Social media gets a lot of bad press these days, and for good reason. It’s associated with any number of negative effects – from misinformation to increased anxiety, polarization and more. However, there’s no denying its impact as a cultural force. And, to be fair, there are notable bright spots including the ability of social platforms to increase awareness around mental health and environmental issues and enjoy moments of cultural significance, hobbies and entertainment.
With the launch of PBS Film Club, this trusted public broadcasting service known for its high-quality educational, cultural, and informative programming is doubling-down on the potential of social media to build constructive communities around shared interests. As PBS VP of Marketing Amy Wigler points out, “edutainment is one of the most popular types of content on social media, and we do edutainment better than anyone.”
A new social video series – and partner
Produced by the PBS Social Media team, the PBS Film Club – a new social video series – publishes every week on PBS’s TikTok and Instagram channels. Notably, however, PBS has also partnered with Fable, a community-powered platform for discovering, tracking, and discussing books and TV shows. Given PBS’ strong presence across established social channels (200K on TikTok and over 1 million Instagram followers), the decision to partner with Fable was as much around ethos as the ability to reach a new audience.
Founded in 2019 by Padmasree Warrior, Fable’s mission is to foster a love of stories of all kinds and build meaningful communities through curated experiences. Fable’s philosophy centers on promoting literacy, encouraging thoughtful conversations, and creating a supportive environment for readers of all backgrounds. Fable bills itself as a community for bookworms and binge-watchers—both of which titles Wigler and Pina personally and professionally embrace. “Social media should be about community and connection,” says Wigler. “And that’s what Fable is to me.”
Community-centric audience approach
In addition to the launch of its Fable club, the initial PBS Film Club video series roll-out includes 10 episodes hosted by Marissa Pina and Lucky Nguyen. Pina, who is PBS’ Senior Manager, Social Engagement and Multiplatform Marketing says the social team came up with the idea when they were thinking about how to serialize content across TikTok in a way that made sense to showcase PBS’ vast library.
Welcome to our very first episode of #PBSFilmClub ✨ This week we’re discussing The Perfect Crime from American Experience and what we’ve learned from it. We want to hear from you, comment below or join us on Fable to share your thoughts. #pbs#documentary#truecrime#bobbyfranks
“We were looking for ways to kind of extend our engagement and our community reach especially for younger and more diverse audiences, particularly Gen Z… In the past, I would have done something like this maybe by creating a Facebook group. But Fable already had the audience.” That audience, says Pina, is over a million strong, comprised mostly of those ages 18-35.
To be sure, reaching a young audience is critical to the longevity of any media brand. However, as Wigler points out, “I can no longer run a promo and expect that people will talk about it. I was intrigued about the idea of using content marketing to build audience in a new way.”
“I’ll speak for myself in particular, since I’m in that demo,” says Pina. “I’m probably not going to watch a promo. But when my friend calls me on the phone and tells me, ‘Hey, I’ve been watching this crazy documentary,’ or ‘I’ve been watching this amazing show,’ nine times out of 10, going to watch it.” With PBS Film club, Pina believes they’ve landed on an approach that will “tie in our library with the cultural zeitgeist and things that are going on in the world” in an authentic way.
Authentic audience connections
Throughout the series, Pina and Nguyen will highlight the cultural relevance of past and present PBS programming through short clips. The idea is to bridge today’s trends with some of the historical and nostalgic content from PBS programs. And, in a market crowded with content and faced by younger demographics that lean into individual creators over institutions, landing on a strategy that doesn’t just reach the audience, but truly engages them is the recipe every media company is trying to perfect.
For its strategy to work, “people are essential,” says Pina. “We talk a lot about authenticity, connection and communication. To do that you need to be able to connect with a person.”
Wigler is quick to point to the strength of PBS social team and the hosts of Film Club as winning components of this initiative. But both see the value in allowing audiences to “see the people behind the brand, that maybe looks like them,” as Pina put it. And they plan to include more of the people behind the scenes at PBS in Film Club.
So, while social media has become a complex ecosystem that brands must carefully navigate, Wigler is among those who believes it is critical to have a presence in order to engage with younger audiences, who rely on social for content discovery. However, in keeping with the company’s goal to empower individuals to achieve their potential and strengthen the social, democratic, and cultural health of the U.S., PBS approaches this social-first initiative, and particularly its new Fable fan community, “as a way to explore creative partnerships in the social space that allow our content to shine and community to form,” says Wigler. “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if PBS were known as the friendliest place on the Internet and social media? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if people like our mission is to educate, inspire, and entertain,” Wigler suggests. “And wouldn’t it be amazing if PBS on social media was synonymous for the ability to do all of that?”
Today’s vast television ecosystem combines streaming services, traditional pay-TV, and free ad-supported platforms, reflecting a sea change in how viewers find and consume video content. The scales are tipping in favor of online sources their first stop when seeking out video content. Over two-thirds (67%) of respondents report they turn to an online source first when they want to watch TV. Only 26% default to a traditional MVPD (Multichannel Video Programming Distributor) set-top box. Hub Entertainment Research’s new report, Decoding the Default, highlights an increasingly fragmented ecosystem where viewers lean more toward online platforms than ever.
From traditional TV to streaming
As cord-cutting and “cord-never” populations continue to grow, the number of viewers who rely solely on traditional pay-TV services is dwindling. According to Hub’s findings, more than twice as many viewers use both traditional pay-TV and streaming platforms rather than just one type. Audiences find that streaming platforms offer more options and flexibility than traditional TV. Deloitte’s Digital Media Trends report echoes this, noting that many consumers find streaming services more aligned with their viewing needs. They prioritize content that matches their schedules rather than set broadcast times.
Viewers’ SVOD stack
Viewers’ video-on-demand (SVOD) “stacks” are getting larger, with many people subscribing to at least three different services. The report shows that the percentage of consumers using three or more SVODs more than doubled since 2020, illustrating the growth of multi-platform use. This expansion is partially due to the massive libraries each SVOD offers; for instance, Netflix, Hulu, and Disney+ have extensive catalogs covering different genres and audience segments.
Yet, while viewers may stack multiple services, only a few platforms become their “default.” Netflix leads this default category, with 26% of respondents choosing it first. This trend toward Netflix as the initial go-to aligns with its status as a pioneering platform with an established reputation for both quantity and quality of content. Hulu and Amazon Prime Video follow while Disney+ and Max (formerly HBO Max) fall slightly behind.
Online streaming is the new “home base”
Hub’s findings underscore that, for most viewers, the default experience of “turning on the TV” starts with online streaming. About one-third of viewers say they now go directly to a built-in smart TV app, showing a 50% increase in usage since 2021.
