Nieman Journalism Lab

What’s New in Digital Scholarship: Chasing pageviews, news on Facebook, and the search for the golden metric

Posted: 31 Oct 2013 10:16 AM PDT

Editor’s note: There’s a lot of interesting academic research going on in digital media — but who has time to sift through all those journals and papers?

Our friends at Journalist’s Resource, that’s who. JR is a project of the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, and they spend their time examining the new academic literature in media, social science, and other fields, summarizing the high points and giving you a point of entry. Roughly once a month, JR managing editor John Wihbey will sum up for us what’s new and fresh.

Should news organizations invest in better Facebook branding or more accountability stories on local government? Should they slavishly follow web analytics and serve up “comfort” content that makes the audience happy — or should the content challenge them? At a basic level, it’s the old binary, God and Mammon, reborn digital. One broad theme in recent scholarship is how the digital world continues to make the notion of “value” — money, prosocial good, or something else — problematic and complex. What role should money play in media decision-making? Beyond CPMs, what’s a site visit, a new follower, or a fan worth these days? How do we support non-commercial efforts in the public interest? How do we create sustainable media that also boost civic life and engagement? The following studies have insights or data that speak to these issues.

“When Newsworthy Is Not Noteworthy: Examining the value of news from the audience’s perspective”: From the University of Texas at Austin, published in Journalism Studies. By Angela M. Lee and Hsiang Iris Chyi.

The authors take a hard look at the disjunction between what editors think is important and what news consumers actually think of the content offered. Lee and Chyi analyze results of a 2010 online survey (767 respondents) that asked about consumption habits and the degree to which audience members found news to be relevant or interesting. “On average, respondents indicated 36 percent of news content provided by the mainstream news organizations is of noteworthiness,” they find. “In other words, an average internet user found nearly two-thirds of the news irrelevant and uninteresting.” Local news got the best ratings; about 50 percent was identified as noteworthy.

Predictably, different kinds of news — local versus international, business versus entertainment, etc. — have better traction with different demographics, in terms of race, gender and age. However, the takeaway findings suggest news organizations are continuing to leave potential revenue on the table: “[W]hile demographic factors do predict various aspects of news consumption, perceived noteworthiness is actually a more important factor that influences news consumption and creates the kind of monetizing value that will set news organizations apart from other media providers in the age of information surplus. After all, with about two-thirds of the news deemed unnoteworthy by the respondents, it is hardly a surprise that most news users are disinterested in most, if not all, paywall models…The problem may not be that news users are unwilling to pay, but that most news content is of limited appeal to most users.“

“The Role of News on Facebook”: From the Pew Research Journalism Project. By Amy Mitchell, Jocelyn Kiley, Jeffrey Gottfried, and Emily Guskin.

As Justin Ellis has written here at the Lab, this report suggests that news is not a big reason why people go to Facebook. A nationally representative online survey of more than 5,000 U.S. adults (margin of error plus or minus 1.7 percentage points) shows the following about news content and Facebook: 34 percent of the American public has a news organization or individual in his/her feed; 78 percent say they get news on the social media platform; 47 percent of light news consumers say it is an important place where they get news; but only 4 percent overall say it’s the most important place they get news.

Demographics, as would be expected, are all-important: “Young people (18- to 29-year-olds) account for about a third, 34 percent, of Facebook news consumers. That far outpaces the 20% that they account for among Facebook users who do not get news on the site.” Among people who regularly consume news there, entertainment is the most popular content category (73 percent ) while just 44 percent see content related to local government. Overall, the report suggests that news is frequently consumed in “incidental” or ambient fashion on the platform. From a news branding perspective, there is unsettling news: “Just over a third, 37 percent, say a friend’s recommendation is a major reason they click on news links, and only 20 percent say a major reason is because the post is from a news organization they prefer.”

“Searchlights and Sunglasses: Field Notes from the Digital Age of Journalism”: Digital book from the Knight Foundation. By Eric Newton.

