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

Tags containing: "consumer expectations"

Industry-Research

International public leery of GenAI use in news

The public has a knowledge gap around generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), especially when it comes to its use in news media, according to a recent study of residents in six countries. Younger people across countries are more likely to have used GenAI tools and be more comfortable and optimistic about the future of GenAI than older people. And a higher level of experience using Gen AI tools appears to correlate with more positive assessment of their utility and reliability. 

Over two thousand residents in each of six countries were surveyed for the May 2024 report What Does the Public in Six Countries Think of Generative AI in News? (Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism). The countries surveyed were Argentina, Denmark, France, Japan, the UK and the USA.

Younger people more optimistic about GenAI

Overall, younger people had higher familiarity and comfort with GenAI tools. They were also more optimistic about future use and more comfortable with the use of GenAI tools in news media and journalism.

  • People aged 18-24 in all six countries were much more likely to have used GenAI tools such as ChatGPT, and to use them regularly, than older respondents. Averaging across countries, only 16% of respondents 55+ report using ChatGPT at least once, compared to 56% aged 18 to 24.
  • Respondents 18-24 are much more likely to expect GenAI to have a large impact on ordinary people in the next five years. Sixty percent of people 18-24 expect this, while only 40% of people 55+ do.
  • In five out of six countries surveyed, people aged 18-34 are more likely to expect GenAI tools to have a positive impact in their own lives and on society. However, Argentia residents aged 45+ broke rank, expressing more optimism about GenAI improving both their own lives and society at large than younger generations.
  • Many respondents believe GenAI will improve scientific research, healthcare, and transportation. However, they express much more pessimism about its impact on news and journalism and job security.
  • Younger people, while still skeptical, have more trust in responsible use of GenAI by many sectors. This tendency is especially pronounced in sectors viewed with greatest skepticism by the overall public – such as government, politicians, social media, search engines, and news media.
  • Across all six countries, people 18-24 are significantly more likely than average to say they are comfortable using news produced entirely or partly by AI.

People don’t regularly use GenAI tools

Even the youngest generation surveyed reports infrequent use of GenAI tools. However, if the correlation between young people using GenAI more and feeling more optimistic and trusting about it holds true on a broader scale, it’s likely that as more people become comfortable using GenAI tools regularly, there will be less trepidation surrounding it.

  • Between 20-30% of the online public across countries have not heard of any of the most popular AI tools.
  • While ChatGPT proved by far the most recognized GenAI tool, only 1% of respondents in Japan, 2% in France and the UK, and 7% in the U.S. say they use ChatGPT daily. Eighteen percent of the youngest age group report using ChatGPT weekly, compared to only 3% of those aged 55+.
  • Only 5% of people surveyed across the six countries report using GenAI to get the latest news.

It’s worth noting that the populations surveyed were in affluent countries with higher-than-average education and internet connectivity levels. Less affluent, free, and connected countries likely have even fewer people experienced with GenAI tools.  

The jury is out on public opinion of GenAI in news

A great deal of uncertainty prevails around GenAI use among all people, especially those with lower levels of formal education and less experience using GenAI tools. Across all six countries, over half (53%) of respondents answered “neither” or “don’t know” when asked whether GenAI will make their lives better or worse. Most, however, think it will make news and journalism worse.

When it comes to news, people are more comfortable with GenAI tools being used for backroom work such as editing and translation than they are with its use to create information (writing articles or creating images).

There is skepticism about whether humans are adequately vetting content produced using GenAI. Many believe that news produced using GenAI tools is less valuable.

  • Users have more comfort around GenAI use to produce news on “soft” topics such as fashion and sports, much less to produce “hard” news such as international affairs and political topics.
  • Thirty percent of U.S. and Argentina respondents trust news media to use GenAI responsibly. Only 12% in the UK and 18% in France agree. For comparison, over half of respondents in most of the countries trust healthcare professionals to use GenAI responsibility.
  • Most of the public believes it is very important to have humans “in the loop” overseeing GenAI use in newsrooms. Almost half surveyed do not believe that is happening. Across the six-country average, only a third believe human editors “always” or “often” check GenAI output for accuracy and quality.
  • A cross-country average of 41% say that news created mostly by AI will be “less worth paying for” and 19% “don’t know. 32% answered “about the same.”

Opportunities to lead

These findings present a rocky road for news leaders to traverse. However, they also offer also an opportunity to fill the knowledge gap with information that is educational and reassuring.

