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: "social platforms"

Featured Post | Perspectives

Censorship isn’t the issue. Controlling the spread is.

In a recent meeting between the Vice President of Values and Transparency of the European Commission, Věra Jourová, and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, they agreed there should be more focus on how harmful content is distributed and shown to people rather than pushing for its removal. This is a critical point to be made as we enter what may be the most volatile two months in the history of our still-young democracy.

If you don’t know Jourova, she speaks from experience on civil liberties and technology. Time Magazine named her to their Time 100 last year and she played a key role in passing the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) privacy law in Europe. Her responsibility now includes watching over democracy and election integrity. Meanwhile, Jack Dorsey continues to lead Twitter bravely, despite the political risks. Facebook, however, continues to play a game of public relations to the continued detriment of our democracy.

Facebook would prefer that our public debate is focused on issues of free expression. Mark Zuckerberg can then symbolically drape the American flag around his shoulders and remind us of the importance of free speech while his company sidesteps the perils of his platform and dodges the thorny issues at the core of Facebook’s profit model. In positioning his argument this way, Zuckerberg creates a false case in which supporters of our democracy’s rights to free expression must agree with him.

In this crowded theater, he not only defends the right to yell fire, and light them, but also algorithmically fans the flames so that they spread out of control. And he does so in the very same month his company threatens to block all news in Australia and to withdraw from Jourova’s Europe because their profit model can’t survive regulation, quite a statement if you stop and think about it.

As long as Facebook focuses on the issue of content take-down versus minimizing or stopping its amplification, they avoid the real issue with the platform. And they are certainly not going to solve it.

Yes, Facebook has become an essential utility to the world despite harboring toxic sludge

This is undeniable by all parties, including Facebook. And it makes any scaled changes particularly sensitive. This is particularly problematic and impactful in nations without the freedoms of our First Amendment. For these countries, the positives and negatives of Facebook are even more pronounced. And reports of Facebook cozying up to authoritarian governments are even more troubling.

We need to stop debating the “censoring” of posts on Facebook

First, Facebook is a private platform and has the right to make decisions to remove or promote posts as it sees fit according to the (you guessed it) First Amendment. More importantly, press advocates should be uncomfortable with Facebook outright removing posts unless the information presents an immediate danger to the public. If a Facebook user wants to follow and read Alex Jones or Michael Moore, then so be it. If Jones, Moore, or any of these folks want to share questionable content (within limits around issues like inciting violence and hate) then so be it. These are consumer choices and the statements from Jourova and Dorsey imply they tend to agree.

Reach = velocity x amplification

It has been frequently stated in policy circles that “freedom of speech” does not equal “freedom of reach.” This is a clear and elegant way to illustrate how protections from the government or from Facebook’s freedom of expression bear hug should stop at the company’s decision to permit a post to survive on its platform. It is too simple an analysis to treat Facebook merely as a “platform” or the “21st century town hall.” Being neutrally available to all is one thing. However, it does not account for the platform’s design decisions that impact whether posts spread like wildfires or fade into history. The average person’s posts simply don’t travel like a Trevor Noah monologue or a statement from President Trump, and it’s not simply because they have more “friends.”

This is the argument presented in an important 2019 UK report positing why Facebook is neither platform nor publisher. If Facebook were the traditional model of a publisher, it would commission, pay for, edit, and take responsibility for the content it disseminates. And there are already renewed efforts to make social media carry more liability. At the same time, it’s not merely a platform because it continually changes what is and is not seen, based on algorithms and its own employees’ human intervention. If it were purely a platform, then that liability protection it receives may be warranted.

Content targeting suppresses counter-speech

An influential academic compared Facebook’s “black box” algorithms to the opacity of newsrooms in the 80s. This is disingenuous. As we stated in our 2016 letter to the CEOs of Facebook and Google, no one is arguing we should return to the world of gatekeepers and information scarcity. Any comparison to newspapers and television falls apart here as social media platforms reinforce a cycle of regurgitated bias. We must recognize these same algorithms that microtarget content to individual users also serve to suppress the counter-speech to that same content. No news media is entirely immune to bias. However, balance, integrity, and responsibility to the public are fundamental to their success. And consumer feedback and choice offer a sufficient check on this.

So, when Facebook executives share platitudes about free expression in response to harmful content, please ask why they continue to actively promote this harmful content with their algorithms. When they describe the labels they had to be pushed into affixing to harmful content, please ask why they haven’t gone a step further and put these labels on the harmful posts before they’re even visible to users. When they describe their reluctance to censor individuals, please ask why they haven’t removed the tools in their product that allow for massive amplification of questionable content. In a message all too familiar to us in 2020, we need to stop the spread

Industry-Research

Social news consumption leaves people media-malnourished

It’s no surprise that social media is where consumers, especially young adults, get their news today. According to a new study from Pew Research Center, 18% of U.S adults use social media for political and election news. Unfortunately, this cohort lacks both the depth and breadth in terms of political news.

Politics

This study finds limited exposure to election news for those using social media as their political news source. Only 8% of consumers who receive most of their political news from social media report that they are following 2020 election news “very closely”. Both broadcast news followers and print news followers are more than three times more likely to follow election coverage closely (37% and 33%, respectively) than social media news followers.