Newton, senior advisor to the president at Knight (full disclosure: a funder of both Nieman Lab and Journalist’s Resource), is a deep thinker on all things digital media (see his recent call-to-arms on journalism education at the Lab), and this new ebook is in many ways a summation of everything he’s learned and the many projects the foundation has been involved with through the years. It provides a tour both of journalism’s past and potential future (or “a history of the future of news,” in his phrase) emphasizing not only the new tools and practices reporters need to remain relevant and innovate but also issues relating to policy, deeper community and civic engagement dynamics, and “simmering opportunities.” The HTML5 design makes for a fun, interactive read, and learning materials for classroom use and discussion are embedded in the structure. Topics such as anonymous online comment threads (bad) and open newsrooms and newspapers (good) are covered. The narrative draws on vast data, but it’s infused with whimsy and a nod to sci-fi inspiration. One highlight is a discussion of the relationship between “comfort news” (soft news, entertainment, etc.) and civics: “Comfort news is the reason why we know so much about celebrities and so little about what our government does or how to solve our most pressing problems,” Newton writes. “This trend is the underbelly of the information revolution.”

The ebook is ultimately a kind of open letter to all who care about the Internet and our ability to function as a society: “Like democracy itself, professional journalism is a somewhat messy experiment,” he writes. “We don’t know exactly where it’s headed, but some things seem clear. The digital age is not some kind of fad. It is nothing less than the fourth great age of human literacy — after the rise of the image, language, and mass media. Visual literacy made tribes possible. Language brought us cities. Mass media inspired modern nations. Will digital literacy unite the world? Perhaps. The unprecedented power of data will not automatically end famine, disease or war. Digital tools are just that, tools. They amplify human hopes and fears. They allow the entire networked world to react, or overreact, instantly. Today’s tools provide a powerful test for us all.”

“The online audience as gatekeeper: The influence of reader metrics on news editorial selection”: From the University of Texas at Austin, published in Journalism. By Hong Tien Vu.

Sure, we should monitor analytics. But should a news outlet’s content be solely driven by traffic numbers — link bait and viral plays, all over, all the time? This study surveys 318 newspaper editors — gatekeepers — to see how much analytics and audience numbers matter in terms of decision-making. The medium circulation figure among the outlets surveyed was about 53,000. Sixty percent of editors managed online and print content. “Most editors said that they monitor web metrics to only scrutinize audience behavior,” Vu writes. “However, nearly one-third also explicitly said that online metrics helps them plan future content production and/or placement. This, perhaps, is because the journalistic occupational pride of sustaining autonomy against any kind of non-professional influences made it harder for editors to admit that their editorial decision-making is affected by audience metrics.” Further, Vu finds some conflicting data about how editors think about economics: “Journalists are trying to cope with rampant financial problems that have hit the industry, but are still unsure whether allowing deeper audience interference on their professional turf is the solution.”

“Data not seen: The uses and shortcomings of social media metrics”: From Microsoft Research/MIT, published in First Monday. By Nancy K. Baym.

So it’s not just pageviews anymore, and we still haven’t found what we’re looking for. But what might the golden metric look like? Many things, Baym suggests. A thoughtful, reflective paper that puts analytics and social data in a wider theoretical context, it also underscores a basic message that is increasingly resonant with online strategists of all kinds: “We are more than our Klout scores,” she writes. “Now, more than ever, we need qualitative sensibilities and methods to help us see what numbers cannot.” The study, a broad discussion wrapped around some qualitative data from interviews with eclectic persons involved in the music business — from members of The Cure and Chester Finch to “Norwegian thrash death metal bands” and a Puerto Rican band manager — is relevant to any group whose broader social mission is as important as their economic bottom line.

“Quantitative analyses of audience,” Baym notes, “including those based on sentiment mining (with all the ambiguities lost in those techniques), necessarily omit much of what provides real value to both audiences and artists.” The paper examines how “visible” certain social media metrics — thousands of Twitter followers, winners in the “Like economy” — confer status and generate buzz, but in point of fact these numbers are a function of sometimes skewed algorithms and comprise “non-representative samples” of audiences/engagement.

“Emerging news non-profits: A case study for rebuilding community trust?”: From the University of Wisconsin-Madison, published in Journalism. By Magda Konieczna and Sue Robinson.

The researchers look at survey data and mission statements relating to 46 news nonprofits in order to assess how these newer organizations are conceiving of their mission and relationship to the areas they cover. Many articulate the goal of upending the traditional publisher-passive audience dynamic — the one-way conversation — and seek to give the community a primary role in news creation. Konieczna and Robinson state that these organizations want to “re-define the relationship between journalists and citizens and erase the previous boundaries of informational authority. Not only are these journalists working to have citizens ‘trust’ non-profits to uncover those stories the local news organization failed to report, but they are also actively cultivating a sense of ownership over information and over the news organization itself for citizens.”