Research indicates that the international public overall values transparency in news media as a general practice, and blames news owners and leadership (rather than individual journalists) when it is lacking. However, some research shows users claim to want transparency around GenAI tools in news, but trust news less once they are made aware of its use.

The fact that the public at large is still wavering presents an opportunity for media leaders to get out in front on this issue. Creating policy and providing transparency around the use of GenAI tools in news and journalism is critical. News leaders especially need to educate the public about their standards for human oversight around content produced using GenAI tools.

Industry-Research

Research reveals conflicting needs from news consumers

News consumers want deeper understanding of their communities and more variety of topics covered. However, they also prefer short-format stories that appear on platforms they already use. Opinions of adults in the United States and the United Kingdom align when it comes to lingering distrust of news and fatigue with politics combined with preferences for quick and convenient news, according to two new studies.

U.S. adults want better representation, practical news

A qualitative study of 5,000 U.S. residents by the American Journalism Project offers unique perspective due to improved inclusion of harder-to-reach demographics such as lower-income, minority and immigrant communities. The study used one hundred community ambassadors to reach people across the country who are not typically among the high-information news consumers often represented in surveys. Focusing on what residents want from local news, the ambassadors gathered input via focus groups, phone calls, and text messages.

Overall, U.S. adults surveyed expressed the following needs:

  • News that is local and can be acted upon
  • Reporting that understands their communities and more fully reflects them
  • Content that is convenient to find and use
  • Better representation of young people, people of color, LGBTQ+, and immigrant communities within news organizations
  • More fact-based coverage, less opinion.

Respondents from lower-income communities, communities of color, and/or immigrant communities said they want local news reporters to engage more deeply with them, preferably including journalists who are from their communities. They want news organizations to report on a wide range of topics in their neighborhoods, not just crime. Where there are safety issues, they want practical guidance to protect their families and advocate for change. They want local news to be of and with their communities, to report news that accurately reflects the totality of their lives and is useful to people in their communities.

Spanish-speaking respondents made the point that language translations alone do not compensate for an absence of insider perspective. English-language learners also want news media to understand that whatever language is being used to report news, immigrants care about a variety of news topics, not just immigration-related stories.

While some U.S. respondents expressed distrust for “the media” at large, especially when it comes to national news coverage of political stories, they also voiced a desire to have a central place to rely on for facts and information. Some said they trust community organizations that provide direct services more than news outlets because those entities seemed to care more about their needs. This aligns with the stated desire for news that provides concrete actionable resources.

U.K. adults want trustworthy, convenient news

Some parallels surface in the study of 2,000 U.K. adults by Tickaroo, a live blogging and video platform. The study found the following trends among U.K. news consumers:

  • Diminishing trust in news
  • Declining interest in political news
  • Preference for consuming news on mobile devices
  • Preference for shorter-form content

U.K. adults expressed concern about misinformation, “fake news,” and spin. 31% said they do not trust the news very much, 55% say they retain some skepticism about the news, and 8% said they hardly trust the news at all. According to Tickaroo’s quantitative research, U.K. users’ reasons for not trusting news ranged from the perception that journalists create spin (43%) to concerns about misreporting (42%) and claims of “fake news” (34%).

Where the U.K. and U.S. studies align

Both recent studies found elevated levels of distrust in news as well as a preference for short-form content. U.S. and U.K. residents expressed fatigue with negative news and politics, and both groups are concerned with getting factual news with less bias.

Aligning with those in the U.K., U.S. residents studied admitted that they often do not seek out news, preferring news to fit into their daily routines and be easily available on platforms they already use. These platforms include popular social media sites, email, and even messaging platforms and text messaging groups.

“Trust Kits” offer guidance for newsrooms

To combat distrust, news audiences need to know how facts are sourced, how newsrooms decide which stories to cover, and which pieces are meant to be read as opinion. Transparency is the lynchpin of these concerns.

Assistance to improve trust in news can be found in Trust Kits launched by Reynolds Journalism Institute and the American Press Institute. Tips focus on the following solution areas:

  • Increasing engagement by listening to and reaching new audiences
  • Making ethical guidelines public and correcting mistakes
  • Explaining how coverage decisions are made and sourced
  • Clearly distinguishing between fact and opinion content
  • Strengthening newsroom culture

It is a balancing act to foster a deeper understanding of communities and provide more varied coverage while also summarizing content into bite-sized packages and appealing formats. However, it is a challenge that must be addressed to reach and maintain news audiences.

