New evidence has emerged to underscore that Google’s original unofficial motto of “Don’t be evil” was never really their true North Star. Instead, it is a smokescreen for big tech’s naked ambitions. Meta’s early motto—“Move fast and break things”—may have been more honest, but the honesty makes it even more damning. As it turns out, the broken things weren’t just outdated norms or sluggish competitors. They were the foundations of fair competition, user privacy, democratic discourse, and now, copyright law. The damage isn’t merely collateral; it is strategic.

Big tech’s anticompetitive behavior enters its AI era

Now we’re seeing a similar pattern unfold with generative AI. In Kadrey v. Meta, evidence unsealed early this year suggests Meta execs, including Mark Zuckerberg, chose to pirate copyrighted content to train its LLaMA AI model. It was revealed that Meta initially explored licensing but opted instead to download pirated content via BitTorrent from LibGen under the reasoning that doing things the legal way would take too much time.

Worse, the company allegedly stripped copyright management info from the files to cover its tracks. Clearly, they’re following the motto of moving fast and breaking things. This time around, they seem intent on breaking copyright law. Given Meta’s long track record, I’m not sure what is most surprising: the planning of such a sophisticated heist or the ham-handed cover up. Either way, they graciously documented it all in email.

Meanwhile, over in Mountain View, Google has once again leveraged its search dominance to take traffic and revenue from publishers. In May, Google launched AI Mode, which scrapes and summarizes publishers’ original content to give users the answer without needing to click through thereby extracting out all of the incentives for the publisher.

In a bit of stunning bravado, Google rolled out AI Mode just 48 hours before closing arguments in the remedies phase of the Google Search trial, where the evidence clearly shows that Google abused its market power in search to maintain its significant advantages in crawling, clicks and query data which are paramount to the AI era. Google claims publishers can opt out. However, they can only do so by removing themselves from search entirely–which is no choice at all when it involves a company with more than 95% of the mobile queries. Google’s unauthorized use of copyrighted content to create a substitutive product has, to no one’s surprise, led to a massive downturn in traffic to publisher sites. Simultaneously, Google announced that Gemini will soon be on by default for consumers, collecting data about their activities. This is an oft-used strategy by Google. They tune the defaults to maximum data collection, knowing full well that consumers won’t know or take the time to shut them off.

The courts push back

However, despite big tech’s brazen and predictable pattern of brutish behavior, the legal system may be starting to catch up with the platforms’ anticompetitive tactics. Google has been found guilty of violating antitrust law in both the search and ad tech markets. And at least in the search case, the Court has been very focused on ensuring AI is a competitive marketplace rather than the fruit of more Google abuses. In addition, we’re starting to get additional clarity on how copyright law applies in this new digital age of AI.

In Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence, U.S. District Court Judge Stephanos Bibas ruled that Ross infringed copyright by using Westlaw’s headnotes to train an AI competitor, despite Ross’ claims of fair use. Initially, Ross reached out to Thomson Reuters to license the content but ultimately opted to acquire the Westlaw content from a third party, LegalEase (which sounds eerily similar to Kadrey v Meta).

Judge Bibas rejected all of Ross’ defenses, stating that innocent infringement, copyright misuse, merger defense, scenes à faire defense, and fair use did not apply. On fair use, Judge Bibas eloquently analyzed the four established factors: the use’s purpose and character; the copyrighted work’s nature; how much of the work was used and how substantial a part it was relative to the copyrighted work’s whole; and how Ross’s use affected the copyrighted work’s value or potential market.

On the fourth factor, Judge Bibas found that Ross “meant to compete with Westlaw by developing a market substitute.” He wrote that this factor is “undoubtedly the single most important element of fair use.” That seems like an important ruling in light of the way Google’s AI Mode trains on and serves as a substitute for publisher’s original content.

