Research / Insights on current and emerging industry topics

Understanding low-trust audiences and how to reach them

April 19, 2022 Suzanne S. LaPierre – Independent Media Reporter

Mental shortcuts, snap judgments, gut feelings: everyone uses these to some degree while navigating an increasingly overwhelming news landscape. However, new research finds that these instant reactions are even more prevalent among the 25% of the population with the lowest trust in news. Low trust audiences are more likely to receive the bulk of their news incidentally while engaged in other online activities such as socializing, shopping, or searching for specific information pertinent to their daily lives. Significantly, low trust aligns with low interest. These individuals are unlikely to visit news sites on purpose. They are also the least-studied segment of the population when it comes to news-related behavior.

It is important that content providers understand the impact of snap judgments because they occur upstream of further engagement with news material. Research from the Trust in News Project out of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford offers insights based upon an exploration of the behaviors and habits of this audience segment.

News, cues, and clues

The report, Snap judgements: how audiences who lack trust in news navigate information on digital platforms was based upon a qualitative study that involved participants from four countries: Brazil, India, the United Kingdom and the United States. One hundred individuals were interviewed in depth via videoconference as they used one of three platforms: Google, Facebook, or WhatsApp, between December 2021 and January 2022.

Six types of cues were found to serve as as shortcuts for evaluating news:

Pre-existing ideas about news in general or particular news media brands, including reputation and perceived reliability of the news outlet.
Social endorsement cues, especially from friends and family.
Tone and word choice of headlines, with a skepticism for headlines that seem sensationalized.
Visual cues, with a preference for photographs and videos perceived as recent and relevant, as well as numerical data and links to other sources.
Presence of advertising or indications of sponsored content are often seen as indicative of bias and profit-driven motives.
Platform-specific cues such as Facebook likes and Google search engine rankings. (insert cues graphic)

Comfort and control

The study found low-trust individuals have much more favorable opinions of Google, Facebook and WhatsApp than they do of professional news sources. They consider these platforms valuable tools used in everyday life, whereas many stated most news is irrelevant to them. In fact, some perceive news as an attempt to manipulate them; many stated that politicians control major news sources. In “shoot the messenger” fashion, low-trust users tend to conflate content they dislike or find upsetting with news journalists or brands.

News reports on hot topics such as politics and issues that have become politically charged such as the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic are viewed with particular skepticism by the sample group. Participants indicated that content providers have more incentive to be untruthful about such topics.

Low-trust users are more likely to look favorably upon information presented in a manner perceived as enabling them to make up their own minds. Some participants cited the presence of numerical data or links to other sources as indications that news was reliable, while others praised Google search results as such a resource.

Addressing the audience gap

While some of the 25% have overtly hostile feelings towards news organizations, indifference is more to blame for lack of engagement. Lack of knowledge in how journalism works is also a factor. Those aware of their limited knowledge may be less confident in their ability to decipher content and more likely to ignore it altogether or rely on opinions of trusted social contacts.

Trust-building strategies employed by digital news organizations tend to focus on the behavior and practices of the savviest news consumers. This makes sense if the goal is to solidify one’s base. However, expanding outreach requires more understanding of the less-engaged 25%. Building relationships with new user groups requires deeper understanding of how they engage with their platforms of choice.

This research is significant for digital media providers because it represents data from the least-studied segment of the population, and because the findings are not limited to this group. While some of the cues relied on by these users are under exclusive control of digital platforms, others can be utilized by news providers. The study has compelling implications for how information can best be conveyed to those hardest to reach.

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion | Industry-Research

Research highlights the need for diversity in media leadership

April 12, 2022 Rande Price, Research VP – DCN

Diversity in news media matters because it offers a voice to underrepresented communities and helps provides education to break down the barriers of prejudice. When the news media provides structural diversity – hiring, retention, and promotion – it better reflects the audiences it serves, and more accurately portrays society.

A recent study, Race and Leadership in the News Media 2022, from Reuters Institute, evaluates leadership diversity in the newsroom. The research includes a sample of 100 major online and offline news outlets in Brazil, Germany, South Africa, the U.K., and the U.S.

Key findings for the ten top online news outlets and ten top offline news outlets in each of these markets:

In total, 21% of the 82 top editors identify as nonwhite, compared to 43% of the general population across the five countries. However, excluding Africa from the analysis means only 8% of the top editors are nonwhite compared to 31% of the general population.
At the time of the analysis, Brazil, Germany, and the U.K. did not have a nonwhite top editor. In contrast, 33% of top editors are nonwhite in the U.S., increasing from 18% in 2021. Further, in South Africa, 73% of top editors are nonwhite, increasing from 60% in 2021.