Further, consumers who mainly use social platforms as their main source for political news appear to pay much less attention to news in general compared followers of other news sources. In fact, those who get their political news from cable TV are nearly twice as likely as those in the social media cohort to follow (“fairly closely”) election candidate news (70% vs. 36%).

Current events

This Pew report also analyzed data from previous studies, such as Pathways & Trust in Media. This provides insight into how well consumers that use social media as their main news source are informed on current political news. The analysis found that those in the social media group were among the least likely to have heard a lot about each of six current event stories. Further, they were also among the most likely to have heard no news on each of the six events.

Another analysis in this report identified 29 fact-based news-related questions in five Pew studies across the last nine months. The questions included topics on the presidential election, the economy, the political parties, Donald Trump’s impeachment, and the coronavirus outbreak. Pew’s analysis of the 29 questions shows a high correlation between the least accurate responses and consumers who rely mostly on social media for political news.

On average, 43% of social media news consumers answered correctly compared to 63% among those who rely mostly on news websites or apps and 56% among those who turn mostly to network TV. The only comparable group to social platforms are adults who watch local television (37% of correct answers).

False information

Unfortunately, consumers who rely on social media as their main source of political news are more likely to be exposed to false information. In fact, about a quarter of U.S. adults who get most of their news from social media are more likely than others to hear false information or unproven claims. With multiple conspiracy theories centered around the Covid-19 pandemic, about a quarter of U.S. adults who get most of their news through social media report that they heard “a lot” about Covid-19 conspiracy theories. In addition, about eight-in-ten (81%) report they heard at least “a little.” Hearing conspiracy theories is much higher among those who use social media than among those who use any of the other six platforms (broadcast TV, cable TV, print, etc.) for their political news

Demographic characteristics

The Pew study shows that those who rely on social media as their main source for political news tend to be less well-informed. Social media does little to help educate their users how to identify trusted news sources. Consumers need help to navigate through feeds where premium and trusted news brands are right alongside misinformation and disinformation.

Industry-Research

Uneven content policies and moderation practices: How YouTube’s standards fare

Publishers establish editorial guidelines to provide a common foundation for journalists, creators, and producers. These guidelines provide a common language to identify an editorial framework and boundaries. Guidelines are often questioned, reevaluated, and updated in a process that allows the editorial voice to evolve over time. Editorial guidelines also present a check and balance system for standards and content moderation, which in turn creates a safe space for advertising.  

Unfortunately, the editorial guidelines of social media platforms appear to be a complex maze of mixed messages. This results in unhappy content producers – given opacity around monetization of some content – and risky business for marketers.

A new research report, Tiered Governance and Demonetization: The Shifting Terms of Labor and Compensation in the Platform Economy, examines YouTube’s governance and guidelines including its content moderation practices. The authors, Robyn Caplan and Tarleton Gillespie, investigate the complex landscape of YouTube, the largest video hosting platform in the world. They explore YouTube’s monetization models and their attempt to provide a foundation for governance.

Monetization strategy

One problem is that they frequently include different governance strategies for different creators. The result is that creators struggle to remain inside the viable boundaries for monetization.

YouTube offers a partnership program for content creators and shares advertising revenue with them. Plain and simple, the more user-generated content, the more views, which allows YouTube to collect user data to support targeted advertising. And the more ads served, the more revenue generated.

The YouTube Partnership Program (YPP) is intrinsic to its revenue model. Essentially, it is a form of unpaid labor that generates enormous revenue for the platform. YouTube’s partnership program encourages users to make more content with an offer of compensation as ads run against that content.

YouTube’s content creators vary from amateurs, professionalized amateurs, legacy media organizations, and YouTube’s contracted producers of original content. One particularly tricky aspect is that each is held to held to a different standard and entitled to a different monetization offering.

A few other social platforms developed similar programs, but YouTube’s is by far the largest. According to Caplan and Gillespie’s research, YouTube’s lack of clarity and complicated rules appears to do little in the way of effective content moderation or fair compensation. Further, the fact that YouTube works with multiple creator tiers fuels issues of inconsistent treatment. Consider how editorial standards would impact:

  1. amateur creators who are not dependent on revenue,
  2. creators who are dependent on revenue
  3. professionals building their reputation for secondary distribution, or
  4. media institutions who partner for distribution power.

Enforcement practices

YouTube’s policies vary, with little explanation, in dealing with content that violate their standards and practices around sexual content, violence, harassment, hate speech, or misinformation. Actions include content demonetization, removal of individual videos, or the suspension of entire accounts. They might also place videos behind age barriers or include interstitial warnings indicating graphic content. YouTube may also remove videos deemed to infringe on copyright infringement, violate privacy, or simply spam.

Caplan and Gillespie summarize the YouTube problem:

  • YouTube stated values as an open platform of expression are in direct conflict with their cautiousness regarding acceptable content and the financial and algorithmic incentive structure.
  • YouTube’s governance offers a different set of rules for different users. These include different material resources and opportunities for creators to different procedural protections and different expectations of fairness.
  • Given the ambiguity in the guidelines, creators develop their own theories as to why their content is demonetized.  