The appeal of smart TV apps lies in their convenience. They provide immediate access to various streaming platforms without additional hardware. The transition to smart TV apps represents a natural evolution of how viewers experience TV.
Research from the Leichtman Research aligns with this trend, finding that 87% of U.S. households own a device connecting their TV to the internet, from smart TVs to streaming media players. This widespread connectivity facilitates using apps like Netflix, Hulu, and Prime Video, solidifying them as the primary sources of TV content.
SVOD loyalty driven by “favorite shows”
Hub’s report highlights a crucial driver of platform loyalty—exclusive content. When viewers have a specific favorite show exclusive to a particular SVOD, they’re more likely to remain loyal to that platform. This “stickiness” effect is essential in a crowded market where content variety can make or break viewer retention.
On the other hand, traditional MVPDs still hold an edge on live TV, particularly for sports and news. These content categories remain strongholds for pay-TV providers, appealing to a demographic that values real-time events. However, this loyalty is eroding. The report notes that nearly a quarter of MVPD users would consider canceling their service if forced to choose between platforms.
The growth of FAST
FAST services are also becoming a mainstay for many viewers, especially those who prioritize content variety over exclusivity. FAST platforms appeal to cost-conscious consumers who prefer a broad selection of programming without additional monthly costs. Their rise complements subscription streaming by offering a fallback for when paid services are unavailable or too costly.
FAST providers such as Pluto TV and Tubi are gaining traction as they offer a unique blend of on-demand and live content with a more traditional TV-like feel. According to a survey from eMarketer, over half of U.S. adults now use FAST services. For these viewers, the trade-off of ads in exchange for free content is more appealing than paying for an additional SVOD, further underscoring the complexity of the modern TV ecosystem.
Will MVPDs adapt?
The rapid decline of MVPD set-top boxes poses an existential challenge to pay-TV providers, who now face pressure to innovate or risk further market loss. Some MVPDs are pivoting to streaming bundles or hybrid solutions to capture traditional and digital audiences. However, Hub’s report suggests these changes may be too late. As smart TV apps and streaming services become the “default” choice for viewing, MVPDs could be relegated to a niche role unless they compete with streaming platforms on convenience, affordability, and exclusive content.
As more people rely on streaming services and smart TVs, the influence of traditional MVPDs is waning. Netflix’s leading SVOD “default” position reflects its early mover advantage and vast content library. Meanwhile, traditional TV’s staples—live news and sports—feel less essential as viewers increasingly favor on-demand content.
One of my new favorite YouTube channels is First We Feast, specifically the show Hot Ones, where celebrities answer great interview questions as they eat progressively hotter wings. While it’s always entertaining, a recent interview with Academy Award winner Matt Damon really stuck with me because of the way it parallels what is happening with news media today.
He was asked about the macroeconomics of Hollywood, particularly how streaming has affected the subjective quality of content compared to decades ago. Damon explained how DVDs once generated huge revenue, allowing studios to take more creative risks because they could rely on profits from DVD sales after a film’s theatrical release. He shared an example from a studio executive who explained that making a movie would, in theory, cost $25 million, with another $25 million for print and advertising. Gross box office receipts are then split with theater owners, who typically keep about half. This structure means the film would need to earn around $100 million just to break even or beginning to even discuss profit.
Safe bets versus experimentation and adaptability
This hit me close to home, even though I’m in a different industry. It made me think about how the news media industry has also undergone drastic changes due to technology, shifts in audience consumption habits, and declines in traditional revenue streams like print subscriptions and classified ads. Both industries now take fewer risks in unpredictable environments, arguably leading to a drop in content quality and diversity. While exceptional work is still produced, the shift toward safer, commercially viable content is evident. Yet the evolving landscape hints at a future that demands a more integrated and adaptive approach.
Hollywood content creation, as Damon suggests, centers on box office hits that drive significant revenue in their theatrical run. In news media, revenue reliance is on digital ads, subscriptions, and paywalls.
Damon’s discussion of the economics of film made me wonder: What’s the new “DVD-sales” for the news media industry? What will create sustainable revenue beyond conventional methods? As technology advances, I believe the solution is in building new models that effectively leverage current tech and audience trends to offer long-term financial stability.
While traditional news content remains important, it’s clear that audience expectations constantly evolve. Technology unlocks new possibilities which organizations must experiment with to master. At the same time, communities and influencers are reshaping how audiences connect with news. To stay relevant, news media has to adapt to these changing consumption patterns and provide deeper engagement. It’s time for journalism to meet these evolving demands, focusing on the key areas that will define the future of news and become the industry’s new “DVD-sales.”
Diverse and individualized identity in media
As audience preferences evolve, identity and self-representation are becoming central to media consumption. People no longer want just content—they want content that reflects their values and creates a sense of belonging. Subscriptions, affiliations, and donations have become extensions of personal identity, allowing individuals to support causes, movements, or news platforms that align with who they are or aspire to be. This shift is empowering. It fosters deeper connections between the audience and the media. However, it requires representation and relatability.
Audiences increasingly seek a voice in the content they engage with. Community-led journalism and immersive experiences meet this demand by offering behind-the-scenes access, deeper insights into investigative reporting, and platforms for expressing concerns and successes within communities. These media-driven town halls—both in-person and virtual—create spaces where passion and substance shape the conversation. Historically, community-led journalism has also empowered underserved groups. It gives them ownership of their stories, fosters empathy, and reinforces a sense of identity as individuals see themselves reflected in the content.
Mission-driven partnerships
As audiences seek media that reflects their authentic selves, corporations and philanthropic organizations are aligning with news outlets that share their values to forge impact-driven partnerships that open new revenue opportunities for news media. These partnerships—particularly with philanthropic foundations, renewable energy companies, and organizations focused on health and sustainability—fund journalism with shared societal goals. Rooted in corporate social responsibility, they empower journalism to deliver objective reporting while driving meaningful social change.
By supporting investigative journalism, documentaries, and projects that resonate with consumers’ values, these partnerships enhance engagement and create a sustainable, mission-driven funding model. And companies that invest in media that align with their core values forge deeper connections with consumers who see these efforts as an extension of their own identities. This trend could shift news revenue models from short-term advertising to long-term, scalable partnerships, offering a significant and exciting opportunity for the future of news media.
Transformative role of technology
While sticking with the tried-and-true tactics may seem like the safe bet, the industry will need to reinvigorate its spirit of innovation and risk to best connect with ever-evolving audience expectations. Technology has empowered today’s audiences to be more authentic by providing quicker access to information and more immediate ways to explore their interests. Information access helps people understand themselves and the world around them with greater speed and depth.