Many journalists highlight the importance of diversity in the newsroom and its important impact on editorial decision-making. The Reuters research measures diversity in the newsroom and tracks its progress compared to industry studies across the globe.

Tracking change in the marketplace

American Society of News Editors (ASNE) research surveyed 293 news organizations in the U.S. in 2018. The study found that 23% of the newsroom employees included people of color represent and 26% for online-only news organizations. The research also shows that 79% had at least one woman among their top three editors, and 33% had at least one minority journalist in a top-three position.

The National Council for the Training of Journalists (NCTJ) in the U.K. used the 2020 Labour Force Survey (LFS) data to identify diversity in journalism. Their report shows women employed in journalism as a majority (53% compared to 47% of men). There was also a slight decrease in the proportion of white ethnic groups (94% to 92%) in journalism compared to 2018. Journalists working in the U.K. increased from 78,000 in 2018 to 96,000 in 2020. However, nonwhite journalists did not grow proportionately.

In Germany, the New German Media Makers (NdM), a nonprofit association representing media professionals with immigrant backgrounds, conducted research in 2020 among 126 editors-in-chief and 122 editorial offices. The study found only 6% of the editors-in-chief have an immigrant background. While most editors-in-chief generally rated diversity in editorial offices as necessary, they did little about it. The NdM made three important recommendations to editors-in-chief and closely monitor the news media.

Report for the whole society: diversity in a program or publication can increase reach, circulation, and opportunities to employ people from immigrant families.
Decision-makers must develop a strategy to attract journalists and staff with immigration histories.
Disclose diversity data transparently, create clear targets, and document.

News media owners and their editors need to accelerate diversity initiatives in their organizations. Reuters research and the previous studies show a slow transformation of the newsroom with nonwhite journalists and editors under-represented. Importantly, transparency and documentation are essential to share best practices for building a diverse newsroom across the globe.

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion | Industry-Research

Media companies build trust when they address audience concerns

April 5, 2022 Rande Price, Research VP – DCN

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

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

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

Identifying material issues

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

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

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

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

Responding to material issues

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

Other areas to watch

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

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

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

Industry-Research

How differentiation and education will shape the next phase of streaming

March 29, 2022 Rande Price, Research VP – DCN

Video is exploding, and new services and platforms are popping up right and left. From broad TV platforms categories like SVOD. FAST, and vMVPD, the wide range of products and offerings can be confusing. The two biggest areas to address are viewing choice, which is about deciding what to watch (the content), and where to watch (the platform).

With series distribution deals, syndication rights, and talent deals, it’s hard for viewers to know what shows are on which platform and where to find what they want to watch. However, it is clear that content drives subscriptions with over more than one-third of viewers (36%) signing up for a service to watch a specific show/movie in the past year according to new report from HUB Entertainment Research.

Acronym soup

Consumers and professionals alike are confused about the proliferation of acronyms such as:

SVOD: subscription video on demand service that users must subscribe to access (i.e., Netflix) content.
FAST: a free, ad-supported streaming TV services like a Roku’s Roku Channel or Paramount’s Pluto TV.
vMVPD: a virtual multichannel video programming distributor. It offers aggregate live and on-demand TV and delivers the content over the internet. vMVPD services resemble the familiar cable line-up and packages like Hulu Live TV and YouTube TV.

Multiple streaming sources

HUB Entertainment Research’s Evolution of Video Branding report confirms that consumers are unclear about platform offerings. For the report, HUB surveyed 1,601 US broadband consumers aged 16-74 who watched at least 1 hour of TV per week in February 2022.

According to HUB, viewers use 5.7 TV sources compared to 3.7 before the pandemic in 2019. Numerous streaming brands like Amazon Prime Video, Apple, Disney+, HBO Max, Hulu, and Netflix are marketing to consumers around exclusive content deals.

Disney+ and Warner Media were the first to offer theatrical releases straight to SVOD during Covid-19. Antenna Research’s analysis of Hamilton and Wonder Woman 1984, theatrical release directly to streaming, showed that roughly half of the U.S. viewers joined the service after their premieres but were gone within six months.

Awareness and differentiation

HUB’s analysis examines the ways in which streaming brands are trying to break out of the pack to attract and retain viewers. Awareness is ubiquitous among five brands – Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Disney+, Hulu, and HBO Max. However, aside from Netflix in this top tier, two-thirds or less of respondents understand the top brand’s offerings and how they’re differentiated. Further, the next tier of streaming services presents even lower awareness and knowledge of the service.