Caplan and Gillespie offer examples of YouTube’s randomness in enforcing its standards. For example, it appears that YouTube determines participation in YPP based on an algorithmic mix of popularity, engagement, and propriety.  However, according to many independent content creators, YouTube also allows inappropriate content to circulate and amplify based on popularity and the ability to generate revenue for the company.

YouTube’s participatory video culture does not bode well for advertisers’ demand for quality and predictability. It appears to be a system based on rewarding audience size and celebrity stardom. Unfortunately, given this revenue model, when YouTube adds new layers to its already complex labyrinth of standards, it fails its creators and fails to effectively moderate content.

Industry-Research

Content moderation is serious business. Social platforms need to act like it

Content moderation is a big job for social platforms (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube). Much of the content posted on these sites is made up of user-generated postings, pictures, and videos. However, there is a sizeable amount of content from rogue publishers to contend with as well. At present, it is common practice for social platforms to outsource the role of content moderation.

NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights’ new report, authored by Paul Barrett, focuses on Facebook and questions its strategy of outsourcing content moderation. Facebook, by far, outsources the largest number moderators of all the tech platforms. Barrett makes the case that content moderation is central to social platforms’ business. Thus, as with other core business functions, Facebook should make this vital role that of a full-time company employee. To improve moderation, Barrett contends that Facebook must bring moderators in-house and increase the number from the current 15,000 to 30,000.

Outsourcing

According to Barrett, Facebook’s outsourcing was a purposeful decision. Their reasoning goes beyond the cost of bringing these employees in house. It is also a logistical – even strategic – decision to outsource moderation.

Sarah Roberts, an expert on content moderation at the University of California, comments that Facebook and other social media companies outsource moderation to minimize its level of importance. Roberts’ refers to this as “plausible deniability.” She explains, the work is mission critical. However, your full time employees don’t handle it directly. The company intentionally places a physical distance between the problem and its staff.

Facebook contracts third-party vendors, which hire temporary workers located at 20 sites worldwide. With the assistance of AI, this army of contract-moderators sift through approximately three million posts a day.

Business paradox

Facebook’s core business model centers on advertising. The goal of the platform is to add new users, to increase scale. This drives advertising revenues, which demonstrates growth to Wall Street. However, there is an intrinsic problem here. More users create ever more content to be moderated. This puts moderators on a hamster wheel with no end in sight.

With such a high volume of moderation, and a minimal level of content expertise, errors occur. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s CEO, quoted a 10% error rate in flagging content that should be taken down or taking down content that should not be flagged. Given this margin, there are at least 300,000 mistakes each day. Some of these are very serious mistakes. 

The consequences

What are the repercussions of postings remaining online when they should be taken down? There’s little risk for Facebook, at least within the U.S. Due to the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, internet platforms are protected from liability for most content posted by users. Even with President Trump’s recent executive order to roll back Section 230, tech company protection from liability still appears in place.

Unfortunately, there are consequences for the workers. In a recent class action lawsuit against Facebook in San Mateo County, California, a group of former reviewers claimed that “as a result of constant and unmitigated exposure to highly toxic and extremely disturbing images,” they had suffered “significant psychological trauma and/or post-traumatic stress disorder.”

Facebook agreed, without admitting any liability, in May 2020 to settle the suit. The settlement could distribute millions of dollars to more than 10,000 current and former moderators in the U.S. (a minor slap on the wrist for a company that earns more than $70 billion dollar per year).

Importantly, there are also serious consequences for multitudes Facebook users as well. One such incident identified members of the Myanmar military as operatives behind a systematic campaign on Facebook to target the country’s Muslim Rohingya minority group. Facebook was warned of anti-Rohingya rhetoric and false claims posted on their platform (which were not removed). The United Nations and others blame on Facebook for the murder of more than 10,000 Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar and the displacement of hundreds of thousands more. Facebook eventually concluded there was a deliberate and covert Myanmar military operations but again there was no liability on their part.

Incidences like those in Myanmar also happened in Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Ethiopia, as well as other places.

Time for change

Barrett concludes his report with eight recommendations to change Facebook current practices:

  1. Stop outsourcing content moderation and bring the process in-house.  
  2. Increase the number of moderators from 15,000 to 30,000 to improve the review process.
  3. Hire someone to oversee content and fact-checking who reports directly to the CEO or COO.
  4. Expand moderation in at-risk countries in Asia, Africa, and other areas.
  5. Provide all moderators with quality medical and psychiatric access.
  6. Support research on the health risks of content moderation.
  7. Explore targeted government regulation regarding harmful content.
  8. Expand fact-checking to discredit false information.

Companies routinely outsource areas outside their expertise. However, this practice is far from common for areas core to their business. Content moderation is an area of expertise that Facebook needs to possess, and excel, in for the safety of its employees and Facebook users worldwide.

Featured Post | Innovation | Video

With a new live LinkedIn show, HBR connects with readers on coping in the wake of Covid-19

As the world adjusts to the “new normal” of remote working life, forward-thinking publishers have been coming up with new ways to connect with their audiences and help them through the crisis. In a matter of weeks, Harvard Business Review has spun up its own live video offering: HBR Quarantined. 