Newsrooms can harness this shift by embracing immersive reporting through interactive experiences like AR and VR, which allows individuals to step into different perspectives, fostering empathy and engagement. These immersive technologies, from placing reporters on the front lines to using interactive learning platforms, enable audiences to connect more deeply with content, helping them refine their views and consider how they want to contribute or enact change.
The real breakthrough, however, is in AI’s role in driving personalized engagement. AI allows news organizations to deliver hyper-personalized content based on individual habits and preferences, a process once manual and time-consuming. With AI-enhanced data insights, organizations can understand their audiences at a granular level, offering timely, relevant, and highly customized content. This deeper connection with consumers anticipates their needs and creates impactful experiences, potentially transforming how news is consumed and delivered.
The road ahead for media revenue
So where is this all leading, and how does this become the new “DVD-sales” for news media? The answer lies in a transformative, identity-driven, community and tech-powered ecosystem where audiences help shape the content. This approach will foster loyalty and create scalable, sustainable revenue beyond traditional ads and subscriptions. By leveraging the combined power of community and technology, news organizations can form partnerships with purpose-aligned entities, redefining how journalism is funded and experienced.
I envision a digital platform where users actively participate, voting on story ideas or contributing content in an environment that tackles local and global issues. With AI and data-driven personalization, users can receive tailored content and news organizations can create high-demand immersive experiences like virtual town halls.
If you’re wondering how these ideas translate into reality, take a look at City Bureau in Chicago, which is already putting some of them to work. This journalism lab is reimagining local media by equipping communities to address information inequity. Their Documenters program trains and pays residents to cover local government meetings, boosting transparency and citizen involvement.
This concept upholds journalistic integrity, ensures accuracy and drives meaningful community involvement. It integrates the community into the editorial process without compromising professional standards. The approach builds authentic connections and strengthens trust, which is crucial for attracting corporate sponsorships and philanthropic partnerships. No, it does not come in a handy book-sized package like the DVD. However, this is a model that puts the audience at the center to build a sustainable model through experimentation in how the news is made, delivered, and funded.
Change is an inevitable part of journalism. No one would deny the radical – and ongoing – technological shifts impacting the craft over the past three decades. And few (if any) would deny that some things have stayed the same. These include both a steadfast belief in the importance of journalistic ethics and the existence of fake news.
Where there are journalists creating news, there are codes of ethics to guide them. And where there is information widely disseminated to the public, there are those who would use it to communicate falsehoods. Without doubt, the two have intersected time and again throughout history. And today is no different. In fact, the incentives of modern media distribution may well lend themselves to the spread of anything incendiary (if not entirely accurate).
The familiar story about the impact of Orson Welles’ radio play The War of the Worlds is typically cast as a warning about the influence of the media on the public. Legend has it that listeners to the fake news alert truly believed that aliens were invading the country. But that appears to have been only part of the story.
Some scholars speculate that newspapers, acting on their fear that radio would siphon off their audience, planted the story to discredit their upstart competitor. According to Pooley and Saclow, the real fear was rooted in the media business model. Dependent on advertising, newspapers had to prove that they still had what it takes to attract readers. In order to do so, why not use their medium to report on spurious accounts, thus undermining radio and entering the grey area of fake-ish news.
Social media and purveyors of truth
Fast forward a hundred years. The contemporary focus on fake news has been expressed as starkly black and white. There are champions of truth and there are the peddlers of lies – at any point on the political spectrum. However, there is actually a good deal of unexplored grey space in the fake news discussion. And the media is due for a bit of soul searching in where it fits into this space.
Certainly, the premise that social media is solely responsible for the proliferation of mis- and disinformation is one that appeals to media-watchers, scholars and journalists of all stripes. They (social platforms) took audience attention and advertising revenue with their addictive design, algorithmic acumen, and surveillance advertising models. Given the sheer reach of these platforms, it is only natural to assume that they are responsible for the spread of fake news.
Yes, but… While social media platforms can track the number of views, likes and shares, they certainly can’t tell us why a post was shared and how someone reacted to it. Fake news may travel far and fast, but—while a key consideration—spread is only part of the problem.
Reach is something all media platforms and players crave. And as the fight for audience attention intensifies, the pressure is on to compete—which may mean everybody finds themselves playing by the platforms’ rules.
However, as social platforms “distance themselves from the news,” decrease its visibility, or outright block news altogether, the media business is presented with an uncomfortable moment on many levels. The traffic firehose has been kinked. Newsmakers need to rethink how to find, attract and build audiences. And if that’s less from social platforms and a return to direct relationships, it’s a great time to examine the way the message has been skewed to the social medium.
Journalists make good news
During the course of research I’m working on with an international workgroup (funded by the Center for Advanced Internet Studies in Bochum, Germany and which includes DCN’s editorial director, Michelle Manafy), we had the opportunity to speak to 20 U.S.-based news professionals. We asked them what they believed the role of the media is in society, and what they perceive as standing in the way of achieving that objective.
Every single one of them expressed the idea that their responsibility was to inform the public. And nearly all of them said that this was getting harder to do because of journalism’s broken business model, which they pointed out is driven by increased competition for attention, particularly with or on social platforms. Unfortunately, this attention imperative—on a digital playing field where comments and shares have taken on outsized import—incentivizes attention over information.
It feels a bit like “any publicity is good publicity.” Except that, as they adhere to standards of quality that beget trust, journalists should be picky about what kind of publicity they seek to attract.
Today’s distribution channels—social media “public square” —may not afford us the ability to carefully curate the presentation of news as we might like. But just as we might look back and shudder at Yellow Journalism or propaganda-laden news reels, we need to own our place in the history that is unfolding.
Precision is key
If a headline or a soundbite may be the only aspect of the news our audiences are exposed to we must view it as such. Even when we know that a single scintillating fact is likely to get passed around on social, responsible journalistic practices mean we must provide the kind of context that avoids the likelihood of misinterpretation. Journalistic ethics should encourage us to resist the temptation of drifting into the grey zone with misleading hooks.
If research suggests something—and remember, one report rarely “proves” anything—we must avoid blanket statements and absolutes, even if they are going to be much more “engaging” on social. If engaging means fueling the rage cycle with pithy half truths and headlines that highlight the most flame-fanning aspect of a story, the news media becomes complicit in the fake news lifecycle on social. Undoubtedly this approach is frequently rewarded with fierce debate. It might spread like wildfire on the socials. And to some, that will feel like success; who doesn’t want their 15 minutes of fame? Of course, this begs the question as to mission of news media.