Programming as a differentiator

Interestingly, consumers view Disney+ and ESPN as TV streaming services with strong genre focus. Their programming genre is their brand: Disney+ is synonymous with children and ESPN with sports. Interestingly, among those aware of the different services, Disney+ is viewed to have the strongest genre focus in their programming.

Options and confusion

In particular, awareness about FAST services is very low. Less than one in three of those surveyed understand what differentiates one brand from another. Consumers view FASTs services as interchangeable and impossible to tell apart from one another.

According to Nielsen, consumers had at least 200 streaming service options in mid-2021, with more to come. The Hub research identifies the consumer confusion associated with the tremendous growth of TV streaming services. Together, these services accounted for 28% of total TV usage in October 2021.

Consumers welcome guidance in identifying and understanding the value of each streaming proposition. Strong branding and points of differentiation are encouraged among services and platforms, especially FAST programmers. To fully maximize the opportunity streaming offers, the market will require increased consumer education. And streamers need to focus on what makes them unique, whether that stems from a strong genre focus, breadth of offering, affordability, usability, unique content offerings, or brand recognition alone.

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion | Industry-Research | Revenue

Data and revenue diversification dominate publisher strategies

March 18, 2022 Michelle Manafy, Editorial Director – DCN

Publishers continue to remain highly focused on revenue diversification and the value of first party data according to new research from the Association of Online Publishers (AOP), a UK industry body that represents digital publishing companies. The AOP undertook its Digital Publishing: Meeting the Future survey to provide “a snapshot of how digital publishing companies across the UK are continuing to respond to the challenge to change.” The research offers a look at publishers’ business priorities and the future-readiness of the media industry.

The AOP carried out its survey between January 5 and February 9 of 2022. Of the 111 responses, 83% were from publishers and 17% from organizations providing solutions to the publishing sector.

Diversifying revenue streams

Across all types of publishers (B2B, B2C, or a combination), respondents said that their highest priority is developing new revenue streams through product innovation. Ensuring data privacy compliance and transparency ranked second.

The AOP’s publisher respondents ranked opportunities for revenue growth over the next three years. More than half (55%) feel that subscriptions are the big revenue opportunity right now, with lead generation-based revenues ranking second (33%). The report concludes that these findings mean that publishers are highly focused on building direct relationships with audiences and leveraging their first party data.

Audio and ecommerce tied for third (31%) in terms of revenue priorities, which points to continued revenue-model innovation. The research finds that both B2B and B2C publishers agreed that subscriptions have the most potential for growth. However, publishers that target both B2B and consumer audiences saw ecommerce as the most promising revenue generator.

Data dominates

While publisher concerns about ensuring privacy and providing transparency rank high, they clearly know the value of their first party data and seek to maximize its use. According to the report, publishers are focused on building the right ecosystem of commercial, data, and tech partnerships.

In the shadow of cookie deprecation, some publishers are considering collaborating on data initiatives. AOP found that, while 12% of publisher respondents are unsure of their next moves and 12% do not expect to collaborate, many publishers are either already collaborating (20%), are discussing collaborating (16%), or are open to the possibility of collaboration (40%).

The majority (75%) of publishers said that they are working to ensure that audience data informs everything they do and that they are investing in tools to help achieve this. Despite the emphasis on data, however, only 17% of publishers said that all their teams are aligned internally around their audience data. Half of the solutions provider respondents suggest that, while publishers understand being joined up internally around audience data is important, many don’t yet have a strategy in place to achieve their goals.

Workforce and workplace concerns

Interestingly, recruiting and retaining talent, and ensuring a diverse and inclusive workplace, are rated higher (tying for third place with “developing new first party data strategies”) than the tech-based challenges you might expect the digital publishing sector to be focused on.

Most respondents (75%) report that “supporting and retaining current employees” is their top priority when it comes to recruitment and workforce development. This was followed by adapting the publisher’s offering to appeal to new talent entering the industry.

Putting in place recruitment processes that eliminate bias and support the development of a more diverse workforce is ranked third here. However, when asked how they would describe their organization’s diversity, equity & inclusion (DE&I) strategy, respondents suggest confidence in their progress on this challenge. Just over half (51%) believe they have made good progress with areas for continued improvement, and 24% believe they have an effective DE&I strategy. Only 5% of respondents don’t believe they have a clear strategy on DE&I.

As Covid-19 restrictions are being eased in the UK and elsewhere, publishers are evaluating their working environments and plans to return to offices. This survey found that 37% of respondents say their ideal working pattern would be to work from the office two days a week and 24% would be happy to come in for the occasional key meeting, but primarily work from home.

Nearly a third (30%) of respondents expect their employers to be fully flexible and happy for them to choose to work as they wish. However, 66% believe they will be asked to work at least a few days in the office each week.