HBR’s new weekly LinkedIn Live show focuses on how businesses are coping with the consequences of coronavirus. The show, co-hosted by Editor in Chief Adi Ignatius and Chief Product and Innovation Officer Joshua Macht, debuted on April 27 with Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Thomas Friedman as a special guest.

Ignatius, Macht and HBR’s Senior Multimedia Editor Scott LaPierre talked to DCN about what prompted the launch, how the first show went, and where they plan to take it in the future.

Evolving an idea

The initial concept for HBR Quarantined stemmed from Ignatius and Macht wanting to explore their dynamic in different formats. “Adi and I go way back together. We’ve grown accustomed to taking chances together and inventing things,” Macht said, explaining that a podcast was initially on the table. “Within weeks we went from, ‘Maybe we should launch a podcast,’ to ‘We’re going to do a live television show on a platform that’s pretty new.’ Then, all of a sudden, we had a show.” 

Ignatius said that the genesis of the idea came from a desire to connect with the millions of their audience who are now working from home. “They, like us, are wondering, ‘When do we get to go back to work, and what will work look like when we do?’” he explained. “We’re always talking about these issues. So we figured we could do a service delivering insight on COVID-19 and how it affects businesses and the economy.”

But unlike other HBR products, the show is designed to have a very different tone. “Harvard Business Review tends to be a brand that speaks to a very high altitude. That’s our secret sauce: high-level pieces that are based on research,” Ignatius emphasized.

“This show is something different. It’s meant to be warmer, really connecting in the moment. We’re all in the same boat and trying to figure this out together. So, it’s certainly an experimentation with a different kind of voice for us.”

Viability in quarantine

Under normal circumstances, a product like this would be resource-intensive. But LaPierre highlighted that quarantine has actually lowered the bar for everyone in terms of production values and expectations. 

“The way a lot of video producers are seeing the COVID-19 crisis, perversely, is as an opportunity to try new things,” he said. “HBR is not a TV station. We only have a small video team. So it would be hard for us to launch a true broadcast live video series. But now, everyone’s been equalized in terms of what they’re capable of doing. It’s a chance for us to make a viable series that doesn’t look that different from what others are doing.”

LinkedIn’s Live tool is just over a year old, and the platform was relatively late to the video space compared to its competitors. But for HBR, their vast social following on LinkedIn – 10.2 million followers – made it an obvious choice to debut this type of show. 

The team began by testing out a high-level broadcast tool. However, that was proving problematic as it wasn’t suited to their purposes. “We pivoted to something called StreamYard, which is a ‘prosumer’ grade software that allows you to stream live, but is a lot more lightweight,” explained LaPierre.

Live streaming can be risky in terms of technical hitches. But HBR’s first show went smoothly, attracting 35,000 live viewers and thousands of comments during the stream. Ignatius highlighted the long-tail benefits of the video as well, with total views doubling in just a few days.

The biggest surprise for the team was the lack of drop-offs. “Everyone was saying we would have these spikes in viewers. But actually, people showed up for the whole thing, and it just kept growing,” Macht explained. 

HBR Quarantined post-quarantine

When it comes to the future of HBR Quarantined, the team is remaining flexible. They have a total of six episodes planned so far. However, they will be constantly reviewing what the response is to them and what their audience needs going forward.

“I was pleasantly surprised that it went off as well as it did. But it will be interesting to see where it goes,” commented Ignatius. “I think there is something of a service that we can provide for our readers. There’s knowledge and insight about what’s going on, and we want to see what that means post-quarantine.”

HBR is also scouting out potential sponsors. They believe the show offers a timely opportunity for advertisers to reach their audience with messaging related to the moment. “There is not a lot of sponsorship money out there these day. And part of our experiment was to find a new medium that was of the moment,” explained Ignatius. 

But sponsorship aside, future episodes will be focused on trying to engage people with the brand, and with the wider goals of bringing people into HBR’s subscription funnel. “The show is good for getting people to engage with our brand, and we want to continue to grow the number of people visiting the site,” Macht concluded. 

Featured Post | Policy

Want to clean up Facebook? Don’t listen to Menlo Park

Mark Zuckerberg is reportedly “begging to be regulated.” He has made several statements to that effect, suggesting that he supports state-backed regulation in four areas: elections, political discourse, privacy, and data portability. This week, Facebook released a white paper that outlines the company’s suggested path forward for content regulation. It does little to drive forward meaningful discussion around these serious issues. Instead, it clearly illustrates that Facebook would like to eschew responsibility for some of its profoundly negative effects in these areas while protecting its ability to continue business as usual in others.

As Zuckerberg put it in a recent op-ed, “regulation could set baselines for what’s prohibited and require companies to build systems for keeping harmful content to a bare minimum.” That said, Facebook’s plan suggests that companies like his should be required to have procedures for taking down offensive or illegal posts and to prepare quarterly reports on their efforts. If this isn’t the absolute bare minimum, I don’t know what is.