In April, U.S. District Court Judge Sidney Stein rejected OpenAI and Microsoft’s motion to dismiss, thereby allowing all of the copyright and trademark dilution clams from The New York Times’ suit to proceed. While the bar is admittedly lower for a motion to dismiss, Judge Stein noted “that plaintiffs have plausibly alleged the existence of third-party end-user infringement and that defendants knew or had reason to know of that infringement.”

Then, in May, the U.S. Copyright Office released a report on AI training and fair use. It concluded that using massive troves of copyrighted content to generate commercial AI outputs likely fails fair use, especially when done through illegal means. The report also notes that “effective licensing options can ensure that innovation continues to advance without undermining intellectual property rights.” The Copyright Office rightly recognized that creative works are not mere “data” to be harvested, but expressions of human authorship protected by the Constitution and enshrined in U.S. copyright law.

From slogans to standards

So, what does this mean? For one, courts are rejecting the Silicon Valley myth that fair use lets AI companies take whatever they want. Licensing isn’t just viable, it’s required. Congress should pay attention.

Although there will inevitably be bumps along the road as fair use analysis is unique to each case, these rulings act as a compass to where things are headed. They send important signals to big tech companies with a history of anticompetitive behavior: don’t be evil or you may be held liable. The old playbook—take first, ask questions never—isn’t going to work in this new AI era. It’s time for a better North Star: accountability, transparency, and fair competition.

The post Time’s up for platform privilege appeared first on Digital Content Next.

A recent study by the Media Ecosystem Observatory underscores the profound effects of these changes on Canadian media. The report, which examined the effect of Meta’s ban on Canadian news, revealed that news outlets lost 85% of their engagement on Facebook and Instagram, leading to a total engagement decline of 43%.

“Canadian news organizations lost an enormous amount of their online viewership,” explained Aengus Bridgman, director of the Media Ecosystem Observatory and co-author of the study. “They’ve been heavily relying on the distribution channels of Google and part Meta to get their work out there.” The study found that Canadians consumed less news as a result of the ban, and that Canadian news outlets saw a reduction of 11 million views a day. 

The report, titled Old News, New Reality: A Year of Meta’s News Ban in Canada, found that approximately 30% of local news outlets in Canada are now inactive on social platforms. “Their digital presence has basically collapsed and they’re no longer connecting to the social web,” he said. 

Navigating a power struggle

Meta’s news ban in Canada underscores the current struggle and challenges news media face amid the power of the platforms. Facebook began blocking Canadian news on its platform and on Instagram, in response to Canada’s Online News Act, which passed in June 2023. The legislation requires big tech companies like Meta and Google to pay media outlets for the news content they share on their platforms.  

Rather than pay, Meta simply blocked Canadian news sharing on its platforms altogether. Within weeks, News Media Canada, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and public broadcaster CBC/Radio-Canada filed an antitrust complaint against Meta accusing it of abusing its position.

However Meta claims that complying with the legislation would require them to pay for links to news content. Thus, they said they didn’t want to operate in what they considered an unfair regulatory environment.

“(The) legislation misrepresents the value news outlets receive when choosing to use our platforms. The legislation is based on the incorrect premise that Meta benefits unfairly from news content shared on our platforms, when the reverse is true,” the company said in a statement. “News outlets voluntarily share content on Facebook and Instagram to expand their audiences and help their bottom line. In contrast, we know the people using our platforms don’t come to us for news.”

Meta argued that their platform provided significant value to Canadian news publishers by driving over 1.9 billion clicks to their content in the year leading up to April 2022. The company valued that at $230 million in “free marketing.”

Meta’s decision in Canada recalls a similar situation in Australia in 2021, where it briefly banned news on its Australian platforms in response to the threat of regulation under that country’s News Media Bargaining Code. More recently, Meta stated that it will not renew any existing deals with Australian news outlets, nor those in France and Germany. In other words, it looks like Meta is taking a global stand against supporting news on its platform. 

Impact of platform news bans on publishers

In Canada, the impact of the news ban was immediate. Traffic from Facebook plummeted, leading to a sharp decline in audience reach and digital ad revenue. Many Canadian publishers, especially smaller and independent outlets, faced increased financial strain as they lost traffic. 