But as social media dials down the news, it only gets harder to break through. And by extension, the incentives to find that sick factoid most likely to go viral grows.
Rebuild trust and the value proposition
Informing the public. Holding the powerful accountable. Representing the voices that go unheard. Serving the essential role in American Democracy as the Fourth Estate. These are the things that the news journalists we spoke to see as the role of the media in society.
And as the news seeks to find its way back to the American public; as it seeks to rebuild its crumbling business models, these are the foundational pillars.
Ask yourself what a misleading headline does to trust and your audience relationship because that relationship takes on a whole new meaning when the goal is more than a click, comment, like or follow. As we focus on the post-social distribution model, random clicks fade in importance. Fleeting engagement will be reshaped as loyalty. And loyalty is built on trust; trust that you are making news so valuable it’s worth paying for.
Even when unintentional, media bias can do measurable economic harm to entire nations, new research indicates. The economies of African countries are negatively impacted by media bias to the tune of 4.2 billion U.S. dollars in inflated interest payments annually, according to The Cost of Media Stereotypes to Africa. The study by Africa No Filter and Africa Practice reveals that by reinforcing negative stereotypes, ignoring positive stories, and misrepresenting African issues through ethnocentrism, media bias could be costing Africa billions per year in high borrowing costs.
In the financial world, negative media coverage heightens perceived risk, which impacts investor sentiment and sovereign bond yields. The research findings indicate that news coverage of African elections focuses disproportionately on negative issues such as violence and election fraud when compared to non-African countries with similar risk profiles. For example, the term “violence” was found to be highly associated with Africa in media headlines – especially in election coverage – even when the content of the article didn’t warrant it. Western media also tends to perpetuate misunderstandings and oversimplifications, such as referring to Africa as a monolith, neglecting to convey the complexities of individual African countries and events.
Global Africa media bias revealed
The study included a comparison of news coverage from seven global media giants: Al Jazeera, the BBC, CNN, Bloomberg, Financial Time, Reuters, and The Economist, all of which are commonly used by foreign investors to keep abreast of international economic and political news. The material covering African countries was compared to that of non-African countries with similar risk profiles.
Negative sentiment in global media reports was found to be more prevalent in articles about African countries during elections when contrasted with comparable Asian countries during elections, even among countries with similar political risk scores.
An astonishing 88% of content about Kenya and 69% about Nigeria demonstrated negative bias, compared with 48% of content on Malasia, which has a similar medium risk profile.
Egypt’s coverage was more than twice as likely to be negative (66%) than Thailand’s (32%), even though both countries are classified as high-risk.
Overall negative bias was still present but reduced when a greater variety of media outlets were added to the equation, highlighting the importance of a diverse media landscape.
Election headlines and buzz words
Media headlines pertaining to African elections were often found to contain negative words, even when the text of the article didn’t align with the negativity of the headline, clearly demonstrating an Africa bias. The word “violence” or “violent” appeared much more often in headlines about Kenyan elections (5.8%), and Nigerian elections (4.4%) than in coverage of elections in Malaysia (.1%), Thailand (0%) and Denmark (0%).
The report found a significant increase in negative bias when covering elections in African countries, compared to elections in non-African countries with similar political risk profiles. For example:
Use of the word “rigged”, or “rigging” appeared in 16% of the articles about Kenyan elections, but in 2% of those about Malaysia and 0% of those about Denmark.
The word “corruption” or “corrupt” was found in 43% of the articles about South African elections and 28% of the articles covering Nigerian elections, compared with only 2% of those about Denmark’s elections and 20% about Thailand’s elections.
News around election periods was analyzed because that content is most likely to be covered by global media outlets.
The financial cost of media bias
Media representation impacts investor sentiment and perceptions of risk, influencing investment decisions and borrower interest rates. Comparing differences in bond yields and media representation between countries with similar political risk profiles reveals the disadvantage that negative media slant confers upon African countries. For example, while both Egypt and Thailand are considered high-risk, Egypt’s bond yields tend to be around 15% compared with Thailand’s 2.5%. The difference translates into significantly higher repayment costs.
Bond yields were disproportionately high even for low-risk African countries compared to their non-African counterparts. For example, South Africa and Denmark both rank as low in political risk, yet South Africa’s average quarterly bond yields range between 8.3% and 8.5% while Denmark’s range from 0.5% to negative 0.2%. Report authors calculate that if the difference in negative media sentiment was adjusted, South African bond yields would decrease by 0.05 %, resulting in big savings on interest repayments for the country.
The media can improve it’s Africa coverage
The New Global Media Index for Africa, produced by Africa No Filter, The Africa Center, and University of Cape Town, investigated a thousand news articles from twenty leading global media outlets. The researchers found that many of shortcomings noted in the report can be mitigated by acting on the following goals:
Broader Representation: Interview more diverse sources, including ordinary African citizens, women, and people from marginalized groups. Current coverage focuses on powerful men and elites.
Geographic Scope: Encompass a wider range of African countries. Many organizations treat the African continent as a monolith, hindering understanding of individual countries and narratives.
Topic Diversity: Provide greater balance by covering the arts, culture, innovation, technology, and positive development.
Depth of coverage: Delve deeper into narratives to better inform audiences about Africa’s complexities.
Critical Self-Examination: Regularly assess news practices and content to foster more accurate and nuanced coverage of African countries.
How to improve election coverage
Due to heightened news bias around elections, Africa No Filter released How to Write About an African Election: A Guide. The guide encourages media organizations to engage in more complex and nuanced coverage around elections by exploring unique angles, including stories of human interest and grassroots mobilization. Key take-aways:
Move away from the old “war room” approach to election coverage, which relies too heavily on official announcements and pre-scheduled events. Instead, notice stories of civic activity, peaceful government transitions, and democratic advancements.
Practice solutions journalism by highlighting positive initiatives, innovations, and successes.
Engage with the youth. Africa has the youngest population in the world. 78% of new voter registrations in South Africa are people aged 16 to 29, according to the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), debunking the idea that young people are disengaged from politics. The guide suggests amplifying the voices of young citizens, as well as engaging them with platforms and formats they prefer.
The takeaway
The good news is that coverage of African countries has improved over the past 20 years, according to The Cost of Media Stereotypes to Africa, trending towards more positive tone and content. However, global media still tend to emphasize articles about poverty, problematic leadership, disease, corruption, and conflicts when reporting on events in African countries.
Considering the new data, it’s critical for media leaders to raise awareness of the tendency toward negative bias when it comes to coverage of African countries. In addition to the impact on bond yields, it is likely that negative press also has an impact on African tourism, development funding, foreign direct investment, and other potential revenue.