Clicky content

It is interesting that Facebook’s paper cites the European Convention on Human Rights which supports the needs of governments to regulate speech for “[T]he interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals…”

Some have argued that Facebook’s algorithms and data targeting capabilities, the same tools which have been refined and optimized for immense profits, actually encourage these sorts of activities. The argument goes like this: The algorithms promote content that gets clicks. The content that gets the most clicks is often salacious (yes, even to the point of being false) or highly targeted based on consumer data.

In this way, drug dealers target members of addict recovery groups, for example. Or false stories that reinforce specific bias, racism, or extremist views are targeted at specific individuals. Of course, those Facebook functions would remain very lightly regulated under the company’s proposal.

Competitive advantages

In his op-ed, Zuckerberg said he believes that “good regulation may hurt Facebook’s business in the near term but it will be better for everyone, including us, over the long term.” However, Facebook’s proposal clearly brings with it the added benefit (for Facebook) that the suggested regulations would build barriers and add compliance costs that entrenched companies are best equipped to overcome. It’s already a daunting challenge for a start-up social media company to break through in the current marketplace. This proposal would only increase that burden.

In what is quite possibly the icing on Zuckerberg’s cake, the proposal would grant global immunity to big tech platforms to carry out content moderation policies, which could also be used to shut out competitive services on their platforms. The proposal would essentially reinforce Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act globally, so that Facebook could claim legal protection for removing offensive posts and adjusting algorithms to disadvantage repeat offenders.

The last thing the world needs exported from America is blanket liability protection for Facebook. But Zuckerberg’s proposed immunity is intentionally broad to allow for all kinds of activity under a content moderation policy, including favoring its own services or certain business partners over others.

Anti-competitive landscaping

Facebook’s proposal includes an entire section about how – even with the proposed content moderation – enforcement of any guidelines will not only be a challenge; it will be imperfect.

Imagine if Instagram were still a separate company. Do you think Zuckerberg would be talking about how it’s too hard to scrub racist and sexist content from the service? Do you think he would offer only muddled, hazy responses about whether foreign governments manipulated his service to impact elections? Do you think he would be complaining that it’s hard to prevent drug dealers from targeting recovering addicts? No. He would be taking aggressive action to clean it up.

In fact, there is documented evidence that Facebook cared a lot more about these issues when they had competition. Acquiring WhatsApp and Instagram were likely a cheaper alternative to changing Facebook’s underlying and unhealthy business. Zuckerberg’s calculation could have been that turning his back on the public’s welfare was more acceptable than turning his back on shareholders.

The compliance question

As Facebook’s own report puts it, “Designed poorly, these efforts may stifle expression, slow innovation, and create the wrong incentives for platforms.” And Zuckerberg should know.  

While Zuckerberg calls for “regulation,” it’s important to consider Facebook’s track record of complying with existing regulations. Their approach to the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is disingenuous and sometimes misleading. In California, which recently rolled out the CCPA, Facebook is making case the that they don’t “sell” consumer data even under California’s very broad definition.

And that’s the point: Facebook is a for-profit company with responsibility only to its shareholders. Zuckerberg isn’t offering a real plan for regulation that will benefit society and democracy. He’s offering a plan to minimize the obligations and responsibility for Facebook. And this is why the best perspectives on how to clean up the mess that is Facebook are coming from outside of Menlo Park.

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

Reuters finds reader revenue critical for the future of media

Mobile and social media received a lot of attention this last decade. Major media trends included fragmented attention, intermediated media, and growing distrust in journalism. So, what will the next 10 years present? The Reuters Institute once again looks at our past and evaluates emerging trends to forecast what’s ahead in media in its report, Journalism, Media, and Technology Trends and Predictions 2020. Overarching themes for digital media in the next decade center on internet regulation, the re-establishment of trust in journalism, and creating a closer connection with the audience.

In addition, the report includes key trends and predictions for 2020 (see full report for the entire list).

1. The media business looks good; journalism less so.

The media business has a positive outlook but not so for journalism itself. While media executives feel confident or very confident about their company’s prospects in 2020, they feel less so about journalism in general. Their confidence for the media business centers on reader revenue and paid content, stable and growing income while advertising remains unstable. Further, the media business looks strong while consolidation is expected to continue. The latest in consolidation is a focus on keeping the editorial voice of the brands acquired while integrating back-end tech and data systems.

2. Digital leaders have mixed reviews for platforms.

Those surveyed are more positive about Google and Twitter than Apple, Facebook, Snapchat, and Amazon when it comes to initiatives to support journalism. Sixty percent of respondents rated Google as average or better while the other platforms were less favorable (it’s important to note that many publishers surveyed are currently or past recipients of Google innovation funds).

The overall sentiment from publishers regarding platforms is they want a level playing field where they can compete fairly and get proper compensation for their content and its value. Publishers in the EU are trying new intervention tactics to address these companies dominance. One example is the EU’s new copyright directive, aka the link tax. This policy requires platforms to pay for unlicensed content that appears in aggregated news services. France is the first member state to carry out the directive. Google reacted with displaying less content rather than pay. Courts will be deciding the next actions.