But the authors note that, beyond the rhetoric and ideals, there are many unanswered questions: “Controversy, cynicism, and doubts dog these groups. Foundations or wealthy patrons fund many — how sustainable is such a model? Some (not in our sample) decline to disclose where their money comes from — how can we trust the veracity of their information and the altruism of their agenda? Many have a very small readership — how can a group with so little marketability hope to survive amidst the glut of the information age? The very digital technologies that enable these groups to produce and disseminate news and take a shot at rebuilding community trust might also bring about their demise.”

Photo by Anna Creech used under a Creative Commons license.

The newsonomics of outrageous confidence

Posted: 31 Oct 2013 07:52 AM PDT

Who expected a virtual coming-out party for the newspaper industry in late 2013?

In the past several weeks, we’ve seen new newspaper owners proudly raising the flags of their new enterprises, speaking grandly of their futures and spouting that most legacy of commodities: optimism for the future.

Jeff Bezos toured his new Post before closing the sale and wowed a group of very professional skeptics. Orange County Register president Eric Spitz, part of Aaron Kushner’s ownership group, gave a long interview extolling growth and investment. Then John Henry penned an open letter to the good citizens of Boston and beyond, laying out in fine detail why he bought The Boston Globe. (It’s been a good week for Henry.)

Each of these new owners said a number of intriguing things — sentiments and strategies that we can pick over, puncture, and praise. They all surface elements essential to success. Money? Check. A longer-term view? Check. A respect for the long-time community roles of newspapers? Check. A call for new ideas? Check.

But there’s one other commodity that stands out amid them all — the commodity of confidence. In light of financial downturn of the industry, we could even call it outrageous confidence.

Over time, we’ve seen a shrinking amount of public talk by newspaper company CEOs. What were once monthly earnings calls for the publicly traded firms turned to quarterly, and some moved to the mere issuing of statements. Even as he explained his acquisition of Knight Ridder in 2006, then-McClatchy CEO Gary Pruitt talked about community and journalism excellence as much as he did the bottom line.

That kind of public confidence quickly dissipated, as first digital disruption and then overall economic calamity reduced publishers’ public words — the public markets didn’t want to hear them. Then, in quick order, publishers’ confidence itself was reduced.

I’ve been amazed over the last eight years I’ve covered the industry as an analyst (new, improved Newsonomics site now up) how publishers have refused to associate any of their revenue problems with the diminished budgets for their own products. Sure, maybe, they had to cut as deeply as they did, but few ever acknowledged that serving their communities less and less — even if forced to by forces beyond their control — was part of their business problems going forward.

Confidence in the very basis of their businesses — what news media uniquely do for their communities, local or national — has been shaken so much by revenue loss. Publishers — and their workforces who have sensed the fear, uncertainty, and doubt disabling the spirit of the industry — mistook revenue loss (largely in advertising and largely caused by hurricane forces beyond their control) for brand and community value loss.

Now, that mistake — especially as profound changes have reshaped U.S. ownership over the last year — is finally being redressed.

What does Jeff Bezos see, I’m often asked? (You can substitute in any of the other billionaires/multi-millionaires buying into the business.) I can tick off the various motivations: A sense they are buying at the bottom. Civic sensibilities. Well-developed egos honed by other business success.

At the base, though, across the board — from Orange County to San Diego to Tampa, from Buffett to Bezos to Henry — is a simple thing: confidence. They approach these companies with eyes forward, not with nostalgia for the days of literally printing money.

Is the confidence well placed? We’ll have to check back. One thing I know, though, is that the lack of confidence, the shying away from a public mission, has been a slow death sentence for newspaper companies around the world. Without confidence, there isn’t much of a future. Doubt may still swirl in the back of minds — but confidence itself is a gate to the future.

No one wants to work for the timid. Readers like a news company that asserts its role. Advertisers move toward strength, not weakness. I’ve shared that thinking recently with audiences as different as German and Latin American publishers, and it seems to strike a chord with our common experience.

With confidence in mind, let me put aside for the moment the numbers of the last decade and the continuing loss in print ad revenues and name eight good reasons for confidence. The persistent problems are all real — but let’s make the case for new owners’ optimism. Let’s pretend, for a moment, we’re the billionaires doing the buying.

The huge audience is growing again.

Forget, for just a moment, the revenue losses and concentrate on audience. Digital distribution has defeated the geographical bounds of the old world and delivered audiences of incredible scale to news publishers. For national companies, that’s meant a monthly exposure more than 50 times the old print one; for local ones, it’s a multiplier in high single or low double digits.