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.

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion | Industry-Research

Media companies build trust when they address audience concerns

No other business sector has more cultural relevance than media. Media shapes perception, but public perception deeply affects the media industry. Because of this, media companies need to identify the social discussions and issues in society and find a balance in addressing them without alienating their audience.

New research, Media Materiality 2022, conducted by the Responsible Media Forum with consultant Carnstone Partners Ltd, identifies the material sustainability issues for the media sector in the UK, Europe, and North America based on a three-tier research plan:

  • Reviews of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting frameworks, investor indices, and recent (2019 or later) materiality assessments published by companies participating (Axel Springer, BBC, Dentsu, ITV, and others) in the Responsible Media Forum. 
  • Interviews with senior sustainability practitioners from media companies, including advertising, broadcast, entertainment providers, news publishing, and telecommunications. 
  • Interviews with external experts, including ESG thought-leaders, investors, policymakers, non-governmental, organizations, and third sector (non-profits, social enterprises, cooperatives, etc.).

Identifying material issues

To build trust between a media company and its target audience, a company needs to take responsibility for its role in, and take a stand on, meaningful issues. There are consequences when a company fails to act. For example, Disney and its CEO, Bob Chapek face backlash due to company’s donations to Florida politicians who support the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. Critics of Disney felt that that the company did not stand up for its LGBTQ employees, cast members, and guests. And fallout thus far has included widespread media coverage, employee walkouts and a public apology.

These sorts of situations are becoming increasingly prevalent. Thus, it is critical for organizations to understand the issues that are significant to staff, stakeholders, and their customers.

Responsible Media Forum defines material issues as “financially significant over the short to medium term.” These have the potential “to affect a key financial indicator, e.g., profits or revenue, by around five percent or more within two years.” These issues were found to be material: climate change, cyber security data privacy, diversity, equity & inclusion, people management, responsible content, skills development, sustainable value chain, and well-being.

Interestingly, both fake news and net neutrality are no longer identified as material issues as they were in the 2018 report. Important material issues for publishers to incorporate into their best practices.

Responding to material issues

  • While the media’s carbon footprint is relatively small, integrating climate change content can encourage behavioral shifts in society.
  • Data privacy is an essential practice of media companies. With privacy regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), becoming standard practices, publishers should communicate how they collect and use consumer data. 
  • In 2018, the Responsible Media Forum now includes “equity” as part of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Equity refers to the creation of a level playing field and increased commitment to diversity in both developing and retaining talent and entry-level recruitment. This is an important issue among those under 40 years old. DCN’s research on Gen Z Digital Media Attitudes, Values & Behavior shows that both Gen Z and Gen Y see this as the foremost issue companies should care about today.
  • Responsible content is crucial for publishers. Media companies are responsible for their content across their portfolios and usage of intermediaries. Related concerns include diversity of output, editorial compliance, creative independence, transparent and responsible editorial policies, freedom of expression, impartial and & balanced output, and promotion of causes.
  • Media companies must invest in their employees. Skill development, including training and mentoring, are strong retention tactics, especially against tech platforms.
  • A sustainable value chain is important to manage. Media companies need to manage the upstream and downstream of their supply chain beyond their own needs to support.
  • The 2018 report expanded the definition of well-being to include a focus on mental health. With the Pandemic and employees working from home, it’s no surprise that mental stress is an integral part of the wellness category.

Other areas to watch

In addition, the Forum identified three additional categories to determine whether an issue did not meet its materiality threshold but still represented an important matter.

  1. Strategic: an issue that can significantly affect the ability of the company to deliver its strategy in the medium to long term.
  2. Operational: an issue that matters for internal, reputational, and efficiency but is neither material nor strategic.
  3. Emerging: an issue that is not yet widely on the radar of a company but is increasing in importance and expected to become a material or strategic issue within the next two years.

Media plays a critical role in reflecting and responding to the needs of society. This report provides a starting point for media companies to access material issues and other key areas of potential concern in order to better meet audience expectations.

Industry-Research

Meeting these consumer expectations is critical for streaming success

Consumers have numerous entertainment options when it comes to video streaming. There are many choices to be made — from content and viewing device to whether to access the content from a film studio, a network provider, streaming network, and more. The options are endless and overwhelming. As an industry, we need to understand how consumers feel about these entertainment options and how they are navigating the marketplace.  