While in some ways the web has evolved organically, it also functions within accepted structures and guidelines that have allowed websites to operate smoothly and to enable discovery online. One such protocol is robots.txt, which emerged in the mid 1990s to give webmasters some control over which web spiders could visit their sites. A robots.txt file is a plain text document that is placed in the root directory of a website. It contains instructions for search engine bots on which pages to crawl and which to ignore. Significantly, compliance with its directives is voluntary. Google, has long followed and endorsed this voluntary approach. And no publisher has dared to exclude Google considering its 90%+ share of the search market.
Today, a variety of companies use bots to crawl and scrape content from websites. Historically, content has been scraped for relatively benign purposes such as non-commercial research and search indexing, which promises the benefit of driving audiences to a site. In recent years, however, previously benign and new crawlers have begun scraping content for commercial purposes such as training Large Language Models (LLMs), use in Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) tools, and inclusion in retrieval augmented generation outputs (aka “grounding”).
Under current internet standards such as the robots.txt protocol, publishers can only block or allow crawlers by domain. Publishers are not able to communicate case-by-case (company, bot and purpose) exceptions in accordance with their terms of use in a machine-readable format. And again: compliance with the protocol is entirely voluntary. The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) held a workshop in September on whether and how to update the robots.txt protocol and it appears the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), which is responsible for the protocol, plans to convene more discussions on how best to move forward.
A significant problem is that scraping happens without notification to or consent from the content owners. It often violates the website’s terms of use in blatant violation of applicable laws. OpenAI and Google recognized this imbalance when they each developed differing controls (utilizing the robots.txt framework) for publishers to opt out of having their content used for certain purposes.
Predictably, however, these controls don’t fully empower publishers. For example, Google will allow a publisher to opt out of training for their AI services. However, if a publisher wants to prevent their work from being used in Generative AI Search—which allows Google to redeploy and monetize the content—they have to opt out of search entirely. It would be immensely useful to have an updated robots.txt protocol to provide more granular controls for publishers in light of the massive scraping operations of AI companies.
The legal framework that protects copyrighted works
While big tech companies tout the benefits of AI, much of the content crawled and scraped by bots is protected under copyright law, or other laws which are intended to enable publishers and other businesses to protect their investments against misappropriation and theft.
Copyright holders have the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute and monetize their copyrighted works as they see fit for a defined period. These protections incentivize the creative industries by allowing them to reap the fruits of their labors and enable them to reinvest into new content creation. The benefits to our society are nearly impossible to quantify as the varied kinds of copyrighted material enrich our lives daily: music, literature, film and television, visual art, journalism, and other original works provide inspiration, education, and personal and societal transformation. The Founding Fathers included copyright in the Constitution (Article I, section 8, clause 8) because they recognized the value of incentivizing the creation of original works.
In addition to copyright, publishers also rely on contractual protections contained in their terms of service which govern how the content on their websites may be accessed and exploited. Additionally, regulation against unlawful competition is designed to protect against the misappropriation of content for purposes of creating competing products and services. This is to deter free riding and prevent dilution of incentives to invest in new content. The proper application of and respect for these laws is part of the basic framework underlying the thriving internet economy.
The value of copyrighted works must be protected
The primary revenues for publishers are advertising, licensing, and, increasingly, subscriptions. Publishers make their copyrighted content available to consumers through a wide range of means, including on websites and apps that are supported by various methods for monetization such as metered paywalls. It is important to note that even if content is available online and not behind a subscription wall, that does not extinguish its copyrighted status. In other words: It is not free for the taking.
That said, there are many cases where a copyright holder may choose to allow the use of their original work for commercial or non-commercial purposes. In these cases, potential licensees contact the copyright holder to seek a negotiated agreement, which may define the extent to which the content may be used and any protections for the copyright holder’s brand.
Unfortunately, AI developers, in large part, do not respect the framework of laws and rules described above. They seek to challenge and reshape these laws in a manner that would be exceptionally harmful for digital publishers, by bolstering their position that content made publicly available should be free for the taking – in this case, to build and operationalize AI models, tools and services.
Publishers are embracing the benefits of AI innovation. They are partnering with developers and third parties, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes, to provide access and licenses for the use of their content in a manner that is mutually beneficial. However, incentives are lacking to encourage AI developers to seek permission and access/licensing solutions. Publishers need a practical tool to signal to bots at scale whether they wish to permit crawling and scraping for the purposes of AI exploitation.
Next steps and the future of robots.txt
The IETF should update the robots.txt protocol to create more specific technical measures that will help publishers convey the purposes for which their content may or may not be used, including by expressing limitations on the scraping and use of their content for GAI purposes. While this should not be viewed as in any way reducing the existing legal obligations of third parties to seek permission directly from copyright holders, it could be useful for publishers to be able to signal publicly and through a machine-readable format what uses are permitted, e.g. scraping for search purposes is permitted, whereas scraping to train LLMs or other commercial GAI purposes is not.
Of course, a publisher’s terms of use should always remain legally binding and trump any machine-readable signals. Furthermore, these measures should not be treated as creating an “opt out” system for scraping. A publisher’s decision not to employ these signals is not permission (either explicit or implicit) to scrape websites or use content in violation of the terms of use or applicable laws. And any ambiguity must be construed in favor of the rights holders.
In order to achieve a solution in a timely and efficient manner, the focus should be on a means to clearly and specifically signal permission or prohibitions against crawling and scraping for the purposes of AI exploitation. Others may seek to layer certain licensing solutions on top of this, which should be left to the market. In addition, it should be ensured that there is transparency for bots which crawl and scrape for purposes of AI exploitation. Any solution should not be predicated on the whims of AI developers to announce the identities of their bots or operate in any manner that obscures their identity and purposes of their activity.
And, critically, search and AI scraping must not be comingled. The protocol should not be allowed to be used in a manner that requires publishers to accept crawling and scraping for AI exploitation as a condition for being indexed for search.
Let’s not repeat the mistakes of the past by allowing big tech companies to leverage their dominance in one market to dominate an emerging market like AI. Original content is important to our future and we should build out web standards that carry forward our longstanding respect for copyright in the AI age.
Government control of media outlets around the world is on the rise, according to the State Media Monitor 2024 report. The portion of editorially independent media among all state-controlled and public media around the globe dropped from 20% in 2021 to 16% in 2024. According to the data, only 96 of the state and public media outlets included in the study can be defined as editorially autonomous – decreasing from 93 the previous year. The decline is especially significant considering the 2024 analysis included 13 countries added since the prior year’s analysis: Cape Verde, Mali, Sierra Leone, Fiji, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Bahamas, Barbados, Dominica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Andorra, Kyrgyzstan, and Maldives.