Clearly, the past couple of years have seen trends like ecommerce intensify and placed increased pressure on publishers to innovate. That innovation has, unsurprisingly, focused on product and revenue. However, it has also required publishers to reexamine workplace culture, recruiting, and retention strategies. The AOP’s survey finds that digital publishing companies that understand the bigger picture challenges and have identified many opportunities. However, it appears that they may still be working through the best tactics and strategies to provide the requisite competitive advantage moving forward.

Industry-Research

Streaming strategies are essential for publishers

March 15, 2022 Rande Price, Research VP – DCN

Consumers increasingly cut the cable cord and spend more of their TV time on connected televisions (CTV) enjoying over-the-top (OTT) streaming content. eMarketer forecasts this year’s cord-cutting population will climb to 55.1 million people in the United States. Further, according to the Leichtman Research Group, a connected TV is found in at least 80% of all TV households, and 60% of these viewers in the U.S. watch free ad-supported TV streaming (FAST) services.

Tubi, an ad-supported streaming service owned by Fox Corporation released new research, Audience Insights 2022, which explores what is driving the streaming market. According to the report, early adopters jumped to ad-supported streaming services as an alternative to cable subscriptions. Numerous content options also attract new audiences. Many streamers offer extensive libraries of TV hits, nostalgia, and familiarity. Others feature originals content that feels current, trendy, and innovative. While still others include new blockbuster films or breaking news.

If publishers haven’t already, now is the time to launch a streaming product that leverages their intellectual property (IP) to attract audiences and remain competitive. Options include AVOD (ad-supported video on demand), which provides audiences with a customized and on-demand experience. The marketplace is ripe, and the revenue opportunities are robust.

Booming market

Consumers easily access their Smart TVs, or streaming devices offer simple shortcuts to OTT video. There are many services available in the U.S, and it’s common for a large company to have multiple services. Paramount Global has several paid and free services such as Paramount+, Showtime, BET+, CBS News, and Pluto TV. According to Tubi’s findings, Americans spend $65 a month on average on approximately 4.2 streaming subscriptions.

Tubi conducted its study among 6,000 U.S. adults who stream to understand the barriers to AVOD. Streamers look for an easy onboarding process and simple and intuitive navigation. However, one in four adults report that they don’t believe a service is free because upselling is involved. Further, 23% say that they think there are strings attached.

Given streaming’s audience growth, OTT is now the fastest-growing long-form video platform in advertising sales. Interestingly, upfront CTV advertising sales grew 50% in 2021 and is expected to grow another 32% this year.

Advertising value

Tubi also conducted a study with Advertiser Perceptions, showing that 56% of marketers rate the cost-effectiveness of streaming investment as a 9 or 10 on a ten-point scale. eMarketer predicts strong year-over-year advertising growth – citing $17.4 billion advertising spend on CTV in 2022.

Advertisers value streaming audiences and platforms:

Offer incremental reach of limited linear channels,
Ability to target hard-to-reach on linear like Gen Z and Millennials and Hispanic, Black, and multicultural audiences.
Relevant audiences for targeting higher income and core demographic targets.
Brand-safe environments in extensive content libraries.

Tubi expects older, more educated, and affluent households to continue adopting streaming options this year. The research names OTT as an essential strategy for 2022. It offers new digital distribution channels, instant access to potential viewers, and new opportunities to attract advertisers.

Industry-Research

Collaborative models of journalism offer sustainability

March 1, 2022 Rande Price, Research VP – DCN

The Center for Cooperative Media sees collaborative journalism as a way to share power among journalists, readers and others to deliver information that centers and addresses people’s needs. They believe that collaboration can be particularly impactful when it involves the community.

Researchers Joy Jenkins and Lucas Graves explore collaborative journalism in practice at a local level in Europe. Their report, Do More with Less: Minimizing Competitive Tensions in Collaborative Local Journalism, offers a local approach to journalism that serves a community rather than delivers a news product to an audience.

Their research analyzes three collaborative journalism experiments in Europe:

The Bureau Local in the U.K is a nonprofit collaboration of journalists and non-journalists (data scientists, academics, citizens, etc.) engaging in topic-driven reporting projects.
“L’Italia Delle Slot” in Italy is a collaboration among one legacy, and two start-up news organizations focused on a single topic.
Lännen Media in Finland is a co-op collaboration among regional news organizations through shared content production and distribution.

They conducted 29 interviews among journalists, senior management, community organizers, data analysts, technical experts, and others.