PriceWaterhouseCoopers’s (PwC) new research shows that 83% of consumers are happy with their options. That’s up from 73% compared to a year ago. In fact, approximately 40% say they are “happy,” “excited” or “satisfied” with their video viewing experience.

PwC surveyed 1,000 consumers, ages 18-59, to better understand content choices and preferences. They used historical survey findings for data comparisons.

Supplying the ultimate user interface

Consumers report that they now use close to eight streaming services, up from six services the prior year. When asked what they like about their favorite services, key factors include “ease of use” (55%) followed by “being able to find something to watch on the service” (35%). Consumers expect an intuitive user interface (UI). The findings indicate that exceeding expectations in ease of use and finding content can act as key differentiators for streaming services.  

Getting personal  

Respondents like the idea of content recommendations getting more advanced and personal. This includes factors like viewing mood, co-viewing identification, length of the content and other data points.

Using advanced personalization can help the search and discovery process be even more customer centric. However, ensuring user privacy and maintaining consumer trust is non-negotiable in the process. With this in mind, directing subscribers to accessible content with ease and efficiently is a golden ticket.

Advertising context

Most consumers do not mind advertising. In fact, close to two-thirds (63%) of respondents are willing to see more ads if it means a lower cost of a streaming service. Not surprisingly, 72% of respondents report that they prefer to see fewer ads that are not of interest to them. In other words, context and relevancy matter.  

Retaining subscribers

Positive consumer satisfaction supports a growing entertainment marketplace. Nearly half of all respondents (46%) report paying more for video content in 2020 than they did in 2019. Further, 59% of them expect to pay more a year from now. Even with high satisfaction and expectations of a growing market, retaining users is a top priority. Respondents report the top three retention vehicles: a price discount (64%), larger movie library (50%), and less ads (50%).

Significantly, PwC’s research shows that consumers are still adding services in their video service portfolios. In a crowded streaming marketplace, meeting and exceeding consumer expectations to easily find content drives stickiness. Further, new partnerships and tiered models may offer new opportunities to attract and retain users. However, it’s important that these new opportunities align with consumer benefits.

Industry-Research

Should newsrooms remain neutral?

Accurate and impartial storytelling has long been considered an essential component of effective newsrooms. However, in recent years some news outlets have taken a far more partisan approach over the provision of objective news and information. With plenty of opinion-based commentary available, how significant is objective journalism to audiences?

The latest report from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism questions the importance of impartial news reporting to audiences. The new study offers insight into whether objective news coverage, or point of view offerings, appeal to consumers. Reuters’ findings are based on survey results from close to 100,000 adults worldwide and in-depth interviews with 50 adults in Brazil, Germany, the U.K., and the U.S.

Impartial vs. opinion-based reporting

Overall, respondents say they want to hear different and impartial views on social and political issues. In fact, three quarter (74%) report that social and political news coverage should present a range of different views. Just 15% of respondents believe that news outlets should argue for the points of view that they think are best.

Importantly, respondents often recognize the difference between news reporting and opinion-based commentary. However, they also think newsrooms should be very clear and identify when they report opinion-based commentary.

Significantly, Reuters’ findings show that consumers are interested in understanding opinions that are not their own. The majority (72%) of consumers in all markets think that news publishers should give equal time to all sides. A mere 17% think news outlets should give less time to sides with weaker arguments. Respondents agree that there should be a fair balance of opinions in objective news reporting. 

Neutrality is not always an option

Interestingly, 30% of people in the U.S. think that sometimes neutrality is not an option when reporting the news. Specifically, younger respondents, along with those who are left leaning, think there are some issues where it is impossible for newsrooms to be neutral. In fact, a minority think that there is ethical justification, in some cases, for a non-neutral approach. Importantly, respondents express discomfort with newsrooms excluding points of view entirely.

Reuters’ findings show the desire for truthful storytelling in news but also for the inclusion of different perspectives. Yes, consumers want the facts. However, the report also suggest news publishers should offer different perspectives and different points of views. This approach will assist in breaking echo chambers and offers opportunities for healthy news discussions about multiple points of views.  

Advertising | Perspectives

Raising the bar on ad quality and transparency

In recent years, the discussion around ad quality has become much more specific and tangible. The goals have become more quantifiable and the insights easier to act on. Today, there’s a lot riding on the publisher’s business in that moment when the page loads, and all page and ad content is revealed. And, frankly, there’s more money riding on that moment now.