Chuck Lapointe, CEO of Narcity Media Group, saw years of investment disappear because of the ban. Since 2013, his online outlets have thrived as “social-first” platforms, relying heavily on Facebook and Instagram for distribution. Meta’s abrupt ban severed Narcity and MTL Blog’s connection to Canadian audiences, cutting off revenue streams tied to branded content deals and partnerships.”Right away, all of them were blocked and Canadians were not able to see our content. That was an immediate hit to revenue,” Lapointe said. 

Facebook pages for Narcity and MTL Blog, which had well over 3 million followers, went dark. Lapointe watched as his audience dropped as a result. “We lost 50% of our traffic overnight, which impacted perception and trust.” He also found that “some writers and journalists said that they didn’t want to work with us because they can’t share their work openly.”

Great West Media, which produces 20 print publications across Alberta, also saw traffic and revenue decline. “If we look at traffic as the prime factor in driving revenue, then yes, the Meta news ban had a serious impact,” said Brian Bachynski, president of Great West Media.

Despite the Meta news ban, Great West has still managed to grow its audience online. The company is using a variety of methods, including a strategy for breaking news, newsletters, SEO and more. However, Bachynski said “I’m certain if Meta hadn’t banned news in Canada, our numbers would be greater.”

He has concluded that it is in no business’ best interest to rely heavily on a third party as the primary driver of revenue. “Because ad volume is predicated upon page views, the Meta ban has depressed traffic to our websites and therefore our ability to drive revenues. These revenues, however, are not enough to operate a plausible business,” he said. “Even without Meta’s ban, our audience isn’t large enough to exist on the extremely low ad rates carved out by the monopolistic practices of Meta, Amazon and Google.”

The decline in traffic appears to have been part of a longer-term trend in Canada, according to David Beers, editor in chief of The Tyee, a B.C.-based independent, online news magazine. Even before the official block, he watched The Tyee’s Facebook engagement dropping over the previous year—evidence that Facebook was already adjusting its algorithms to deprioritize news. 

“We saw it. It was unmistakable. We compared notes with other publications. They saw the same,” Beers said. “It really throws a lot of doubt on Facebook’s claim that if it weren’t for the Online News Act, they would be supportive and sharing a lot of news on their site.”

Beers said that Facebook may be using Canada as an example to deter similar regulations in larger jurisdictions like California and the European Union. However, he said, “no one pays attention to Canada, so there’s no price to be paid by depriving us of the sharing of news.”

Meta decides what’s news

The ban rollout was also messy because it affected media outlets that don’t produce news. Among them was the satire and parody publication, The Beaverton, and campus radio stations, from CIUT 89.5 at the University of Toronto to CJSW 90.9 at the University of Calgary. 

CJSW Station Manager Adam Kamis believes campus radio stations were included in the list of news agencies simply because they are community media, rather than being assessed individually. “We lost our Instagram and Facebook about this time last year,” he explained.

CJSW, which has been broadcasting since 1957, has 110 music, spoken word and multicultural programs in more than 10 languages. They have volunteer hosts talk about stories that matter to them, Kamis explained. “And, we don’t even really do news reporting that much.”

“Now we’re getting no money and we have no use and access to these services. And though our presence is rooted in the auditory experience, we live in a world where the visual needs to be part of the presence as well. Without that, it’s like we have the worst of all possible worlds befalling us where we have no presence and no money.”

As a campus community radio station, CJSW relies on community and listener engagement. They leverage their following for ads and sponsorship. The ban impacted the station’s ability to sponsor local music festivals and its annual funding drive, which generates essential revenue to support station operations, programming, and services. 

It’s usually an amazing opportunity to share on social media, but not with a ban in place, Kamis said. “Last year was our first year without it,” Kamis said. “We were able to leverage our connections with our friends of the community to help… but that’s a thing I don’t want to rely on year after year.” 

