Connect with us

SOCIAL

Facebook Responds to ‘Counterproductive’ Australian News Content Revenue-Sharing Regulation

Published

on

facebook responds to counterproductive australian news content revenue sharing regulation

Back in April, when the Australian Government announced its proposed new regulatory reforms that would essentially force both Google and Facebook to share a portion of their revenue with Australian news publishers for use of their news coverage, in different forms, on their respective platforms, we noted that:

“In all likelihood, neither Google nor Facebook will be intending to make a switch in their approaches, and will instead seek to alter their processes in accordance with revised local laws. That could lead to significant changes in the way content is displayed on the digital giants, which, if anything, will only take traffic away from the traditional media players, and provide more instead to less mainstream outlets.”

That, indeed, appears to be what’s going to happen. This week, in its response to the Australian Government’s proposed changes, Facebook has issued a strong rebuke, criticizing the draft laws, the regulators, the Australian Government – basically anyone who’s had anything to do with the proposal.

And Facebook’s right – for example, in his opening statement, Facebook Australia and New Zealand Managing Director Will Easton says:

“Australia is drafting a new regulation that misunderstands the dynamics of the internet and will do damage to the very news organizations the government is trying to protect. When crafting this new legislation, the commission overseeing the process ignored important facts, most critically the relationship between the news media and social media and which one benefits most from the other.”

This is the absolute crux of the issue at hand – the Australian Government’s proposed regulation is reliant on the fact that Facebook and Google need content from Australian news publishers in order to continue operating as they currently do. Which is not correct. Both Facebook and Google could simply block the URLs of these providers, and they’d still be highly used by Australians. 

Advertisement

What Google did in France, which proposed similar regulations last year, was that it implemented a new system which meant that only news publishers that had explicitly agreed to its terms would be displayed in search resuilts. That’s some pretty lucrative digital real estate to have, so naturally, many publishers agreed. Some didn’t, and they no longer get referral traffic from Google. Most did, negating years of disputes and negotiations.

Google may end up doing the same in Australia – while Facebook, right now at least, is saying that it too is considering eliminating content from Australian news outlets entirely.

Assuming this draft code becomes law, we will reluctantly stop allowing publishers and people in Australia from sharing local and international news on Facebook and Instagram. This is not our first choice – it is our last. But it is the only way to protect against an outcome that defies logic and will hurt, not help, the long-term vibrancy of Australia’s news and media sector.”

Will that lead to people using Facebook and Instagram less? Probably not – it’ll no doubt have some impact on overall engagement. But the ones that will really feel the pinch are the news publishers, the organizations that the regulations are supposed to be helping.

Which is why the proposal, as Facebook notes, is “counterproductive”. 

The proposed law is unprecedented in its reach and seeks to regulate every aspect of how tech companies do business with news publishers. Most perplexing, it would force Facebook to pay news organizations for content that the publishers voluntarily place on our platforms and at a price that ignores the financial value we bring publishers.” 

Advertisement

Easton even has the specific stats to prove his point:

Over the first five months of 2020 we sent 2.3 billion clicks from Facebook’s News Feed back to Australian news websites at no charge – additional traffic worth an estimated $200 million AUD to Australian publishers.”

Easton also notes that Facebook has invested millions into Australian news businesses, and had also been hoping to open up new opportunities with the expansion of Facebook’s dedicated News Tab to Australian users, for which it pays publishers for content.

Now, those plans are on hold, at least for the time being.

“Facebook products and services in Australia that allow family and friends to connect will not be impacted by this decision. Our global commitment to quality news around the world will not change either. And we will continue to work with governments and regulators who rightly hold our feet to the fire. But successful regulation, like the best journalism, will be grounded in and built on facts. In this instance, it is not.”

Facebook’s tough words follow a public campaign from Google which seeks to alert Australian users to other potential impacts of the coming regulatory changes.

Advertisement
Google Australia News Campaign

In essence, both Facebook and Google are saying that the only outcome, if the Australian Government pushes forward with this proposal, will hurt local news publishers, not help them. And while others may seek to play down these responses as scaremongering to protect their own interests, it is grounded fact. As private enterprises, Facebook and Google are under no obligation to display content from any source they don’t choose to.

How you view each stance then will come down to whether you believe that news content is critical to both platforms, or not. The scale of each platform’s operations outside of news material should be evidence enough to indicate that losing such will not be a death blow for either.

But it could be for the publishers – the impetus behind the proposal is that Australian news publishers are losing revenue as their traditional ad streams dry up, with more companies switching to online promotional sources instead of classifieds and print ads. Those losses have been further exacerbated by the COVID-19 shutdowns, and with the sector crying out for help, it appears that the Australian Government sees this as a lifeline.

But the blunt basis of the proposal is that Facebook and Google make lots of money, while news publishers don’t. The detail in between seems to have largely been overlooked, including how, exactly, news publishers benefit from these platforms.

Really, there’s no equitable way for Facebook nor Google to approach this. If they negotiate, in any way, that will open the floodgates for every other nation to implement the same, potentially costing them billions each year. Which they just don’t have to pay – and while the Australian Government looks set to push ahead in its game of chicken, hoping that Facebook or Google will pull out, the final outcome could be very bad for the Australian news sector.