As the programmatic market has grown more refined and valuable to advertisers and publishers alike, buyers increasingly pay attention to the environments their ads appear in. Quality advertisers demand that they appear adjacent not only to high-quality content, but also to other high-quality ads.

Meanwhile, increasingly sophisticated users expect publishers to host trustworthy, relevant ads alongside the content they’re engaged with. At the end of the day, reputation and revenue are on the line – from the moment the page loads and the ad content is revealed.

Context matters

The simple fact is that you can’t separate page content from ad content and from the content of the ad’s landing page. The user certainly doesn’t make that separation. The user assumes every ad on the page must be intentional, and the publisher must have co-signed on any page any ad links out to. It is time publishers view the page as a unified piece while also thinking about the ad experience beyond the page.

Today’s users are sensitive to ad content that sends a noticeably different message than the page content. They are sensitive to offensive, dishonest, or salacious ad content. They are also sensitive to clickbait-style, irrelevant, inappropriately partisan, and disruptively designed ad content. Unwelcome messages like those can lead users to lose trust in (and decrease monetizable engagement with) an otherwise high-quality publisher. And clicking through to a landing page containing misinformation, fraudulent products for sale, a phishing scam, or any other type of questionable environment can ruin a user’s relationship with a publisher for life.

Let’s face it, for publishers, there’s always been a push and pull between maintaining the integrity of the user experience and opening up ad inventory to the broadest range of programmatic buyers. And the traditional QA means to verify any and all ads on the page are relevant, on-brand, and legit often comes down to inefficient and inexact methods. This requires ad ops teams to manually refresh pages, or to check samples of ads from earlier scans.

The big picture

It may sound daunting to manage. However, today’s technology solutions help empower publishers to retain user trust and loyalty far better than, say, posting a disclaimer that explains to the user the complexities of programmatic.

Now, publishers seeking the highest level of ad content quality and control can view all 360 degrees of their ad inventory in one dashboard. This allows them to solidify their brand’s content strategy, avoid ad related annoyances, and ad quality issues. Considering how elusive real transparency in ad content/page content alignment has been, it’s about time.

When it comes to content quality control, publishers, have long been familiar with categorizing ad and page content by parameters like keywords, content vertical, domain, and blocklists. However, broad categorization is not good enough and leads to an abundance of inappropriate ad experiences.

Even worse, using blunt force to block entire categories of ads will fail to make good on the full revenue potential of premium ad inventory. In fact, 91% of publishers feel blunt-force blocking is hurting their rightful earnings. And 88% think that more customizable ad quality automation would increase their revenue.

Publishers know best

As a publisher, you recognize unwanted ads when you see them. But first, you’d have to see them. Without full transparency and vision into all of the ads on your site, that can be a tough ask. It’s tricky, time consuming, and resource draining. To streamline the process, publishers should employ ad quality tools that are customizable to the requirements of their own page content and the expectations of their particular audiences and advertisers.

Ultimately, though, the publisher knows those requirements and expectations better than anyone. Publishers absolutely need to apply a human layer to their QA process, which gives them complete control over what appears on their pages. When it comes to quality, it’s best not to simply “set it and forget it.”

Publishers need an ad content management solution that provides a full, unified view of all the ads on every page on the site, and that allows the publisher to instantly remove any unwanted, off-brand ads. Content quality QA might seem pedestrian, but it has the power to accelerate a publisher’s business, revenue, and relationships. Indeed, this is the level of real transparency the digital industry has talked about for years. Now’s the time to act.  

Industry-Research

The market is flooded with streaming options. But are consumers satisfied?

As more media companies enter the streaming video marketplace, consumers are presented with more choices and content. The good news is that, overall, consumers value the video subscriptions they subscribe to. Hub Entertainments’ annual Monetizing Video report finds that 62% of viewers feel they get at least a “good” value from their TV subscriptions. Hub’s research was conducted with over 2,000 broadband users, age 16-74, who watch at least 1 hour of TV per week.

Significantly, holding subscriptions in high esteem is not necessarily a side-effect of Covid-19. While lockdowns helped drive viewership and overall value, we have seen high levels before shelter-in-place orders. In fact, DCN’s Digital Subscription Economy research showed that 64% of consumers reported their subscription(s) offer high value.

Valued services

Across the different video/TV services consumers use, streaming services topped the list in terms of value for the money. Seven in 10 rated Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, and Amazon Prime as excellent or good value for the money. Boasting deep libraries of content, streaming are convenient and appealing entertainment resources. In contrast, only four in 10 consumers ranked traditional pay-TV as a good value for the money.