Meta’s interpretation of what qualifies as news posed a particularly ironic challenge for digital outlet Narcity–one that demonstrates the subjectivity of the company’s decisions around what to block. “The government doesn’t hold an official list of news organizations that Meta would have to comply with,” said Lapointe. “So Meta… relies on their interpretation of which companies would be captured. And right now, you are automatically part of the law if you are a QCJO company.” 

For years, Narcity tried to receive a Qualified Canadian Journalism Organization (QCJO) designation, which must be determined by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to qualify for journalism labor tax credits. Narcity was denied the qualification in 2021. It resubmitted in 2022, and was denied again.

“Essentially [the government] doesn’t believe that we do enough original news content to get the validation or to get the designation for our news organization, which would allow us to get the subsidies. It would allow us to get the QCJO, which would’ve included us automatically in the Online News Act,” Lapointe said. 

After the denial of the QCJO, Lapointe used the rejection letter–which says that the government does not recognize it as a news organization that is engaged in the production of original news–to Meta for reconsideration. “The government does not believe that Narcity is a news organization, so why would Meta?” Two days later it regained control of its Facebook and Instagram pages.

Workarounds, circumventions, and modified hyperlinks

The ban made it difficult for news outlets and emergency officials to get information out to the public during public safety emergencies. Over the last year, officials noted that misinformation about the fires was rife on social media, encouraging the public to tune in to radio or to live blogs for accurate updates on the dozens of wildfires burning across Western Canada. As a wildfire closed in around the city of Yellowknife, Ollie Williams, the editor of Yellowknife-based news station Cabin Radio, got around the Meta ban by posting a live blog. 

So, with news no longer accessible on Meta platforms, Canadians have turned to creative ways to share information that is important to them. The Media Ecosystem Observatory study revealed prior to the ban, there were about 19 posts per week with Canadian news screenshots. After the ban, this number surged to an average of 68 posts per week.

Canadians continued to share and circulate news through direct links to an X (formerly Twitter) post, which then links to the news website. They also copy and paste text. 

Another way Canadians shared news on Meta platforms was by making a video with a news story in the background, talking about or responding to the events, Bridgman said. “That person, that influencer is producing engagement on the website using news content, and so they are distributing the news content.”

CJSW’s Kamis saw CJSW spelled out phonetically as a workaround. “It’s so funny. We can be on Threads because nobody’s on Threads, but this is how cynical the business model is. We’re allowed to be on Threads because no one’s on Threads.”

The future of media and news consumers at risk

Long-term ramifications for publishers are emerging, including obstacles for new launches, future growth and reaching some communities with news. According to Beers, Facebook is often the only major means of distributing information in rural, non-metropolitan areas in Canada. Many First Nations live in rural areas and Facebook acts as their source of news.

“In rural places, they’re cut off. And because Facebook purchased social license to be the place where you shared information, other alternative forms of news did not grow there,” he said. “Why would I start up a small little website in Fort Nelson or something when everyone’s on Facebook sharing news?…  These places are deprived. It’ll take years, if ever, for them to come up with an alternative.”

The Observatory’s report also highlights what Bridgman called “a collective shrug,” among Canadians. Instead of actively seeking out news from reliable sources, there is a growing expectation that information will find its way to people through their existing social networks and everyday media consumption.

The behavior highlights a “news will find me” attitude. However, he said that Canadians aren’t getting their news on Facebook and Instagram any longer, so the thought is that they must be getting it somewhere else. Unfortunately, “we have very little evidence to suggest Canadians are doing that at all,” Bridgman said. “Gone are the days when you would seek out information actively, you would be an active participant in that process.”

Meta’s news ban in Canada has had a profound impact on the media landscape, though only 22% of Canadians are aware that the ban exists, according to the MEO study. It resulted in a dramatic and immediate impact on traffic, a decline in revenue, views and engagement and diminished trust, underscoring the need for new strategies to engage audiences outside of social platforms. 

“I don’t think anyone looks at this and thinks this is good. It has hurt Canadian viewership of news. It has hurt Canadian news organizations. It has hurt journalism in that sense. It has hurt the ability to hold truth to power. None of that is good,” Bridgman said. 