Over 84% of the 601 state-administered media entities in 107 countries studied by State Media Monitor showed a lack of editorial independence. This represents a 1% increase from the previous year, highlighting the persistence of state control over media.
State Media Monitor defines state-controlled media as media outlets “that are wholly owned and operated by the government, which has a big say in their editorial agenda.” On the opposite end of the scale, Independent public media are defined as public service media whose funding and governing mechanisms are designed to insulate them from government interference. In between those extremes are media outlets operating under various levels of government influence, ranging from independent state funded or managed media to captured public or private media outlets.
The analysis indicates many countries are competing for control of the global news ecosystem. The US, the UK, France, China, Russia, and Turkey, are expanding media empires beyond their own borders, vying for international news dominance. Some countries such as China are funding or otherwise supporting news media outlets beyond their borders, making their overall influence difficult to trace and measure.
Key findings of the State Media Monitor report
State-controlled media grows
About 65% of monitored outlets fall under the state-controlled model, where the government directly influences editorial agendas.
In 2024, 31 outlets in Europe operate under complete state control, an increase from 24 in the prior year.
Independent media declines
The percentage of privately owned media outlets captured by the government increased in 2024 for Europe (19%) and Middle East and North Africa (14%). Public broadcasting in Slovakia, Thailand, South Korea, and several regions in Spain have lost editorial independence.
Political influence
Right-wing political groups in Europe, including those in Austria and the UK, pose ongoing threats to independent media. Meanwhile, media outlets in countries such as Thailand and South Korea operate under significant government censorship.
State-run media in authoritarian regimes such as those in China and Russia are extending operations internationally, significantly influencing global narratives.
Political power and media in 2024
Elections were held in more than 50 nations in 2024, heating up competition for control of the political narrative. State Media Monitor reports that less than a quarter of countries which held elections in 2024 have independent state and public media with editorial freedom, substantially risking the integrity of election processes. Several global conflicts and wars intensified government involvement in media and fueled vying propaganda narratives. Private businesses and political actors also compete for media sway.
Troublingly, public service media is declining around the global. Europe, which typically boasts a plethora of independent outlets, is facing growing pressure from political parties aiming to undermine public service media. European state-controlled media outlets are on the rise, with private media outlets in Hungary, Serbia, and Turkey falling under significant government control. Meanwhile, no purely independent public media outlets were identified in Eurasia, sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), or Oceania.
State and public media under state control in 2024
The percentage of media outlets under absolute government control compared to the total number of state and public media outlets overall in the region were reported as follows.
Europe – 26%, an increase from 21% in 2023
Eurasia – 83%, an increase from 80% in 2023
Sub-Sahara Africa – 86%, a decrease from 87% in 2023
Middle East and North Africa – 62%, an increase from 60% in 2023
Asia – 74% – a decrease from 75% in 2023
Latin America and the Caribbean – 77%, the same as 2023
North American held steady at 0%, the same as 2023.
Consequences of state-owned media dominance
There is no getting around the dire consequences posed by government domination of media. The increase in government control indicated in the State Media Monitor report jeopardizes journalistic integrity, the objectivity of news reporting, and diversity in the media landscape. An increase in state-controlled media elevates dangerous propaganda throughout the world.
However, there are a few bright spots. The newly elected government in Poland released publisher Polska Press from state control. The Dominican Republic’s Corporación State de Radio y Televisión (CERTV) has also demonstrated significant improvement in independent editorial coverage over the past year. The Labour Party victory in the UK bodes well for the BBC. These changes suggest that shifts in political leadership can positively impact media independence.
It remains critical that independent media outlets help raise awareness of the need to protect news and information from government control. Media organizations can help advocate for reforms and protections for independent journalism. Safeguarding a diverse information landscape that fosters robust democratic discourse should be a priority for news organizations and a concerned public.
Every year, poor data quality costs organizations an average $12.9 million, according to Gartner. These companies are actively looking for ways to eliminate that waste and the market has responded. Gartner also reports that by 2025, 90% of data quality technology buying decisions will focus on ease of use, automation, operational efficiency, and interoperability as the critical decision factors to mitigating the data quality problem.
Data accuracy is the lifeblood for digital publishers
Losing revenue due to inaccurate data is particularly painful for digital publishers and media companies whose business models largely depend on their ability to leverage high-quality data to deliver for advertiser outcomes. Fresh, accurate data is the foundation for effective segmentation, targeting, and business intelligence. It’s essential for optimizing content, improving user experiences, and ultimately maximizing revenue.
Inaccurate, poor-quality, older data can lead to missed opportunities and loss of credibility among ad partners. These costly mistakes show up in multiple ways, including:
Misaligned content strategies: Targeting the wrong audience can result in wasted resources and low engagement.
Ineffective advertising campaigns: Poor data can lead to targeting errors, resulting in lower click-through rates and conversions.
Poor user experience: Inaccurate data can lead to personalized recommendations that are irrelevant or worse, driving users away from your content.
Data accuracy is directly tied to revenue
Inaccurate data can have a direct and significant impact on a media company’s bottom line. Decreased ad revenue from targeting errors can result in lower ad impressions and clicks. A poor user experience due to inaccurate data can lead to subscriber churn. Without an ability to harness fresh data, publishers may not be able to quickly capitalize on the news cycle by jumping on trends and creating new opportunities to serve advertisers. Publishers will also have challenges measuring the ROI of their campaigns and reporting results to advertisers.
Know the signs of data accuracy issues
Even publishers who think their data is accurate, know that data quality can deteriorate over time. This is due to various factors, including human error, system failures, and changes in data sources. It’s well worth the time and effort to conduct periodic checks to make sure your data pipeline is running smoothly and your data is as accurate as possible.
Here are five signs to watch for:
1. Inconsistent or conflicting data
One of the most common signs of data accuracy problems is inconsistencies or conflicts between different data sources. For example, you may find discrepancies between data from your first-party systems, analytics tools, and ad platforms. These inconsistencies can make it difficult to get a clear and accurate picture of your audience, campaigns, and performance.
2. Missing or incomplete data
Another red flag is missing or incomplete data. This can occur due to data collection errors, system failures, or changes in data ingestion methods.
3. Outdated data
Data can become outdated over time, particularly in rapidly changing industries like media. Using outdated data can lead to inaccurate insights, ineffective targeting, and wasted resources.
4. Data quality issues
These issues can arise due to errors such as gaps, inconsistencies, problems with validity, latency, or a lack of data normalization across systems.