Consumers estimate they spend $94 per month for all their TV subscriptions combined. However, they believe they should only pay $72 per month. It is interesting that, even though they are paying $22 more each month, subscriptions services are still perceived as a good value.

Actual vs. reasonable price

Breaking down the payments across the television categories, traditional pay-TV subscribers (no SVOD) are the most likely to feel their total TV bill is higher than reasonable. They estimate they are paying $106 for their subscriptions but think they should only pay $69. The actual vs. reasonable gap is $37 more than they think they should pay.

Pay-TV only (including SVOD) subscribers estimate paying $107. However they think they should only pay $79, making the actual vs. reasonable gap $29. Consumers paying for streaming-services only (no pay TV service) estimate they are paying $60 and think they should only pay $54. This is the only cohort that thinks they are paying the appropriate amount.

Consumers ranked the kind and amount of content a platform offers right up there with pricing as the most important features. Least important features included both recommendations and notifications.  

Streaming theatrical releases

Accessing theatrical releases at home is of high appeal among adults 18-34 years old. In fact, 63% of young adults, a key target audience in the theatrical movie business, say they definitely/probably would pay to stream a movie at the same time it’s released in the movie theater. Consumers 35+ differed greatly. Only 12% said they’d definitely/probably pay to stream a movie at the same time released in a movie theater. Further, 18-34 years olds show a strong willing to pay with 65% would definitely/probably pay $15 dollars, 65% would definitely/probably pay $25 and 57% pay $50.

Streaming theatrical releases is a completely different distribution dynamic, altering the window availability across the distribution timeline. The recent release of the big Broadway musical “Hamilton” on Disney+ serves as a promising start with more than 725k global downloads. This marks a 47% increase in app downloads compared to the average four weeks in June. Of course, not all movies will have “Hamilton” level success. Monitoring and evaluating  new distribution patterns will be critical to understanding how wide-spread streaming and its adoption becomes for theatrical release.

Industry-Research

Edelman Trust Barometer indicates the distrust of media is fueled by social platforms

In the past, encouraged by a strong economy, consumers found core societal institutions, government, business, NGOs and media, both competent and of high ethical standing. Unfortunately, according to the 2020 Edelman Trust Barometer, this sentiment is no longer true due to the rise of violence, government corruption, fake news, financial insecurity, and other unsettling conditions. Today’s consumer does not trust the government, businesses, NGOs, or media.

Edelman defines trust based on a combined measurement of these two distinct attributes: competence (delivering on promises) and ethical behavior (doing the right thing and working to improve society). The Edelman Trust Barometer is based on an online survey sampled of more than 34,000 respondents across 28 markets.

Edelman reports a significant imbalance of trust, a 14-point gap, settings a new record among the informed public and the mass population. The informed public, defined by Edelman as a wealthier, more educated and trusting consumer cohort, are far more trusting of every institution than the mass population.

Media trust

Within the media sector, search engines and traditional media (newspapers and broadcasting) are equally trusted at 61%. Social media, on the other hand, is the least trusted media source at 39%. And in developed countries traditional media outperforms social platforms by 30 points on average.

Social platforms continue to fuel the growth of distrust in media. While smartphones offer the power of communication in the user’s hand, this accessibility also accelerates the flow of user generated content and comments. Unfortunately, social amplifies and exaggerates false and misinformation and magnifies filter bubbles of extremism. It’s no wonder that three-quarters of respondents (76%) said that they worry about false information or fake news being used as a weapon.

For the first time this year, the Edelman Trust Barometer asked respondents to rate if an institution is doing well to very well on different issues. Related to this was a question to gauge the potential impact on trust associated with each issue. Media companies scored lowest on five issues: keeping social media clean, being objective, information quality, important vs. sensationalized content and differentiate opinion and fact. However, if media companies perform better on these issues, it will drive significant consumer trust.

Insert To build trust chart

It’s important for premium publishers, when working with social platforms, to ensure their brands are clearly differentiated from the platforms where their content appears. Further, publishers should continue to find new ways to build trust, especially on the issues with the most potential to growth in trust. Because, given their direct one-to-one relationship with consumers, trust is a critical factor for publisher success. 