The situation Canadian news publishers find themselves in emphasizes the need for innovative business models that do not rely heavily on social media platforms for distribution and revenue.  

If journalism is crucial for a healthy democracy, then we need to find ways to support its news-gathering efforts, at arms length from government, Bachynski said. Bachynski suggested implementing a taxation policy whereby digital ads and services are purchased, and a ‘journalism’ tax is applied to it, which could significantly bolster news gathering and reporting.  Lapointe also mentioned the possibility of subsidizing innovations around business models.

However, as he and others have noted, the need for smart regulatory interventions becomes urgent when news organizations’ survival is tied to the whims of tech giants.

“Having this third party mediator between the content is highly risky and many have been saying that for years. And here is the proof in the pudding: relying on an external company to manage that relationship puts you at extreme vulnerability. If they decide to pull the rug out, that’s what happens,” Bridgman continued.

The post How Meta’s news ban reshaped Canadian media appeared first on Digital Content Next.

Media companies have been impacted by multiple developments over the past year, as platforms have progressively deprioritized news, canceled or reduced their news-related programs and products, or made the presence of news content on their platforms much less user-friendly.

These moves are the latest in a long line of changes that have pulled the rug out from underneath the feet of content creators. And while the tech tide may again turn in the favor of media companies, history tends to repeat itself. Publishers, therefore, should be wary about how warmly they embrace any future overtures from our tech overlords, as well as rushing headlong into the next new thing. Too often some publishers have dived into new initiatives like Mastodon or WhatsApp Channels, without a clear strategy or goals (content, engagement, monetization) in mind. 

As a result, the current situation is an opportunity to pause, take stock, and reset these dynamics. 

What this means for you: 7 key principles for 2024 (and beyond)

With that in mind, here are seven recommendations for publishers as they reassess what their relationships with platform providers should look like.  

1. Platform diversification is essential

Over-dependence on individual platforms for revenue – or referral traffic – is risky. Sudden switches in platform priorities can quickly leave creative partners in the lurch. Outlets like LittleThings, Mic and BuzzFeed (to name but three) have all paid the price for putting too many eggs in a single platform basket. Avoiding this fate means that diversification is crucial.

So, where should publishers place their bets? The answer will vary. However, all publishers should consider reducing their reliance on the trusted trifecta of Facebook, Twitter/X and even Google Search.

The past year has reinforced this need, following precipitous drops in traffic from Google, Facebook and X. And as more audiences turn to Generative AI tools like Chat GPT for answers to their questions, attribution and referral traffic look set to take a further beating. 

As Adrienne LaFrance, the executive editor of The Atlantic, recently told The New York Times, “the disruption to an already difficult business model is real.” 

2. Spot and tap into shifts in audience behavior

In response to the current wave of disruption, media companies should reconsider platforms that they’ve previously perhaps overlooked or underinvested in. 

When it comes to scale, YouTube is the 300lb gorilla in the room. With 2.5 billion users it’s the second most active social network in the world. In the USA 26% of adults regularly get news on YouTube, just behind Facebook (30%). Yet, arguably, many media companies (not just news providers) undervalue the platform.

TikTok’s popularity – especially with younger audiences – makes it a platform few media companies can afford to ignore. Since launching in the U.S. in August 2018, TikTok has grown to 80 million monthly active users. Globally 1.1 billion use the platform each month. 

Subsequently, in the past year, The New York Times and the BBC launched news accounts on TikTok, having previously resisted pressure to do so. Part of the rationale for this, per the Pew Research Center, is that “the share of U.S. adults who say they regularly get news from TikTok has more than quadrupled, from 3% in 2020 to 14% in 2023.” That increases to nearly a third (32%) of those aged 18-29 years old, a figure that excludes non-news use. 

TikTok and YouTube are also part of wider shifts in search habits, as users head directly to different platforms to look for answers to specific questions. 