5. Lack of data governance & reliability
Without proper policies and procedures in place to manage data, it can become fragmented, inconsistent, and unreliable. In addition, media companies may be working with dozens of first-party and third-party systems that organize data differently. A single source of truth is essential to truly optimize campaigns.
Limited engineering resources exacerbate data quality problems
Despite the critical importance of data accuracy, some media companies simply don’t have the engineering resources to ensure their data is consistently accurate. With millions of pieces of data constantly arriving from dozens of sources, managing that data at scale all day, every day becomes a monumental, ongoing challenge.
Traditional data engineering approaches often fall short in meeting the specific needs of publishers. These challenges typically fall into some combination of these categories:
Data Silos: Data is often pulled directly from content platforms and dumped into data warehouses without proper structuring or enrichment, making it difficult to use immediately.
Manual Reporting: Some publishers still rely on manual methods like exporting data to Google Sheets for reporting, which is time-consuming and error-prone.
First-Party Data Integration: Integrating all first-party data securely and efficiently into the data pipeline is painful.
Prioritization: Revenue teams often struggle to get their data engineering needs prioritized. In many cases, data engineers simply don’t want to perform the mundane tasks associated with maintaining and updating APIs. Revenue teams are then forced to create DIY workarounds that are time consuming, frustrating and not as effective as they hoped.
Selecting a data operations platform
The current demand for skilled data engineers far exceeds supply, making it difficult to allocate sufficient time and expertise to data quality initiatives. Media companies that leverage no-code or low-code data engineering tools that can automate data pipelines and workflows, can drastically reduce the need for extensive engineering expertise.
Here are some qualities to look for and questions to ask when selecting a data operations platform to overcome your data quality issues:
Automation and Speed: Look for platforms that offer automated data pipelines and ETL processes that can streamline data management and reduce manual effort.
Scalability: Make sure the platform can handle large volumes of data and scale as your needs grow.
High-Quality Data: Find out how the platform ensures reliable and trustworthy data. Do they consolidate data from various sources, (e.g. first-party data, agency data, and data from different channels).
Domain Expertise: Is the platform backed up by a team of experts in digital publishing who can ensure that data is handled and transformed correctly for optimal analysis?
Customization: Can the platform be customized to meet your specific requirements and business logic?
Comprehensive Measurement: Are your essential metrics built in for effective campaign evaluation?
Privacy and Security: What kinds of security measures have been taken to protect your sensitive data and ensure adherence to data privacy rules and regulations?
Publishers and media companies simply cannot ignore the impact that inaccurate data has on their bottom line. By investing in data operations platforms, quality control processes, and governance, you can unlock the full potential of your data and drive sustainable growth for your business.
About the author
Manny Balbin, a seasoned veteran with over 15 years in digital media and advertising, currently shapes vision and strategy for BI products at Switchboard Software. Switchboard’s data engineering automation platform aggregates disparate data at scale in real-time for better business decisions. Prior to Switchboard, Manny led Product, Ad Technology, and Revenue Operations at Freestar, PMC, and Quantcast.
TikTok is becoming an increasingly important platform for content creators, brands and media companies of all kinds. That’s especially true for those seeking to connect with younger audiences. Today, young people take a distinctly different news journey than older generations in which social media and visually-led content plays a leading role. Specifically, about 40% of those under age 30 in the USA regularly get news from TikTok. That’s up from around 10% in 2020, highlighting how quickly this demographic is adopting the platform as part of their news diet/habits.
TikTok – once viewed as a passive entertainment platform – is evolving into an algorithmically driven engagement powerhouse for content of all kinds. Estimates of its audience size vary, spanning from a massive 1.5 billion to close to two billion users worldwide. Regardless of this variance, there’s no denying that the network has a huge reach, and that it has grown astronomically since launching globally in 2018. It’s now the sixth-largest social network in the world, and its users worldwide spend 34 hours a month on it. That’s way ahead of its rivals in terms of time spent.
“Roughly 170 million Americans use TikTok,” The New York Times noted earlier this year. “That’s half the population of the United States.” Charting 19 ways the platform has influenced American life, the Gray Lady observes that “Even if you’ve never opened the app, you’ve lived in a culture that exists downstream of what happens there.”
With that in mind, here are four things media companies need to know about TikTok, and how to harness it to reach new audiences effectively and build brand awareness, while at the same time making their content more accessible and relatable to younger consumers.
1. TikTok is a highly participatory social network
There’s a widely held misconception that TikTok is a “lean-back,” passive platform. However, new research from Weber Shandwick, a global communications and consulting firm, shows that TikTok consumption is more engaged and intentional than you might realize.
“Comments are king,” the report states, observing how “the comments section is where people go to learn more, fact-check claims, make jokes and attempt to make sense of what they have seen.”
Talking to Digital Content Next, Dr. Claire Wardle, a Cornell Professor who worked on this research, shared in more detail how users actively engage with TikTok content through the comments. This includes visiting the comments to determine if they agree, or not, with certain stories, the entertainment value they offer, as well as using insights from their peers to determine the veracity of a video. Many consumers see these behaviors as an intrinsic part of their experience on the platform.
For media companies, this may mean that engagement on TikTok should go beyond just creating content. It might require active involvement in the comment sections, given that this is where audiences spend a great deal of time and energy.
Determining the best way to do that, however, isn’t easy. “If I’m a publisher, what am I doing in the comments? What’s my role?” Wardle asks.
One potential solution stems from an idea proposed by Sophia Smith Galer. The freelance journalist and former BBC and Vice staffer has argued that newsrooms should encourage and support “individual journalist creators” on TikTok. It may be easier for people in that guise, to respond to comments on the platform, instead of through an anonymous brand account.
Nevertheless, despite the importance of TikTok’s comments section, Weber-Shandwick’s report cautions that this arena can be a home to trolls and other bad actors. Subsequently, “a detailed protocol for engagement in the comments of your own TikTok videos or videos posted by others is a must,” they advise.
2. Authenticity is key to audience-media connections on TikTok
Authentic was Merriam-Webster’s Word of the Year in 2023. “Authentic (their italics) is what brands, social media influencers, and celebrities aspire to be,” the company said.
On TikTok, as with many other visually led social networks, perceptions of authenticity are fundamental to audience engagement. I say “perceptions” because, as Social Sprout points out, seemingly lo-fi content is often actually highly produced.
Nevertheless, at its heart, this is content that intentionally looks a little less polished. In turn, this rawness can also make it more relatable and accessible. Furthermore, this style of content may be seen as more trustworthy and authentic with younger audiences than traditional media, the latest Digital News Report found.
