Connect with us

SOCIAL

Lessons Learned,” by Prof. Laurie Thomas Lee

Published

on

Lessons Learned," by Prof. Laurie Thomas Lee

The article is here; here are the Introduction, Part I, and the start of Part II:

Despite the sharp decline in the number of local newspapers, it’s important to understand that other legacy news-delivery platforms—particularly local TV news—have not been suffering the same degree of loss. Pew Research Center found that local TV news actually saw its audience increase across the evening and late-night timeslots in 2020, and that local TV companies earned more revenue than the previous year. In fact, local TV was deemed to be on par with or outpacing cable and network TV. Pew survey data show more Americans still prefer to get their local news from television than from any other medium, including online. Even with an increasing preference for digital delivery, “local television stations have retained a strong hold in the local news ecosystem.”

Why and how has local TV news managed to stay afloat while local newspapers close their doors? Even as we mourn the loss of local news from print media, we should not overlook its surviving sibling that continues to churn out news to small and medium markets. Why do some media survive in the face of competition from new, disruptive media technologies? What lessons might be learned? Is there a role that government might play? Yet with the loss of local newspapers, are broadcast stations and online platforms adequate substitutes for providing local news? Or is local broadcast news actually just on a slower decline compared to newspapers?

[I.] Surviving Disruption

Much of the blame for the fall of the newspaper industry rests with the rise of the Internet and online competition. For example, digital offerings have cannibalized the editorial side of the business as online aggregators. Social-media sites have become the alternate entry point for daily news as readers rapidly migrate to social media.

Newspapers have also been hit with a loss of advertising revenue to online companies like Facebook and Google. The most devasting blow is from the online siphoning of roughly $5 billion in classified ad revenues—a critically important revenue source for newspapers. Dedicated online businesses, such as Craigslist, and social-media companies, like Facebook, are able to easily provide less-expensive access to their online “Marketplace” for individuals and merchants to buy and sell goods and services.

As a result, cost-cutting ownership practices—particularly by hedge-fund owners—have led to a death spiral for newspapers. Granted, trends have shown that revenue growth from advertising expenditures had been weakening and not keeping up with inflation enough to be sustainable. But newspapers’ shrinking page counts, staff layoffs, and general financial crises are largely due to the advent of the Internet and the online business competitors it spawned.

[II.] Understanding Local Television News Success

To understand how local television news has fared compared to local newspapers, we should examine distinguishing factors such as regulation and technology, as well as other market forces, including consumer behavior.

[A.] Regulation

Both industries have faced similar disruptive effects over the years, but the one element that most notably separates broadcasting from the newspaper industry is federal regulation and oversight. Governmental authority has shaped the broadcast industry in terms of invention, competition, and content, including how it serves local communities with news and information. It has controlled but also protected local broadcast stations in ways that may explain their continued success in the digital age.

[1.] Local and educational coverage requirements

Unlike newspapers, TV and radio stations have always been and continue to be subject to federal licensing requirements. Since broadcasting signals naturally cross state lines, the U.S. government’s authority over broadcasting comes from the Commerce Clause, which provides for oversight of interstate commerce. A period of chaotic interference by early radio entrepreneurs during the 1920s prompted calls for some sort of licensing and coordination of the airwaves akin to a traffic cop. The rationale for supporting licensing was then based on the legal premises of the scarcity doctrine and public ownership of the airwaves. Simply put, the range of frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum that broadcasting stations use to transmit their signals is a limited resource, and that resource belongs to the public.

As a result, one regulatory distinction is the assurance that all communities are served by at least one TV station. The federal government intentionally created a system of channel allocations that would ensure small markets are served. Congress was concerned that licenses would become concentrated around major cities and would thus leave remote and less populated areas of the country without service. The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) believed that the public interest would best be served by ensuring that every community had its own television station that was locally oriented and controlled. So, a “Table of Allotments” was created that established a formula for the geographical distribution of local television and commercial FM radio frequencies across the country. These channel assignments are set. Unlike newspapers, stations cannot abandon their local communities and move to larger markets or regionalize the scope of their coverage. They must serve their local communities of license….

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

SOCIAL

The best social media hacks to blow up your following in just a year

Published

on

The best social media hacks to blow up your following in just a year

Storyboard

Get viral fast. Plus more social media hacks to grow your accounts.

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

X Pitches Advertisers on Audience Reach Opportunities in ‘Q5’

Published

on

X Pitches Advertisers on Audience Reach Opportunities in ‘Q5’

X is making a push to win over advertisers in the holiday season, by promoting its opportunities in “Q5”, which covers the post-Christmas to mid-January period.

As explained by X:

During [Q5], we see reduced CPMs and cost-per-conversion as consumers shop for post-holiday deals and products to support their New Year’s ambitions. Last year, X saw a 5% reduction in the average CPM and a 27% reduction in the average cost-per-conversion1.

Which could present new opportunity to reach a larger audience with your promotions, if indeed they are engaging on X over the holiday period.

“Q5 is filled with a wide variety of tent-pole moments, ranging from the holidays to sports, entertainment and more. With a surge of engagement around these conversations, your brand can remain relevant to your audiences while driving maximum ROI.

X says that, based on engagement data from last year, there are a lot of potential topics of interest for brands.

X also notes that sports video views are surging in the app, up almost 25% YoY over the past 6 months, while vertical video is also gaining momentum.

“Vertical video is the fastest growing surface on X. Over 100M people around the world are consuming vertical video daily at an average of over 13 minutes per day. On many days, vertical video accounts for around 20% of all time spent on the platform.

Though I would advise some caution in trusting these data points.

In recent months, various questions have been raised as to what X counts as a video “view” versus an impression, which is when a post is shown in-feed.