The migration from conventional search engines (especially among younger consumers) is being further accelerated by the adoption of  Generative AI. That has implications for media companies’ AI strategies, as well as ensuring that they are producing content, and optimizing for search, on the platforms that their target audiences are using. 

3. Understand that audiences are also diversified 

Diversification is also seen in our wider media habits. On average, the world’s 4.89 billion social media users engage with seven different social networks every month. 

However, audiences do not use platforms in the same way or for the same purposes, and publisher strategies need to reflect this. 

The rise of TikTok, for example, has led to an investment in more vertical video content. After pioneering short videos, its algorithms – and users – increasingly embrace longer material, opening up fresh opportunities for publishers.  

In contrast, other vertical-led channels, like Instagram Reels, YouTube Shorts, and Snapchat, continue to favor shorter video content. Reels account for 20% of the time spent on Instagram. YouTube Shorts has 1.5 billion monthly active users. These findings cannot be ignored.

Meanwhile, the rise of Smart TVs has led to more than 700 million hours of YouTube videos being consumed on TV screens every day. That’s encouraging more horizontal content, as publishers and creators focus on this trend. 

Collectively, this means that publishers will need to deploy different strategies and content propositions to tap into these audiences. There is no one-size-fits-all solution.

4. You can’t, and shouldn’t be, everywhere

Just because you can be on a platform doesn’t mean that you should be. Resources are finite, so determining the best fit requires careful analysis of demographics and usage habits.

The BBC argued TikTok wasn’t initially the right platform for them. They were also worried about spreading themselves too thin. At a time of continued layoffs – with more than 20,000 media jobs lost this year alone – that concern will resonate with many companies.  

The recent boycott of Twitter by major advertisers including Warner Bros. and Disney should also give media execs pause for thought. Brand safety is a consideration for all companies. 

As Platformer’s Casey Newton recently told CNN. “Every day, more brands are waking up to the reality that Twitter is dead and X is a cesspool… The global town square is now dispersed across many different platforms, and increasingly the most relevant conversations are taking place elsewhere.”

5. Go niche, or go home 

Many of these conversations take place in smaller online communities and some publishers may see the value in exploring these more niche networks. 

Platforms like Twitch or Reddit are not for everyone, but their users are loyal and spend a lot of time on site. Recognizing this, last year The Washington Post appointed angel mendoza as their redditor in chief. 

It’s worth noting that more Americans claim to obtain their news from Twitch than Snapchat, and Twitch’s reach for news is on a par with LinkedIn. And with over a quarter of Americans saying they regularly get their news on Nextdoor, this presents interesting questions for local news outlets and specialist information providers about how they can – and should – be engaging with the platforms. 

These types of networks may go under the radar of many publishers, yet their reach – and the engagement of the communities on them – may mean they’re worth another look.

6. Recalibrate what “success” looks like 

As money and traffic from tech platforms dry up, metrics beyond clicks and views become more salient. 

Historically, some publishers have financially benefited from page views on different social networks. Facebook reported in 2017 that it was paying out more than $1 million per day to publishers as a result of Instant Articles. However, that stream dried up as the company shifted focus to the creator economy.

Off-site referrals have also been important. A Deloitte study from 2019 found that across several major European markets, platforms drove 61% of visits to publishers’ websites and an estimated 6.2% of publishers’ total revenues.

But with money and traffic drying up, brand awareness and engagement may be better indicators. 

Although TikTok has partnered with marquee publishers like Condé Nast, DotDash Meredith and NBCU, many companies find it a difficult platform to monetize. It is also a platform that many users don’t swipe away from, meaning that traditional clickthrough models just aren’t applicable.  

7. Focus on building direct relationships with audiences 

With third-party referrals and revenues declining, audience relationship-building is paramount. 

That can take many forms. Many publishers are focused on their own products – like newsletters and podcasts – as well as capturing first-party data. They’re also looking to reduce churn, upsell existing subscribers and attract others through bundling. 

It also means leveraging specific external platforms to foster community and loyalty.