Collaboration models

Each of the three publications offers different collaboration models:

Lännen Media

This is a co-op model where similar news organizations join on specific topics and do not compete. They manage daily reports via video conferencing and skype with editors and share a content management system to follow what they work on in the different newsrooms.

This setup allows journalists to rotate into the cooperative from the regional newsrooms for two or three years and then return to their original masthead. While larger newspapers contribute more, all members share the costs of running Lännen Media.

“L’Italia Delle Slot

A contractor model that establishes a commercial contract to dictate the collaboration among organizations with specific areas of expertise. In this case, a large legacy news publisher combines efforts with two data-journalism-focused start-ups. In 2013, Effecinque, a start-up, began researching the increase in slot machines in Italy. Effecinque partnered with Dataninja, a data-journalism network, to investigate if slot machines in Italy correlated to the rise in gambling addiction. Effecinque and Dataninja partnered with GEDI Visual Lab to produce a web portal, data visualizations, videos, and other interactive content to showcase the details of the investigation.

This approach allowed the two start-up organizations, GEDI and 13 local newspapers, to define their roles based on areas of expertise. Further, the 13 local newsrooms provided local knowledge to tell the stories about their community using the data set.

The digital media ecosystem is a great environment to start collaborations such as establishing networks across localities and shared resources. Jenkins’ and Grave’s research illustrates three collaborative journalism models to showcase each of their unique approaches. Lännen Media’s co-op model shares resources across regional newspapers, “L’Italia Delle Slot’s” contractor model engages expert journalists on short-term investigations. The Bureau Local NGO model manages a shared database by a nonprofit. Each model offers a viable model for publisher sustainability – maintaining a healthy structure of shared economics, goals, and healthy competition.

Industry-Research

Does sponsored content influence broader news agendas?

February 23, 2022 Rande Price, Research VP – DCN

Sponsored content plays a sizeable role in publishers’ revenue model. According to eMarketer, ad spend on sponsored content in 2021 neared $57 billion. Advertisers find the high production quality of today’s sponsored content a compelling marketing vehicle. As a result, audiences often find it difficult to differentiate between sponsor content and actual news content. Therefore, the FTC requires publishers to label it as advertising. As the market for it grows, it’s essential to understand how the publishers’ production and reliance on sponsored content affects news content.

An advertising quandary

While sponsored content has been around a long time, it’s grown significantly in the past 10 years in the digital media sector. Marketers value the “halo effect” of a publisher’s editorial integrity offering strong reader engagement. Sponsored content is usually a narrative, which contrasts with display and video ads. It often includes custom video, interactive elements, and high-end graphic designs.

Many premium publishers have content studios dedicated to creating sponsored content. The New York Times (NYT) launched T Brand Studio, The Washington Post (WP) owns BrandStudio, and The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) has The Trust.

A recent article by Michelle Amazeen looks at how sponsored content relates to the coverage news organizations create. She explores whether sponsored content boosts or reduces the amount of media coverage for corporations that invest in it. Amazeen conducted research with Christopher Vargo, Agenda-Cutting Versus Agenda-Building: Does Sponsored Content Influence Corporate News Coverage in U.S. Media, to analyze these questions.

Research methodology

In a two-step process, Amazeen and Vargo identified 27 sponsored content articles in WP, the NYT, and WSJ across five years. They first scraped the content studios’ Twitter accounts to identify sponsored content links. They then used a custom Bing program to search for sponsored content links inside the news websites. The 27 sponsors include Verizon, Airbus, Volvo, American Petroleum Institute, Dow Jones, Qualcomm, Holiday Inn, Huawei, Purdue Pharma, Netflix, Gartner, Subaru, Oracle, Fox Sports, Deloitte, Walmart, Nordstrom, Allergan, Accenture, Lockheed Martin, Samsung, IBM, Wells Fargo, MetLife, Delta Air Lines, Aetna, and Starz.

The researchers then used the Global Database of Events Language and Tone (GDELT), a news article database, to match sponsored content mentions of corporations and brands to articles matching the corporate or brand sponsor. In all, they found 2,707 articles related to the companies and brands sponsoring content.

Analysis details

The research assessed the relationship of corporate sponsorship to news coverage of the same company across time. The analysis evaluated whether publishers filtered and shaped their news accordingly to accommodate corporate sponsorship. This practice is known as agenda setting. It refers to how the news publishers can influence which issues become the focus of public attention. In the case of sponsored content, publishers can add news coverage of a company and brand or reduce and cut their news coverage.

They divided the news articles into two segments for further analysis:

Elite publishers (NYT, WP, and WSJ), and
General (non-premium) news media landscape.

Omitting any seasonality mentions (i.e., earning calls), 20 of the 27 sponsored content companies showed at least one instance of agenda cutting or agenda building.