It’s a gamble that’s unlikely to pay off as the Government might hope. Now we wait and see if there’s any change in course from the regulators.  

Socialmediatoday.com

Advertisement
Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address

SOCIAL

Snapchat Explores New Messaging Retention Feature: A Game-Changer or Risky Move?

Published

on

By

Snapchat Explores New Messaging Retention Feature: A Game-Changer or Risky Move?

In a recent announcement, Snapchat revealed a groundbreaking update that challenges its traditional design ethos. The platform is experimenting with an option that allows users to defy the 24-hour auto-delete rule, a feature synonymous with Snapchat’s ephemeral messaging model.

The proposed change aims to introduce a “Never delete” option in messaging retention settings, aligning Snapchat more closely with conventional messaging apps. While this move may blur Snapchat’s distinctive selling point, Snap appears convinced of its necessity.

According to Snap, the decision stems from user feedback and a commitment to innovation based on user needs. The company aims to provide greater flexibility and control over conversations, catering to the preferences of its community.

Currently undergoing trials in select markets, the new feature empowers users to adjust retention settings on a conversation-by-conversation basis. Flexibility remains paramount, with participants able to modify settings within chats and receive in-chat notifications to ensure transparency.

Snapchat underscores that the default auto-delete feature will persist, reinforcing its design philosophy centered on ephemerality. However, with the app gaining traction as a primary messaging platform, the option offers users a means to preserve longer chat histories.

The update marks a pivotal moment for Snapchat, renowned for its disappearing message premise, especially popular among younger demographics. Retaining this focus has been pivotal to Snapchat’s identity, but the shift suggests a broader strategy aimed at diversifying its user base.

Advertisement

This strategy may appeal particularly to older demographics, potentially extending Snapchat’s relevance as users age. By emulating features of conventional messaging platforms, Snapchat seeks to enhance its appeal and broaden its reach.

Yet, the introduction of message retention poses questions about Snapchat’s uniqueness. While addressing user demands, the risk of diluting Snapchat’s distinctiveness looms large.

As Snapchat ventures into uncharted territory, the outcome of this experiment remains uncertain. Will message retention propel Snapchat to new heights, or will it compromise the platform’s uniqueness?

Only time will tell.

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading

SOCIAL

Catering to specific audience boosts your business, says accountant turned coach

Published

on

Catering to specific audience boosts your business, says accountant turned coach

While it is tempting to try to appeal to a broad audience, the founder of alcohol-free coaching service Just the Tonic, Sandra Parker, believes the best thing you can do for your business is focus on your niche. Here’s how she did just that.

When running a business, reaching out to as many clients as possible can be tempting. But it also risks making your marketing “too generic,” warns Sandra Parker, the founder of Just The Tonic Coaching.

“From the very start of my business, I knew exactly who I could help and who I couldn’t,” Parker told My Biggest Lessons.

Parker struggled with alcohol dependence as a young professional. Today, her business targets high-achieving individuals who face challenges similar to those she had early in her career.

“I understand their frustrations, I understand their fears, and I understand their coping mechanisms and the stories they’re telling themselves,” Parker said. “Because of that, I’m able to market very effectively, to speak in a language that they understand, and am able to reach them.” 

“I believe that it’s really important that you know exactly who your customer or your client is, and you target them, and you resist the temptation to make your marketing too generic to try and reach everyone,” she explained.

Advertisement



“If you speak specifically to your target clients, you will reach them, and I believe that’s the way that you’re going to be more successful.

Watch the video for more of Sandra Parker’s biggest lessons.

Source link

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading

SOCIAL

Instagram Tests Live-Stream Games to Enhance Engagement

Published

on

Instagram Tests Live-Stream Games to Enhance Engagement

Instagram’s testing out some new options to help spice up your live-streams in the app, with some live broadcasters now able to select a game that they can play with viewers in-stream.

As you can see in these example screens, posted by Ahmed Ghanem, some creators now have the option to play either “This or That”, a question and answer prompt that you can share with your viewers, or “Trivia”, to generate more engagement within your IG live-streams.

That could be a simple way to spark more conversation and interaction, which could then lead into further engagement opportunities from your live audience.

Meta’s been exploring more ways to make live-streaming a bigger consideration for IG creators, with a view to live-streams potentially catching on with more users.

That includes the gradual expansion of its “Stars” live-stream donation program, giving more creators in more regions a means to accept donations from live-stream viewers, while back in December, Instagram also added some new options to make it easier to go live using third-party tools via desktop PCs.

Live streaming has been a major shift in China, where shopping live-streams, in particular, have led to massive opportunities for streaming platforms. They haven’t caught on in the same way in Western regions, but as TikTok and YouTube look to push live-stream adoption, there is still a chance that they will become a much bigger element in future.

Advertisement



Which is why IG is also trying to stay in touch, and add more ways for its creators to engage via streams. Live-stream games is another element within this, which could make this a better community-building, and potentially sales-driving option.

We’ve asked Instagram for more information on this test, and we’ll update this post if/when we hear back.

Source link

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading

Trending

Follow by Email
RSS