GQ’s launch on Discord is part of this trend. The move enables them to engage with micro communities, often existing subscribers, around topics like fashion and everything Web3. “The way that we are thinking about it is we are throwing a party, GQ is the host, Discord is the venue and you are invited,” explained Joel Pavelski, GQ’s executive director of global audience development and social media.

We can expect more media companies to embrace these engagement strategies, leveraging specific (not necessarily mainstream) platforms to create greater loyalty.

Moving forward

Media companies find themselves at a crossroads in 2024. Traffic referrals from tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Twitter/X have dwindled, underscoring the need for publishers to pivot their platform strategies. To do this, they must diversify and reimagine relationships with their audiences and tech partners. 

Publishers can no longer rely on traffic and revenues from many of the platforms they have partnered heavily with in the past. A fresh approach means moving into new spaces, adapting their content and SEO strategies around evolving consumer behaviors, and thinking carefully about where to allocate their resources. 

Larger and niche platforms offer distinct opportunities, but success in this new era will likely look different from the past. Subscriptions, memberships, native advertising, and exclusive content access, might play a greater role in these settings. And in some cases, building brand awareness and loyalty may be the primary goal. 

Whatever the approach, the strategic challenge is the same: to reduce dependence on a small core group of third-party platforms and to approach new platform relationships with the benefit of hard-won wisdom. Referrals and third-party-derived revenues may not be as viable as they once were. As a result, publishers must diversify their reach and build direct connections with their audiences in a plethora of different spaces and places. In doing so, publishers need to blend scale and niche to establish a more resilient and adaptable presence across the digital ecosystem. 

The time to begin implementing this model is now.

The post In 2024, media companies must hit the platform reset button appeared first on Digital Content Next.

“This is now a global phenomenon and big tech platforms like Meta and Google can’t keep using bullying scare tactics. They have to show up and be prepared to negotiate meaningfully,” according to Jordan Guiao, research fellow at The Australia Institute’s Center for Responsible Technology.

Lawmakers in many different jurisdictions have begun to respond to the critical damage big tech platforms have inflicted on the funding model of the world’s media business. Those steps include the News Media Bargaining Code in Australia, the Online News Act in Canada and the proposed Journalism Competitive and Preservative Act in the U.S. (which Digital Content Next has endorsed). These laws are designed to mandate these tech companies to compensate publishers for the inclusion of the news content that is shared, or found their platforms. 

To bolster its position, Meta points to a study it commissioned from NERA economic consulting group which concluded that having platforms pay for news content wasn’t justified. However, advocates for the media industry dispute the accuracy of the findings. 

“People who consume news tend to spend a lot of time on a platform,” said Paul Deegan, chief executive of Canadian trade association News Media Canada. “They go there for news. They come back for more. They’re an attractive demographic in terms of skewing higher on educational attainment and income.” 

“Just in terms of value, [big tech platforms] get tremendous value from news,” he said.

Devaluing the news

However, according to Instagram chief Adam Mosseri: “[F]rom a platform’s perspective, any incremental engagement or revenue they might drive is not at all worth the scrutiny, negativity (let’s be honest), or integrity risks that come along with them.”

So, in response to increasing pressure to compensate publishers for news, and their own research findings that it doesn’t provide sufficient value to them, platforms have pulled back on including news content on their services. 

In February of 2022, Facebook dropped the word news from users’ “news feed.” And in June this year, publishers noted a significant drop-off in traffic from the site, suggesting an algorithmic adjustment to devalue news. And, after the launch of Threads earlier this month, Mosseri said that the platform would not take any steps to “encourage [politics and hard news] verticals.”

Tit-for-tat

In a direct response to policy efforts platforms have gone so far as to block news content altogether. In 2021, Meta not only blocked users in Australia from seeing news content on Facebook but prevented them from posting links to any news stories, regardless of where they were published. In less than a month, the company relented and has since signed licensing deals with publishers in Australia. Job postings in the country’s media sector are up 46% as of April this year.