3. Reader revenue is a major focus for the new decade.

Executives believe reader revenue offers stable and growing income for news publishers. Half of those surveyed report that reader revenue is the most important revenue stream going forward. Subscriptions and memberships help publishers access reader information. In fact, many publishers rely on consumers login to their services for first party data. With new data tracking regulation in play and opt out ad-tracking browsers, publishers need to entice readers to register and login.

4. Audience growth, better measurement and ease of access will continue the growth of podcasts.

By 2021, US podcasting revenue is projected to grow by approximately 30% a year to reach over $1 billion. New formats are being explored from the recognized interview and chat format to new documentary formats.

Bigger audiences, better measurement, and easier access have combined to change the economics of podcasting. This is encouraging publishers to invest in creating more quality content and platforms to invest in better distribution and monetization.

Overall, the report finds that digital publishers seek to diversify revenue and strengthen user engagement with multiple touchpoints and products in the decade ahead. Newsroom have the added challenge of modernizing their presentation without compromising quality and trust and receiving proper compensation from the intermediates. While many industry challenges continue, publishers are well positioned to tackle these issues.

Perspectives

Marketers want to reach GenZ. Is TikTok the place to do it?

TikTok is the latest rage in social media, and there are some compelling reasons why it could emerge from fad status into a viable long term player. However, advertisers will be well-served by taking a measured approach to the platform. 

If you have a teenager at home, chances are good that you’ve become familiar with TikTok. It’s a highly-addictive social media video app for creating and sharing short (fewer than 60 seconds) videos, which is currently huge with Gen Zers. If you’re not familiar, a couple of examples will help: Here’s a video from Tom Brady, trolling himself to Whitesnake. And here’s one from the obligatory overnight social media sensation Maverick Baker, an 18 year old from Oklahoma who has an eye-popping 11 million followers. 

Big time

Launched in 2016, TikTok has half a billion global users. That makes it bigger than Reddit and Twitter, though half the size of Instagram and one-fifth of Facebook. But 500 million users in three years means it demands attention. It is also worth taking a look at its deep-pocketed owner, China’s ByteDance, which is valued at more than $50 billion and a key player in the country’s increasing app penetration in the U.S. 

At the same time, the social media landscape is littered with high-profile fatalities and crushing corrections. Think Google Plus, Vine, and Meerkat for the former, and MySpace and Tumblr for the latter. Either as the result of changing consumer preferences or being squeezed by the large established players, all of these platforms were either shuttered or pushed to the fringes of relevancy. So, while it is exciting to find an engaged audience on TikTok, it is essential for marketers to take an informed approach the platform.

Marketing that makes sense

Here’s how I’m advising brands to approach TikTok:

  • If The Gen Z Demographic Is Vital, You Have To Be There In A Meaningful Way: This means doing all of the things you’ve done with other social media platforms, even the ones that fell by the wayside. Define a strategy and goals, establish a presence, build an audience using both organic and paid media techniques, identify how other digital content can be repurposed on the platform, and figure out how to be successful as quickly as possible (which might require recruiting and sponsoring star power).
  • Assign The Platform To A Millenial. If you’re not a consumer products brand or one of the largest 100 advertisers, a more measured approach is the way to go, but formalization is key. Make TikTok account management and growth a part of someone’s job description,otherwise it won’t get done. Establish reasonable goals. Even 5 to 10 hours per week will be adequate to establish a beachhead in a few months and help you build a following (if you don’t already have a large social presence to build upon). 
  • At Minimum, Work The Platform Into Analytics & Reporting. The old chicken-or-the-egg theory will apply here. (Are you not getting any TikTok activity because you’re not on the platform in a meaningful way?) However, pursuing the baseline step of incorporating TikTok into regularly viewed reports will keep it on your radar. Over time, this will help to inform strategies and tactics. But if you don’t have the information forced into the discussion via reporting, it’ll be forgotten in the sea of all of the other digital channels that you’re already worrying about. 

By nature, I’m a skeptic. And inevitably this informs the way I think about how to approach new developments in the digital marketing industry — whether it be the so-called latest and greatest advertising tool from Facebook or Google, or the emergence of a brand new platform that seemingly popped up overnight. Given its numbers and parentage, TikTok deserves marketer attention. But given that many brands are still learning how to maximize performance in well-established digital channels, it makes sense for most of us to tread carefully on TikTok.   

About the author

Tim Bourgeois is a marketing advisor who helps brands optimize ROI on advertising, technology and agency investments through digital marketing audits and strategy engagements. 

Industry-Research

Distribution, operations, and reporting key in newsroom transformation

Traditional news channels are transforming into hybrid newsrooms, combining digital platforms into an integrated business model according to The 2019 State of Technology in Global Newsrooms Report. In fact, half of the newsrooms in six of eight global regions are now hybrid. This research was conducted by the International Center for Journalists (ICFJ) in 149 countries, in 14 languages, and completed by more than 4,100 journalists and news managers.

Some of the ICFJ ‘s key findings include:

Newsrooms mix formats to distribute their content with social media as the dominant platform.

