%), listens/streams (37%), and consumption rate (34%).

More premium content 

Eight in 10 podcasters report that they are sourcing original content. Inspiration for new content ideas comes from current events (45%), ongoing areas of research (35%), and audience requests (32%). In addition, 22% report that they rely on pitches for new ideas.

Podcasters are also publishing new episodes more frequently than last year. Thirty-one percent publish two or more times per week vs. 24% last year. Importantly, seven in 10 are offering premium content, with the most popular premium content being exclusive and offering bonus episodes (38%) and early release of new episodes (32%).

Four in 5 podcasts sometimes or often include guests. More podcasters now rely on someone on their team to book guests (48% this year vs. 39% last year) and less on themselves to make the booking (59% this year vs. 80% last year).

More than half of podcasters surveyed say that the average length of an episode is between 20-40 minutes long, with a third of them falling in the 30-40-minute range. Interestingly, more than two-thirds of podcasters (67%) record videos of their podcasts.

Distribution and monetization

Consistent with last year, Apple leads (self-reported) in most podcast streams (47%), followed by Google Podcasts (17%) and Spotify (11%). Aside from podcasting sites, most use social media (60%) as an essential channel to reach their audiences, followed by websites (46%) and blogs (40%).

Podcasters are using subscriptions (38%), ads (34%), and premium content (29%) to help monetize their content. Monetization vehicles show substantial increases compared to last year ‒ subscriptions are up 12%, premium content is up 17%, and guests who pay to appear on a show are up 22%.

As podcasting evolves, there is room for growth. Muck Rack finds that most podcasters believe that podcasting’s popularity is driven by our mobile lifestyle (64%) and the convenience of listening to podcasts (59%).

The medium is advancing to offer an integrated listener experience. New formats with text and multimedia elements will be part of the future and market maturity. Podcasters are enthusiastic about the opportunities to push the industry forward while remaining authentic to the medium.

Industry-Research

The news media balancing act: business vs. public service

The news media plays a crucial role in supporting a healthy democracy. Newsrooms are to provide accurate information and holding powerful interests accountable for their action. However, new research shows that most Americans now think news organizations prioritize their business needs over public service. The research highlights a central contradiction of the U.S. news media: It is an institution with critical public duties within a system of little public funding.

The Gallup/Knight Foundation report shows that approximately 76% of U.S. consumers strongly or somewhat agree that most news organizations are “first and foremost businesses, motivated by financial interests.” Only 12% of consumers strongly or somewhat agree that most news organizations are “first and foremost civic institutions, motivated by the public interest.”

This report is Part 1 of a two-part study, American Views 2022. The first part focuses on consumer attitudes and behaviors, and the second will delve into what drives Americans’ trust in news. The analysis includes survey results from over 5,500 U.S adults aged 18 and older.

Nearly two-thirds (62%) of U.S. adults report that news companies lean more toward staying in business than serving consumers. Younger Americans, 67% of Gen Z and 70% of Millennials, are most likely to believe news organizations prioritize their business needs. Only a small percentage (6%) of consumers think news organizations lean toward providing a public service. Importantly, 30% of those surveyed think news organizations balance business needs and public service well.

Further, more republicans (81%) and Independents (82%) than Democrats (69%) strongly or somewhat agree that news organizations are motivated by financial interests than serving the public interest.

The Gallup/Knight analysis shows that the 29% of consumers “very favorable” toward the news media also say news organizations are first and foremost civic institutions. More than double the amount compared to the total consumers at 12%.

According to the Gallop/Knight analysis, almost three-quarters (72%) of Americans report never paying a news organization directly for their content. Among the 26% paying for news content, the majority did so via subscriptions (86%), donations (39%), membership (36%), micropayment (10%), and day pass (5%).

Those more likely to pay for news include:

  • Younger Americans (Gen Z and Gen X)
  • Democrats are more likely than republicans and independents
  • White Americans
  • College educated (four years)
  • High income, more than $150,000

Predictably, those with more favorable attitudes toward news media are willing to pay to access news in the future. One-third of consumers (33%) with favorable attitudes about the news media report having paid for news in some form. Further, 25% of consumers with favorable attitudes about the news media would pay to access news in the future.

Seventy-six percent report their decisions to pay for news depend on the content, and 62% say that the deciding factor is the cost. Gen Z and Millennials are considerably more likely to report that content is an essential decision factor, 82% each.

As new organizations look at new revenue streams, they should carefully target Gen Z and Millennials. We know Gen Z and Millennials index higher on willingness to pay for content. However, they also show a stronger inclination towards paying for events and exclusive content.

Striking a balance between servicing the public and managing a news organization’s financial interests is tied to consumers’ willingness to pay for news content. Ensuring this balance can help drive consumer favorability and grow their willingness to pay for content. Further, younger adults appear more open to diversified revenue streams, such as news organizations charging for events, newsletters, and exclusive content. As younger generations continue to gain buying power, these attitudes could translate into real financial growth opportunities for news outlets.

Industry-Research

The impact of Tiktokification on the news

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

TikTokification includes:

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

Misinformation concerns grow

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

Social media features problematic for news providers

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

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

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

Tips for news providers

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

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

Will outrage fatigue turn to fluff fatigue?

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

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

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion | Industry-Research

Hispanic representation lags in media

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

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

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

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

Invisible women

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

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

Challenges to representation include:

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

Representation matters

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

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

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

The data gap problem

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

What can be done?

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

Meanwhile, major media companies have announced measures including:

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

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

Industry-Research | Perspectives | Supporter Spotlight

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

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

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

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

The first era of social media

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

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

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

Public opinion is shifting

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

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

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

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

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

Publishers are poised to meet public demand and build loyal communities

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

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

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

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

Publishers: It’s time to take action

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

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

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

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

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

Industry-Research

How people under 30 define and engage with “news”

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

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

News versus “the news”

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

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

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

Skepticism and news avoidance

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

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

What DO younger audiences want from news?

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

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

Text and traditional media still matter

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

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

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

Takeaways

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

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

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

©2024 Digital Content Next. All Rights Reserved.