Further, of the 27 brands analyzed, only three companies showed an agenda-building effect among elite publishers: Huawei, Qualcomm, and Purdue Pharma. Amazeen and Vargo conclude that agenda building is a less likely occurrence with sponsored content companies or brands.

In addition, seven brands showed significant agenda-cutting effects among premium publishers: Netflix, Nordstrom, Starz, Wells Fargo, Aetna, Oracle, and Qualcomm. The researchers also found a significantly higher agenda-cutting effects across the entire U.S. media landscape — 14 companies and brands.

Amazeen and Vargo acknowledge that the news media is not immune to internal and external forces in their newsrooms. Publishers often set guidelines for creative and narrative executions in content studios. Amazeen and Vargo suggest publishers monitor and develop measures to assess the additional news coverage or lack of for companies and brands of sponsored content.

Industry-Research

Digital media behaviors between older and younger generations converge

February 21, 2022 Michelle Manafy, Editorial Director – DCN

Some differences between generations seem irrefutable while others seem little more than the function of age and maturity. Without doubt, we have observed the many impacts of digital transformation on Millennials and Gen Z. Yet, while the rise of digital ubiquity is certainly one of the most profound impacts on culture (and certainly media usage), we also saw the pandemic accelerate and impact a slew of trends. In an interesting twist, it appears that it may have sped up some digital media consumption convergence between older and younger generations.

The IPA’s Commercial Media Landscape report offers a high level view of the media landscape today. The report looks at reach, share of time, time spent, and usage patterns across the day of all commercial media properties in order to illuminate where shifts are occurring. In particular, it delves into how adults in Great Britain spend their media day and examines the differences between age groups.

Convergence

One of the most striking findings of the fourth edition of the report is the changing nature of the relationship between the media consumption habits of 16- 34s and people aged 55+. Previous editions of the IPA’s report found steady declines in the correlation between the habits of these two audiences with a trend towards divergence. In a striking turn, the fourth edition finds a marked shift towards eventual convergence.

This seems to be driven by the fact that the 16-34 age group is nearing peak digital penetration as their patterns of consumption level out. At the same time, for those aged 55 and over, the advancement of technology usage brought on by the Covid-19 pandemic resulted in rapid digital media uptake.

Consumption

Online Video has seen the most significant growth of any media channel over the last five years, and it now commands a greater share of media time than Live/Recorded TV for 16-34s. As with 16-34s, the reduction in time spent with Commercial Live/Recorded TV for 35-54 was one of the largest shifts from 2015 to 2021. In 2015 Commercial Live/Recorded TV took a 42% share of the curated commercial media day for 35-54s. By 2020 pre-lockdown this had fallen to 29%, and again to 26% in 2021 post-lockdown.

For those 55+ Commercial Live/ Recorded TV and Newsbrands (Print) saw increases in reach, share and time spent during and post lockdown. On the other hand, Social Media was the clear winner for 16-34s.

For commercial media in 2021, more time is now being spent with digital rather than nondigital channels. For all adults, the split has grown from 58:42 towards non-digital in 2015 to 46:54 in favor of digital in 2021. For 16-34s in 2021, 78% of all curated commercial media time was spent with digital channels.

As is to be expected, share shifted the most among 16-34s, from 76% commercial in 2015 to 64% in 2021 post lockdown. And although 16-34s are seen as the subscription spear-headers, they actually spent almost two thirds of their media time in commercial spaces, which is greater than the average adult.

Overall, the report finds significant evidence of increasing digital media usage for 55+. In the 2021 post-lockdown era, Smartphone, Tablet and PC Laptop combined now account for 33% of their total commercial media consumption time for this group, up from 19%. As the report points out, those over 55 had to quickly adapt to stay in touch, shop etc., which made them more confident about digital media and devices.

Conclusions

The areas of difference are still significantly greater than commonalities. Unsurprisingly, the report does reinforce some of the expected generational differences in media consumption.

According to the authors, “although it is encouraging to see an increase in similarity between these two audiences, it should not be missed that a correlation of 18% still represents an 82% dissimilarity between the two audience’s time spent with media properties and a hope of one-size-fits-all media plans in reality would be more aligned to one-size-fits-none.”

However, it does find a greater degree of convergence than might be expected. While this was likely accelerated by the pandemic, the report ultimately suggests that, for 16-34s, their level of digital media usage has become so high, there is very little room for additional growth. However, for 55+ there was — and will be — continued room for growth in digital media usage. So, while it is critical to innovate and experiment to attract younger audiences, it is important not to overlook the growth opportunities across generations.