  • Content distribution increased with two-thirds of news organizations distributing content in at least four formats, compared to 40% that did in 2017.
  • In terms of social media tools, Facebook (90%) and Twitter (73%) lead the pack. They are followed by YouTube, which grew to 60% usage from 48% in 2017 and Instagram, now at 48%, which is up from 33% in 2017.
  • Instant messaging apps as content distribution channels have declined in seven out of eight regions over the last two years. Eurasia/former USSR, Europe and North America registered the largest declines, 20 percentage points, 16, and 10, respectively.

Security and new technologies are part of the day-to-day workflow.

  • More than two-thirds of journalists and newsrooms secure their communications while only half did in 2017. In fact, in North American newsrooms, the percentage of those that secure their communications doubled to 82%. The preferred method of security is encrypted messaging apps.
  • One-third of news organizations employ dedicated fact-checkers. In addition, 44% of newsrooms and 37% of journalists said they engage in more fact-checking activities than they did the previous year.
  • More than twice as many journalists use social media verification tools today compared to 2017.

Most news organizations aim to dismantle misinformation and work to build trust.

  • Seventy-five percent of managers worry about the impact of misinformation. However, less than half of journalists believe that it impacts their day-to-day work.
  • Almost half of newsrooms are better at separating news stories from opinion pieces.
  • More than three-quarters (37%) of news managers in North America report building trust as a major challenge, up from 29% two years ago.

Government and politics dominate news coverage.

  • Government and politics dominant news journalism with the exception of news radio. Radio is more likely to cover specialized beats. In fact, 42% of news radio covers education and 43% covers health compared to 27% of websites that cover these topics.
  • While nearly one-third of journalists do some investigative reporting, this group appears to be quite limited with only 12% identifying as investigative reporters.
  • Smaller newsrooms appear to offer a community focus news and are twice as likely to report on local news as larger outlets. Twenty percent of small newsrooms cover local and hyperlocal events, compared to 10% of larger newsrooms (26+ employees).

More women are leading in journalism.

  • Women hold half or more of newsroom management positions in four of the eight regions. On average, one-third of management jobs globally are held by women. However, female leadership varies greatly by region.
  • Leading with women in newsroom management are Eurasia/former USSR at 62%, North America at 56%, Europe at 51%, and Latin America/Caribbean at 49%.
  • Women comprise 56% of newsroom employees in North America and 51% in Europe.
  • On average, women are 40% of the journalists in newsrooms worldwide.
  • Interestingly, more women (25%) compared to men (15%) report not having digital experience at the time they were hired.

This ICFJ study offers insight into the transition of traditional news outlets to hybrid news outlets with digital platforms integrations. It identifies the newsroom journey to improve the quality of news reporting. Newsroom operations must now include the fight against disinformation, the promotion of trusted news brands, the addition of heightened security, and the usage of enhanced data analytics.

Industry-Research

What to expect from disinformation during the 2020 elections (and how to respond)

Most academic, media and political analysts forecast the likelihood of disinformation playing a large role in the upcoming 2020 presidential election. The NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights echoes this projection in its new report, Disinformation and the 2020 Election: How the Social Media Industry Should Prepare. In fact, the analysis predicts that more disinformation will be generated state-side than the volume generated by foreign entities.

What to expect from disinformation

  • Deepfakes increase in volume. Deepfakes are easier to produce now due to advancements in deep-learning and editing systems. A deep-learning system produces a persuasive fake video by studying photographs and videos of a target person and merging them with images of an actor speaking and behaving in the same manner as the target. Once a preliminary fake is produced, a method known generative adversarial networks (GANs) makes it more believable. The GANs process detects any inaccuracies and corrects them. After a few rounds, the new fake video is complete and ready for amplification.
  • Disinformation spreads to the political left. While domestic disinformation comes most often from the political right, the left is also engaging in its creation and spread in social media.
  • Misled American staged events. Americans are now being recruited by Russian organizations to stage real-life activities to spread of disinformation. From deceptive IRA social media personas to anti-Muslim and pro-Muslim demonstrations, these events are promoted online to American followers to attend and draw media coverage.
  • Instagram, owned by Facebook, will be used more to spread disinformation. Image and video services are ideal for spreading disinformation via memes; photos combined with short, punchy text, and video clips.
  • WhatsApp, also owned by Facebook, will be used to amplifying disinformation. WhatsApp was used to send false content to large populations in the elections in Brazil and India. It could be a very active force in the U.S. 2020 presidential elections. 
  • Increased international activity. Not only is Russia involved in the creation and spread of falsehoods but Iran and China are also suppliers of disinformation.
  • Digital voter suppression continues as a threat in 2020. Election manipulation to continue in 2020. According to the University of Wisconsin, users tried to suppress voter turn-out in 2018 creating Twitter campaigns. One post tried to tell Trump opponents incorrect voting day information. Another tried to intimidate liberal voters by saying that NRA members and Republicans are bringing their guns to the polls.