Industry-Research

Out of control: Consumers increasingly wary of data collection, use, and security

Consumers are increasingly concerned about their privacy and apprehensive about their activities being tracked. They are also very worried about the ways in which their data is being used and about its security. According to Pew Research Center’s new study, Americans and Privacy: Concerned, Confused and Feeling Lack of Control Over Their Personal Information, 81% of U.S. consumers say the potential risks of data collection by companies outweigh the benefits, and 66% say the same about government data collection. In fact, most Americans do not think it’s possible to go through daily life without having data collected about them by companies or the government (62% and 63%, respectively).

Out of control

Consumer concerns about digital privacy includes those who collect, store, and use their personal information. Nearly eight in 10 consumers are “not too” or “not at all” confident that companies will admit or take responsibility if personal information is compromised or misused. Further, 69% also report this same lack of confidence in the way companies use their personal information.

Most consumers in the US do not feel in control of their own personal data. Eight in 10 consumers report they have little or no control over what data that companies (81%) and the government (84%) collect about them. Consumers report seeing little benefit from all the data that companies (72%) and the government (76%) collect about them.

Privacy, please

Concerns about the right to privacy can be traced to the Constitution. In 1965, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy can be inferred from the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and 14th Amendments. The concept of privacy has evolved for consumers and now includes access to their digital footprint and all of their personal information. Pew finds that consumers specifically identify privacy as “other people and organizations not being able to access their possessions or private life” (28%) and “control over information, possessions, self; deciding what’s accessible to others” (26%). Many also feel the term “personal data” is interchangeable with “digital data.”

Data insecurity

Given the number of major data breaches in the last few years, (Marriott International, Yahoo!, Facebook, Equifax to name a few) it is no wonder that 70% of consumers report that their data is less secure today than it was five years ago. 

Few consumers know what companies and the government are doing with the data collected on them. Further, most consumers lack the understanding of personal data tracking policies and restrictions.

Digital sites, especially premium sites with a direct consumer relationship, must find a way to clearly communicate their data tracking polices. Further, it’s important to clearly message data tracking policies with complete transparency on what data is being collected, what data is being used and how it’s being uses.

Featured Post | Perspectives | Policy

What policy makers can learn from privacy-focused products

The legal and policy community continues to debate the impact of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the ins and outs of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), and how (or whether) Washington should regulate consumer privacy. While the debate rages on, we are seeing a stream of consumer-focused privacy-oriented product rollouts. It is interesting to look at what these controls actually do and how they might inform the policy debate.

In a concession to consumer privacy, Google recently announced that it would allow consumers to block companies from tracking them across the web when they are using Chrome. Specifically, they will differentiate between 1st party and 3rd party cookies. As such, they will allow consumers to delete 3rd party cookies while preserving the 1st party cookie, which, for example, allows a website to remember a consumer’s log-in information. In addition, Google will soon roll out features to prevent companies from identifying consumers via device fingerprinting, another method used to track consumers across the web.

Let’s be clear, Google is late to the privacy game given the long history of privacy protections offered by Apple and Mozilla. Apple has famously blocked 3rd party cookies by default in Safari and recently introduced Intelligent Tracking Prevention (ITP), restricting the ability of companies to access cookies when a consumer is not interacting with that company.  

Services that care for consumers

When a consumer visits YouTube on Safari, Google can access the cookies they have set on their browser. However, as soon as the consumer navigates to another website, Google can no longer access those cookies. ITP essentially breaks the ability to track consumers around the web.  Apple has also worked to block loopholes where cookies, set by companies like Google and Facebook, pretend to be 1st party but are then used for tracking and secondary use. Unfortunately, it is hard to muster much confidence that Google will be anywhere as diligent as Apple in closing loopholes, given its business model is built on its ability to expertly track consumers.

Mozilla, on the other hand, offers multiple ways for consumers to block third party tracking in Firefox. Mozilla is also considering rolling out a “Super Private Browsing” mode, which would incorporate Tor privacy features into Firefox.

Beyond the most commonly used browsers, a whole suite of new services have popped up. Duck Duck Go, a search engine, and Brave, a browser, offer strong privacy controls as their primary value proposition. As we’ve noted for several years now, more and more consumers are turning to ad blockers to protect themselves and/or improve their web experience. Forcing these massive platforms to once again compete on privacy will be good for everyone, particularly consumers. The question, of course, is whether some of these companies are simply too big to change at this point.

Policy implications

Back to my original question: What can policymakers learn from these new consumer privacy controls?