Industry-Research

Getting consumers to trust quality information is critical

February 7, 2022 Rande Price, Research VP – DCN

A trusted reputation is crucial for publishers. And, despite the clickbait appeal of fake news, most people value accuracy and truthful content. Research has confirmed time and again that people want to engage more with articles shared by trusted journalists and media outlets, especially on social media.

89% of Americans believe it is “very important” for a news outlet to be accurate and 86% that it is “very important” that they correct their mistakes (Knight Foundation, 2018),
85% say that accuracy is a critical reason for why they trust a news source (The Media Insight Project, 2016).
63% of Americans say they have stopped getting news from an outlet in response to fake news.

However, fake news and low-quality content are still prevalent, amplified, and generating tremendous engagement. Misinformation is not limited by reality and often feeds natural individual biases.

Fighting fake news

The question remains where do publishers place their efforts in the fight against fake news? New research from Alberto Acerbi, Sacha Altay, and Hugo Mercier, Fighting misinformation or fighting for information? explores whether publishers should fight the spread of misinformation or support the trust in reliable sources. Interestingly, the researchers found that it is just as likely that consumers will accept articles and sound bites of fake news reporting as it is for them to reject a piece of accurate news reporting.

The authors developed a model that estimates the effectiveness of increasing the acceptance of reliable news compared to decreasing the acceptance of misinformation. The model includes two main parameters: the share of misinformation compared to the share of reliable information and the tendency for individuals to accept each type of information.

Reliable information refers to news shared by sources that, most of the time, report news accurately,
Misinformation refers to news shared by sources that regularly share fake and deceptive information.

The model provides a baseline view of the informational environment and offers an approximate index of its quality. Using these broad definitions, the model design includes 5% of misinformation as people’s news diets, with the remaining 95% consisting of information from reliable sources. Importantly the model captures the main elements of an informative environment: the incidence of reliable information compared to misinformation and the tendency to accept each type of information.

The model computes a global information score. The calculation represents the share of accepted pieces of reliable information minus the share of accepted pieces of misinformation.

Simulated exposure

A small sample of individuals simulated in the model were exposed to both reliable and fake news. A larger sample of individuals simulated were exposed only to reliable news. The researchers tested different intervention rates of reducing the acceptance rate of misinformation compared to increasing the acceptance of reliable information.

The researchers analyzed the different interventions rates. The basic simulation illustrates that, even with a 10% incidence of misinformation, improving the acceptance of reliable information by 3% points is more effective than bringing acceptance of misinformation to zero. Therefore, interventions that increase the acceptance of reliable information have a greater effect than interventions on misinformation.

Acerbi, Altay, and Mercier demonstrate the importance understanding the impact of different interventions in the informational landscape. Publishers that place their efforts on increasing the acceptance of reliable information will have a greater effect in the fight against fake news.

These findings do not dispute the many efforts to fight misinformation. However, given publishers’ limited resources, more efforts should be dedicated to increasing trust in reliable sources of information rather than in fighting misinformation.

Industry-Research

How video streaming services innovate and stay competitive

January 26, 2022 Rande Price, Research VP – DCN

Streaming is popular but competition is fierce. It seems like every major network and media company has launched a streaming service.

Last week, Netflix released its 4Q 2021 earnings. The company closed the year with 221.8 million subscribers. However, Netflix fell short of its Q4 new subscriber forecast. Pivotal Research Group analyst Jeff Wlodarczak comments that streaming services are adjusting to the new norm of subscription growth compared to the accelerated sign-ups witnessed during 2020’s lockdown. Wlodarczak believes, “Streaming is not over; it is the future.”

A number of industry analysts have identified strategies and offer insight into the streaming marketplace’s next steps.

International growth

MarketWatch points to global programming investment as a top priority for streaming services. And the investment in content only bears this out.

Netflix’s hit series from South Korea, Squid Game, is one of many international success stories and a clear winner for the platform. Expect more foreign-language series to be developed as Netflix turns international growth, especially in Asia, India and Latin America.
Amazon’s Prime Video will offer more programming in India’s Hindi, Tamil, and Telugu languages. It’s India service registered tripled its viewing hours over the past two years there.
Apple TV+ will debut its first Russian-language show, the thriller “Container,” in the spring.
Disney+ plans 50 Asian originals by 2023, as it expands to South Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.
HBO Max debuts in Europe in early 2022.
Paramount+ also debuts in South Korea and Western Europe.
Peacock expanded to Europe (on Sky platforms), with more than 50 Spanish-language projects with Telemundo.