However, the style of content that often does well on TikTok may fly in the face of traditional media production values, and that can sometimes be difficult to reconcile.
That’s amplified by an anti-establishment feel that the platform has, a notion “that came through very strongly in the research,” Wardle says.
As a result, TikTok “is not an obvious place for The Wall Street Journal or CNN to turn up,” Wardle reflects. That’s partly based on the style of content on the network, user preferences – which lean towards independent creators – and a concern that media outlets just look like they’re trying too hard to fit in.
Nevertheless, it’s no surprise that the most successful brands on TikTok lean into authenticity. Morning Brew’s account, in my opinion, is a great example to learn from. It’s funny, irreverent and looks like the creators shot it in their home (perhaps they did). As a result, it fits seamlessly with the style and tone of other content in my feed, while also managing to make some valid points (on occasion).
For publishers, key ways to curate an authentic aesthetic include using more casual delivery styles, behind-the-scenes content, and collaborating with creators who understand TikTok’s culture. Adapting, or partnering, in this way matters if you want to be relevant on the platform.
3. Navigating algorithms when familiarity breeds contentment
Reflecting on how Americans use TikTok, the Pew Research Center recently highlighted the value of its recommendation technology, and in particular its “For You” page. For users, this is a highly curatable space, one that enables you to teach TikTok what you want to watch. As Buffer explains, that is part of the app’s secret sauce. “The blend of familiar and new content is tailored meticulously to user preferences, making the social network addictive and fresh,” they explain.
As a result, it’s perhaps not surprising that “users generally like the content the algorithm serves them,” Pew’s research found. Their data revealed that “40% of users say this content is either extremely or very interesting to them.” In contrast, just 14% of their survey respondents said this wasn’t relevant or interesting to them.
For brands and content creators, this makes it all the more important that users know you’re on the platform. If they’re not following you, it can be hard to find and discover you on TikTok.
The success of this algorithm is a key factor behind users devoting so much time on the app. eMarketer anticipates that Gen Z, adults aged 18-24, spend an average of 77 minutes per day on the platform.
There are long-standing concerns, however, that algorithms can create echo chambers. This could reduce the perspectives that audiences are exposed to and lay the foundations for misinformation.
TikTok users, it seems, actively embrace – and are highly cognizant of – these concerns. Users acknowledged that “I know I’m not seeing anything from the other side, but I really love that,” Wardle said. “I love that I never come across people who are different to me.”
Users are aware that they are in echo chambers, but rather than trying to break out of them, they revel in the familiarity of their feeds. And they also feel confident that if they need to step outside of their comfort zone, then they know how to do so.
Responding to this is challenging, especially for news outlets. But, rather than trying to fight the echo chamber, publishers may just want to lean into it. This may mean producing more non-news content, as well as niche or specialized content that resonates with specific audiences, alongside evergreen content, and material beyond the daily news cycle.
4. News media and social issues on TikTok
That said, despite these cultural and algorithmic challenges, news does still have a place on the platform. Despite its reputation for entertainment, TikTok has become an important arena for consuming news and discussing social issues.
In fact, many users report encountering social and political content regularly, even though TikTok is not traditionally seen as a news platform. The latest Digital News Report found that nearly a quarter (23%) of 18–24s in the markets they surveyed, use the platform for news, as did 13% of all digital news consumers.
“These averages hide rapid growth in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia,” the authors note, with “more than a third now use the network for news every week in Thailand (39%) and Kenya (36%).” Figures are lower in countries like the United States (9%) and the UK (4%).
Perhaps more importantly, according to Weber Shandwick, although users don’t necessarily seek out news on the platform, they do stumble upon it through trending content.
Users often perceive that they see these stories first on TikTok, Wardle told us, with the mainstream media playing catch up. “Our survey results validated this,” Weber Shandwick’s research says, “77% of users said TikTok is where they first learn about news on political or social subjects at least some of the time.”
However, much of this news discovery does not come from traditional news brands. Instead, individual creators and commentators drive many of these conversations.
This once again reinforces the need for news organizations to partner with influencers and creators who have already mastered the platform’s style and audience. Encouraging individual journalists to build their own presence on TikTok may also help bridge the gap between traditional reporting and this new media landscape. Collectively, collaboration and empowering journalists to engage with the platform directly could be pivotal for ensuring many publisher’s stories reach and resonate with younger, highly engaged audiences.
So, is TikTok right for your media brand?
The size of TikTok’s audience suggests that the platform is too big to ignore. However, the style of content and community culture that flourishes on it can be difficult to tap into. As a result, publishers need to carefully consider if it is a good fit for them.
Media companies that can adapt to this environment will find opportunities for deeper connections with audiences. Meanwhile, those who simply see TikTok as just another outlet for distributing their content, often doing so in the same format as elsewhere, may struggle to make an impact.
Worse still, efforts to blend in risk being seen as trying too hard. “How do you show up in a way that doesn’t look like a dad dancing at the wedding?” Wardle asks.
Part 2! Better Explainer on Kamalas plan to expand #medicare to include #homehealth options vs Trump plan to privatize medicare and create a tax shelter? Out of it? Idk.. #kamalaharrispolicies
Audiences, Wardle says, are “kind of resisting” traditional players, preferring instead to get their content from native providers like Under The Desk News. A consistent favorite with my students, Kelsey Russell is a Media Literacy Influencer and Co-Host of First Stop News. Russell, the self-professed ‘Print Princess’ reads different newspapers and magazines to her audience, and has garnered nearly 100,000 TikTok followers in the process.
The key takeaway for publishers wanting to flourish on TikTok is to balance being relatable and informal, with being useful and entertaining. They need to do so in a way that doesn’t force humor or tap into trends in a way that feels inauthentic and “cringe.”
That’s potentially a tall order, and these efforts may not drive traffic to your site or other platforms in the way that most publishers have historically used social media.
Nevertheless, if media companies can foster authentic connections with audiences, this can help to build brand loyalty and awareness, potentially unlocking long-term benefits that go beyond simple click-through metrics.
As Enrique Anarte, a journalist at Context previously told IJNet, “You’re not on TikTok to go viral; you’re really on TikTok to reach the audience you wanted to reach.” “It’s better to get a video with lower views, but high positive engagement from the people you want to reach,” they added.
For many younger audiences, TikTok may be the first time they encounter your brand, creating a connection that may well pay even further dividends down the line. It won’t be for everyone, but if you’re prepared to play the long game, mix up your video style to fit in, and find the right people to collaborate with, then TikTok might well become a key plank in your social media strategy in 2024 and beyond.
/ An inside look at the business of digital content
Archive