For starters, consumers increasingly demand more and stronger protections of their data and digital lives or the market wouldn’t be headed that direction. You can reasonably debate whether Google’s recent announcement went far enough. But the fact that a multi-billion-dollar company like Google did anything at all speaks volumes.

It’s also worth pointing out that all of these new controls, which curtail the ability of companies to collect consumer data at scale, are not actually breaking the internet despite the frequent claims of ad tech lobbyists. In fact, given this push to meet consumer demand for greater privacy controls, it’s funny and a little sad to look back at the hysteria from some of these lobbyists.

Meeting consumer demand

The big takeaway is how these companies and their engineers are designing services and features to meet consumer expectations for privacy. This new wave of privacy controls gives consumers the ability to stop companies from tracking them across the web. Yet, these services preserve the ability for websites and apps to collect and use consumer data when the consumer is interacting directly with that company.

This approach makes sense. Consumers share their data so that companies can use it to provide a service or content. In this fair value exchange, the consumer can choose to engage or not. Consumers do not expect companies to track them outside of that fair value exchange and doing so is simply bad business.  

It isn’t a question of whether consumers want their privacy protected, these market moves demonstrate the demand and inevitability. And, as policymakers consider how best to craft consumer privacy protections, it’s worth noting how today’s best engineers have attempted to meet consumer demand and expectations for privacy.

Industry-Research

How well are digital brands meeting consumers’ hierarchy of digital needs?

Innovation fails when it does not meet the needs of people. In its new report, Digital Society Index 2019: Human Needs in a Digital World, Dentsu Aegis Network examines just how well digital technology is working for all people in society. The research, conducted with Oxford Economics, surveyed over 43,000 people in 24 countries across three key dimensions of the digital economy: dynamism (its strength), inclusion (its range of access) and trust (in data usage).

Overall, the research shows the digital economy as a glass half full. A number of countries show a positive balance between dynamism, inclusion, and trust. Importantly, for these countries, the future of the digital economy is viewed in a positive light. However, the misuse of data (64%) is a hot button driving declining trust in technology.

In fact, the decline in consumer trust helped drive the UK’s overall Digital Society Index ranking drop from first to fifth. Other factors include that consumers in the UK think that technology companies do not pay enough taxes (36%) and are establishing an unbalanced society by creating excessive wealth (28%).

In order for digital technology companies to build a positive digital economy, Dentsu developed a new framework, based on Abraham Maslow’s work on the hierarchy of needs. It examines products and services across people’s needs. The framework includes four perspectives: basic needs, psychological needs, self-fulfillment needs, and societal needs.

The Digital Needs Model

Basic needs are the necessary preconditions for people to engage with digital products and services. Dentus identifies basic needs as access to a quality digital infrastructure (internet and mobile connections) as well as the trust that personal data will be used responsibly by businesses and the government. Less than half (49%) of consumers worldwide (and 43% in the US) believe their basic needs of people are being met.

Psychological needs include the impact of digital technologies on consumers’ health and well-being. It’s about the healthy balance of personal technology on the overall quality of life. Digital tech is helping people manage their lives from shopping to doctor health monitoring online. However, technology can be a double-edged sword, allowing for errands and efficiencies as well as the increase in obsessive online behavior.

Self-fulfillment needs center on having the skills, education and opportunities to find rewarding work. Consumers show concern about their fulfilment in terms of learning new digital skills for educational or career purposes. Less than half of all consumers (45%) feel they are prepared in their usage of digital technology. These research findings suggest that employers are not doing the best job in training their employees. One in three people cannot recall the last digital training (if any) they received. Importantly, companies need to build people’s digital skills and employability to establish positive personal fulfillment.

Societal needs offer opportunities for technology to help close the digital divide. Consumers are optimistic that digital technology can aid in positive changes in the world. In fact, just less than half of those surveyed believe that digital technology will enhance society to help solve key global problems.

Consumer Behavior

Dentsu’s research also presents behavior of new digital consumers. These digital natives are more likely to take control of their online footprint by installing ad blockers, controlling the amount of data shared and limiting time spent online. Still they are active online consumers. They are also the most likely to shop online, use an app to take a taxi or stream music.

It’s important for companies and brands to understand the digital audience in terms of their attitudes towards the digital economy. Dentsu’s digital needs model offers a framework to inform product and service strategies from marketing to communications. The digital marketplace must strive to guide technology’s development to ensure consumers are not left behind by digital growth.

©2024 Digital Content Next. All Rights Reserved.