Responding to disinformation

Social media companies put a few new measures in place since 2016 and 2018. They are now communicating more with each other, the government, and outside experts in an effort to address disinformation. Regardless, more has to be done to prepare for 2020. The NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights suggests the following recommendations for social platforms:

  1. Detect and remove deepfakes. Improve efficiency in removing deepfakes before they do their damage.
  2. Remove content that is provably false. Purge content that is definitively untrue.
  3. Hire a content overseer. Hire a senior official to oversee the process of guarding against disinformation.
  4. Make changes at Instagram. Act assertively to protect users from disinformation. Instagram doesn’t remove or down-rank a user’s main feed if disinformation is found. While the service does make it harder for new users to access the false content, it’s not a forceful enough action to stop the problem.
  5. Limit the reach of WhatsApp. WhatsApp now limits the reach of a message to 1,280 users (5 chat groups x 256 members in each) versus the previous maximum reach of 66,536 users (265 chat groups x 256 members in each).
  6. Defend against for-profit disinformation. Social platforms need to pay close attention to false content distributed by corporations, consultants, and public relations firms. Many companies specializing in clickbait manage successful businesses alluring naïve and intrigued consumers attracted to conspiracy theories and fake items.
  7. Support legislation on political ads and voter suppression. Push the Senate to approve the Honest Ads Act, to include political disclosure standards to online ads.
  8. Improve industry-wide collaboration. Form a permanent inter-company task force devoted to fighting disinformation.
  9. Teach social media literacy to the public. Educate users about questionable content and what to do if they come across it.

NYU cites findings from The Oxford Internet Institute and from four universities, Princeton, University of Exeter, Washington University and University of Michigan. This body of research shows a decrease in disinformation between 2016 and 2018. However, with the 2020 being a presidential election year, all anticipate intensified interference by both foreign and domestic U.S. actors. Continued efforts are needed to combat disinformation and protect the electoral process.

Featured Post | Innovation

The scoop on why The Washington Post is way into TikTok

Whether it’s hurtling singles to record breaking runs on the charts, or reminding you about your own mortality, music video mashup and sharing app TikTok is now an ingrained part of the zeitgeist. 

Beyond the latest remix of Lil Nas X’s Old Town Road, the app has piqued the interest of social media managers at news publishers. Launched by Chinese tech company ByteDance in 2017, the service merged with Shanghai-based lip-syncing app Musica.ly before its popularity really took off in 2018. It became the most downloaded app in Apple’s App Store and hit one billion downloads on all mobile platforms in early 2019. 

To catch everyone up: TikTok allows users to record 15- to 60-second looping vertical video. It has a built in editor to add background audio tracks and augmented reality-inspired overlay graphics. It’s huge adoption has been buoyed by using samples of pop music as background tracks. TikTok has partnered with music studios to navigate the tricky copyright status of those tracks and music stars have used the platform to leverage viral memes to spread awareness.

Why is this news?

Why should news managers care though? “To me, the why is obvious. It’s a whole new generation. [TikTok is] basically Gen Z’s biggest platform. Not all Gen Z likes TikTok, but a lot of them love it passionately,” says Washington Post video editor Dave Jorgenson. 

Jorgenson has been behind The Washington Post’s push into the format. “There’s not a lot of news on TikTok. And, for someone who works for a newspaper or a broadcast network, that might seem kind of scary. But for me, I was like, ‘Oh, that’s amazing,’” he says. “I mean, why wouldn’t we use this app that — I think as of Friday — was number one in the entertainment section of iTunes.”

Other brands on the app include NBCNews, E! News, and The Dallas Morning News. Though Jorgenson seems to have truly tapped into the TikTok format, attracting a devoted audience to the Washington Post’s TikToks. 

A culture of its own

Users spend an average of 52 minutes a day on the app. And, for Jorgenson, it’s been a way to introduce a newer generation to the venerable newspaper brand. But that’s taken a fairly specific strategy. “I’ve been very heavy handed, you’ll notice a Washington Post literal, physical newspaper cameo and we really want that to stick in there. It is funny how many people think that my name is Washington or something,” said Jorgenson. 

The other main benefit Jorgenson sees is a pretty wide open space in the app for breaking news. There just aren’t many competitors. But he adds that anyone interested in using the platform should take some time to familairize themselves with the culture. 

“Embracing the culture is really important,” he says. Sure, a brand or newspaper can try and jump to profit off the growing platform without figuring out what that culture is. However, audiences “know when they don’t understand the app, and they don’t know what’s going on.”

The scoop on TikTok

But if a brand is considering the space, there are a couple things to understand about going viral on the platform. Similar to Instagram, there’s an algorithmically organized “For You” section where the app surface relevant content for the user. Videos appear based on the Likes given by the user’s social circle.

There’s another unique way that TikTok puts its own spin on sharing called a “duet.” Users of the platform can record their reactions to be played concurrently beside the original video. And, if an account large enough does that, it ends up being a huge boost to viewing numbers. 

“Another tip for a newsroom would be to use popular songs that everyone is using,” said Jorgenson. In fact, TikTok displays videos using the same songs together allowing discovery of content along similar themes. 

At the end of the day, Jorgenson sees others in the news space following the Post’s lead. “I’ve started to be pretty open about how I do it because I think competition is good,” he says.

“A friendly rivalry is a good thing on any social app.” 

©2024 Digital Content Next. All Rights Reserved.