We had seen some leveling off of audience growth as broadband/Internet penetration itself leveled. Now, though, smartphones and tablets have doubled the number of Internet minutes used every month. Most of that traffic goes elsewhere, but news publishers are telling me they are seeing a mobile-inspired leap of another 10 to 20 percent in usage.

What’s more, newer Pew research shows that the more devices we use, the more minutes we spend getting news daily. Tablets will outship PCs for the first time this quarter and reach an installed base of 900 million worldwide by 2017.

Paywalls have proven that readers will pay for digital access.

This revelation — counter to what most people believed way back in the ancient year of 2010 — is the biggest positive of this half-decade for the industry. Let’s not underestimate it.

While not a panacea, it is the most important building block for the future of the news industry — and paying professional journalists — we’ve seen. Free digital access is now restricted in some form at more than 500 daily newspapers worldwide. The new circulation revenue is the headline. Having readers assume a direct responsibility for paying for the news they want is the bigger lesson here.

The next generation of paywalls is set to begin in 2014.

If 2011 to 2013 has been Paywalls 1.0, then 2.0 is around the corner. The New York Times’ new paid digital products will launch in the spring, and other major publishers are telling me they are preparing their own paid topical products. The data is being mined, customer patterns and preferences are being evaluated, and pricing is started to be tested. If the basic subscription works, new ways to sell niche products, single-copy digital products, and price discriminate among first generation digital/all-access subscribers all promise more reader revenue in 2014 to 2016. The big question: How much more?

Publisher/customer relationships have never offered this level of closeness.

In the old days, publishers literally threw their papers at their customers and knew next to nothing about them. Now digital subscriptions requiring registration offer a trove of data — and ways to newly understand individuals and groups of readers. Similarly, publishers pre-digital worked only larger ad accounts and sold space. Now the digital services movement forces a consultative relationship – and offers the chance for a new closeness with merchants. All of this requires execution several degrees higher than the old world demanded, but its potential payoff is much higher as well.

Digital economics will be a godsend.

When, you ask? My crystal ball says 2018 or 2019. When I switched over my Wall Street Journal subscription from print to digital, I calculated my savings: 17 percent. The Journal, forgoing costly printing and distribution, is charging me 83 percent of the print price for pixels. Of course, it doesn’t gain as much from that great margin until most of its readership switches — and enough higher-priced digital ads accompany the switch. When it does, though, being a publisher will once again become a higher profit enterprise.

My favorite example: Check out the Financial Times’ subscription page. You’ve got two choices: a nice, bright yellow banner offering premium, taking up as much as two-thirds the width of the page or a one-third neutral gray bannered offer, offering well, the ordinary sub. Fully a third of signups take premium — and pay 113 percent of the print price.

We’re at the beginning of a new age of storytelling.

From the reality and near-myth of The New York Times’ Snow Fall to content marketing and native ads, storytelling is finally taking advantage of the whole digital toolbox. There’s editorial storytelling and commercial storytelling, both built on the same tools of video and visuals, interactivity and immersiveness, voice and view. The best storytellers — and isn’t that a core of what journalism has always been about? — will be among the winners.

Fresh minds are rethinking news.

Our fear here should be that the newbie owners do too little rather than too much. Sure, there will be excesses and wrong turns under new owners; we’ve already seen those. But fundamental, outside-the-newspaper-box thinking is required at this point in history. Build innovatively on reader revenue and work those merchant relationships differently, but also rethink new ways to make money and support journalism. That’s one reason Bezos’ sudden appearance on the scene has been electrifying — Amazon is a business-model buster many times over.

Our democracies have never needed high-quality news more.

Can we track the wider ennui of democracies around the world with the decline of robust journalism? It would be tough, but it’s clearly part of the reason communities and societies are doing some an abysmal job of coming to grips with big issues — education, health, immigration, climate change, and lots more — before them. Dailies always did an uneven job of surfacing issues and challenging readers and leaders to tackle them. Now that capacity has further diminished.

Bezos, Buffett, Henry, and Kushner all highlight community connectedness and the value of agenda-setting as they go public with their plans. Now let’s see what they do to rebuild that capacity.

Photo from Winooski, Vermont, by Don Shall used under a Creative Commons license.

YULI AHMADA

Jumat, 01 November 2013