Mix and matching viewing strategies

While Linear TV marathons introduced us to binge viewing, Netflix’s flexible nature made it an everyday behavior. TheRinger identifies the different episode distribution strategies to keep viewers engaged and coming back to view more. As noted with Netflix, flexibility is essential and a reminder that different approaches offer different results. A buzz-worthy binge (all episodes released at once) can be great PR for a new series release. Additionally, a scheduled infusion of new episodes can draws viewers back week after week.

Apple TV+ offers a “demi-binge” strategy, debuting with a batch of three episodes, then airing the remaining seven one at a time.

WarnerMedia’s HBO Max uses a hybrid approach, breaking up seasons into packs of two or three episodes released over several weeks.

Interestingly, Peacock’s promotes binging but at higher pricing for specific series. Seasons 1 and 2 of The Office are available at the lowest-priced monthly subscription price of $4.99 a month. To unlock every episode, extended cuts, never-before-seen-footage, and watch commercial-free, consumers pay $9.99 — the highest tier.

Amazon’s The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel will switch from releasing all eight episodes at once to two a week for four weeks. Fear not, the binging release strategy is far from over. Rather, this is simply different viewing models in play. And they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Merger, acquisitions, and differentiation

As Netflix invests in gaming, Amazon looks to its NFL and Thursday Night Football. Both are clear points of differentiation. Other services look to corporate and sibling-studio deals to offer HBO Max, Peacock, and Paramount+ access to new movies releases 45 days after they open in theaters.

CNBC Tech Reporter Alex Sherman points to the significance of mergers. He believes that Paramount+ and Peacock won’t last as standalone streaming services, and a merger is likely in their future.

Discovery Inc.’s acquisition of WarnerMedia (expected to be complete in mid-2022) will combine the streaming platform of Discovery+ and HBO Max. Combined, they will have approximately 100 million subscribers.

Streaming platforms are making significant investments in new and innovative content and unique deal-making to differentiate themselves from competitors. They need to keep their customers consistently engaged, especially as consumers begin to reevaluate their multiple subscriptions to access the content they want to watch.

Industry-Research

The consumer complications caused by streaming’s success

January 25, 2022 Michelle Manafy, Editorial Director – DCN

Remember cable television? How about consumers’ desperate plea for skinny bundles? Certainly, there is an entire generation (or two) that is entirely unfamiliar with historic issues around bloated offerings from traditional cable companies. However, for a few years there, things seemed better for consumers of all ages. Streaming afforded viewers the opportunity to handpick only the services they wanted. And even better: They didn’t have to sift through, or pay for, those they did not.

However, according to new Accenture research, consumers increasingly find streaming to be complicated, expensive, and difficult to use. In a survey of 6,000 consumers in North America, South America, Europe, South Africa, and Asia Pacific, the research identified room for improvement in how consumers navigate and search across various providers, the types and pricing of bundles they’re offered, and the relevance of the recommendations they receive.

Too much of a good thing

The proliferation of streaming services has given consumers options galore. It has enabled them to explore archives of their favorites and access a deep well of niche and enthusiast content. However, as many have feared, the research confirms that it has also created incredible complexity. With each additional service, consumers must manually browse through multiple platforms and screens just to find something to watch.

The survey found that 60% of consumers globally consider the process of navigating these different services “a little” to “very” frustrating. Nearly half (44%) spend more than six minutes trying to find something they want to watch.

Payment problems

Paying for more services is also a growing problem. In fact, many consumers are approaching their upper limit on the amount of money they’ll spend for streaming services. According to Accenture’s survey, 33% of consumers globally say they will “somewhat” or “greatly” decrease spend on media and entertainment across subscriptions and one-time purchases in the next 12 months. And, while Accenture doesn’t specifically mention this, it is likely that the inefficiency of having to pay for so many services, and tracking total spend is something consumers would like to simplify as well.

Discovery dilemma

Lastly, the research finds that discoverability is not just an issue of the sheer number of streaming platforms consumers must manage. Because each experience is siloed, consumers’ preferences do not sufficiently inform algorithmic recommendation engines so that they provide accurate suggestions.

Furthermore, the reliance on the algorithm to pitch shows doesn’t allow consumers to tune the model, except through actual show selection. A majority of global consumers said they’d like to be able to take their profile from one service to another to better personalize content (56%); and they’d be happy to let a video-on-demand service know more about them to make recommendations more relevant to them (51%).

Old problems in new platforms

The three issues consumers have with the current streaming experience and ecosystem all point to their desire to have far greater control over their experience. They want easier navigation and to pay for only what they want. For streaming to continue to grow and fulfill its potential, Accenture believes a big change to the ecosystem is needed: the addition of a smart aggregator that sits across multiple platforms and dramatically increases viewers’ control over the content they watch. Sound familiar?