Technically, X counts video views like this:

“The main X video view metric is triggered when a user watches a video for at least 2 seconds and sees at least 50% of the video player in-view. This applies to View metrics for both uploaded videos and live broadcasts.

But that’s different to the actual view count that’s displayed on posts:

“Anyone who is logged into X who views a post counts as a view, regardless of where they see the post (e.g. Home, Search, Profiles, etc.) or whether or not they follow the author. If you’re the author, looking at your own post also counts as a view.

Even worse, X counts multiple views from the same person in that count:

“Multiple views may be counted if you view a post more than once, but not all views are unique. For example, you could look at a post on web and then on your phone, and that would count as two views.

So you can see how the public view count on video posts can massively overstate how many people actually watched a clip, which could be why X is reporting such big spikes in engagement. It just depends on which “view” metric it’s referring to here, actual views or exposure in stream.

Which makes all of these numbers a little difficult to determine, while X owner Elon Musk and CEO Linda Yaccarino have also continued to amplify misleading engagement stats via their own X profiles, muddying the waters as to what kind of actual reach and engagement you can expect.

And that’s before you consider the concerns that other advertisers have had with their promotions potentially being displayed alongside harmful or offensive content in the app.

But depending on how you feel about these aspects, and where your target audience is active, it could be worth considering X for your post-holiday promotions, as you look to maximize sales activity over the holiday period.

It’s also worth considering that with fewer big-name brands taking prime spots in the app, there may also be additional opportunity to reach people via X promotions.

There may be value, depending on your strategic thinking, though I would be keeping an eye on actual engagement

You can read more of X’s Q5 insights here.



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

Gaza and Instagram make an explosive mix in Hollywood

Published

on

Gal Gadot regularly posts demands for the release of hostages held by Hamas in Gaza

Gal Gadot regularly posts demands for the release of hostages held by Hamas in Gaza – Copyright GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/AFP/File Drew Angerer

Audrey Pilon-Topkara

Hollywood celebrities are paying the price for taking sides in the Gaza war — plastering their social media accounts with slogans such as “Free Palestine” or “I stand with Israel”.

Israeli actress Gal Gadot, best known for starring in “Wonder Woman”, has expressed unyielding support for her country since October 7, when Hamas fighters burst out of Gaza, killing about 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and taking around 240 hostage, according to Israeli officials.

“I stand with Israel, you should too,” she declared to her 109 million Instagram followers.

She has continued to regularly publish or share posts demanding that Hamas release the civilians it is holding — earning her both approval and criticism.

“While you’re at it, can you use your platform to share all the missing and killed innocent Palestinians too?” a user on X, formerly Twitter, wrote in response to one of her posts.

In reprisal for the October 7 attacks, Israel has pounded the Gaza Strip and launched a ground invasion, killing more than 17,000 people, mostly women and children, according to Gaza’s Hamas government.

The Instagram account of American model Gigi Hadid, who is of Palestinian descent and followed by 79 million, has spent less attention on fashion in recent weeks.

She cited the “systemic mistreatment of the Palestinian people by the government of Israel”.

“Stop spreading lies. You and your sisters are antisemitic,” said one comment, with many others expressing similar views.

Famous stars can generate equally strong admiration and repulsion from the public, especially if they comment on divisive issues.

Well before social media, boxer Muhammad Ali, the actor Jane Fonda and singer Bob Dylan were adored or hated over their opposition to the Vietnam War.

More recently the actors Ben Stiller, Angelina Jolie and Sean Penn showed their support for Ukraine by visiting the country, in moves that were approved by most of their Western fans.

– Insults –

But the Israel-Palestinian issue is more divisive than most, exposing celebrities to even fiercer backlashes.

Kylie Jenner, the half-sister of socialite Kim Kardashian, shared a pro-Israeli post with her 399 million Instagram followers shortly after October 7, which according to US media she deleted an hour later after being hit with insults.

The Oscar-winning actor Susan Sarandon was dropped by her talent agency in November for comments she made at a pro-Palestinian rally, for which she later apologised.

Melissa Barrera, star of the fifth and sixth instalments of the “Scream” franchise, was cut from the cast of the seventh by the producers, who said they had “zero tolerance for anti-Semitism and incitement to hatred”.

The Mexican had denounced what she called “ethnic cleansing” in Gaza.

Celebrities who take sides in the conflict have “a lot to lose and little to gain”, said Nicolas Vanderbiest, founder of the public relations firm Saper Vedere in Brussels.

Producers and sponsors have little appetite for mixing geopolitics and business, he said.

In this issue, two “extremely organised” communities are on the lookout, creating a “herd affect”, Vanderbiest added.

Tom Cruise prevented his own agent from losing her job after she had referred to “genocide” on her Instagram account, according to the cinema trade press.

Celebrities could just stay quiet, but with this conflict there is “pressure to pronounce” and no immunity from criticism, said Jamil Jean-Marc Dakhlia, a professor of information and communication at Sorbonne Nouvelle University in Paris.

“Silence is seen as taking a position,” Dakhlia said. “So we are in a situation where you are forced to take sides, and not necessarily with much nuance.”

American singer and actor Selena Gomez, with 429 million Instagram followers, has been criticised for not taking a stronger stance on the issue.

Along with hundreds of others, including Hadid, singer Jennifer Lopez and actor Joaquin Phoenix, she took a middle road, signing a petition calling for a ceasefire and the safe release of hostages.

Earlier, hundreds of celebrities, including Gadot, had signed an open letter thanking US President Joe Biden for supporting “the Jewish people” and calling for the release of all hostages held by Hamas.

Very few signed both.

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