However, with the passage of the Online News Act in June, Meta and Google have taken a harder tack against these regulatory efforts. Already the platforms have canceled previously struck deals with Canadian publishers and have started to block news in the country. 

Reprinted with the permission of Luke LeBrun (@_llebrun) Editor, PressProgress

In February, Google conducted a test to assess the impact of blocking news access for Canadians altogether as it evaluated possible responses to the Act. The company is reportedly holding off on fully implementing its response until the regulations are made by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. Since the passage of the Act last month, Meta has started to intermittently block Canadian news sources on its various services. 

According to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Canada has no plans to back down. In fact, they’ve taken the fight to a familiar battlefield on this issue: advertising. Publishers and the federal government in Canada have pulled their advertising from Meta’s services. Per regulatory filings, Canada accounts for $3 billion of Meta’s $117 billion in annual revenues. “The company is running the very real risk of losing more in revenue than they would pay news businesses under the Online News Act,” Deegan told the Financial Times.

The battle has escalated to news publishers rejecting Meta’s ads on their sites, which were purportedly intended to inform Canadian audiences about the news blocking initiated by the big tech platforms in Canada. 

Next steps?

Navigating what comes next will be the challenge facing both regulators and publishers. 

As of now, a version of the JCPA in California passed the state assembly in a 55-6 vote in June. Despite this, the bill has been put on hold for two years, with an initial state senate hearing scheduled for July 11 this year pushed back to 2024.

Other commentators in Canada view the contentious moves in response to early attempts to regulate the big platforms as an opportunity to further address the wider problems caused by the big tech companies.

“While the government of Canada certainly does not have the power to go back in time and block the consolidation that has occurred in the digital ad market, it is able to empower our competition and privacy commissioners to conduct an investigation into how Big Tech operates in the Canadian ad tech market,” wrote Taylor Owen, Beaverbrook Chair in media, ethics and communications, and Supriya Dwivedi, director of policy and engagement at the Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy.

As well, there’s skepticism that Meta and Google can survive the reputational risks of continuing to block legitimate news sources on their platforms.

“Essentially, I don’t see blocking of news as a viable action for Meta and Google. From the Australian perspective, the news block was a bluff, and we called them out on it. In Canada I believe this will be much the same. And if they prolong it in any way, their reputation as a platform for misinformation will only be validated,” said the Australia Institute’s Guiao. “Meta and Google need news content to legitimize the accuracy, dependability and truthfulness of the information in their platforms.” 

The post Publishers and platforms face off over the value of news appeared first on Digital Content Next.

CEO Jason Kint opened the event by offering his perspective on how the last few years have underscored the need for quality information. He also reinforced the need for trust, particularly as we move toward web3. “Where people have choice and a competitive market, where they spend their time, attention and relationships, trust will matter. Trust matters more than ever,” Kint explained.

Keynotes and discussion sessions touched on subscriptions, paywalls and reader revenue, video, film, audio strategy, and AI. The event also explored the political and technical forces shaping the media landscape today, with sessions focusing on cookies, identity, trust, privacy, and platforms.

The personal is political, and platforms

The opening keynote featured 2021 Nobel Peace Prize recipient Maria Ressa speaking with investigative journalist Carole Cadwalladr. They discussed platforms and the critical role a free press plays in healthy democracies. As Ressa put it, “Until technology gets guardrails around it, until we get to the point where the platforms that deliver the news are redesigned so that lies laced with anger and hate do not spread faster and further than facts, journalists will be under attack.”

Platform concerns and necessary regulation arose again throughout the event, notably in Thursday’s final keynote. Attendees heard from U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar, mere hours after a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights hearing.

Klobuchar, who has been working to hold big tech platform accountable, provided an update on the bipartisan antitrust app store bill that just went through committee, as well as other bills she’s leading.  “We just had an incredible vote on a bill that Senator Blumenthal and Blackburn and I … put out a few months ago on app stores: 21 to 1,” she said.

The bipartisan legislation, called the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act would enable news organizations to collectively negotiate terms with platforms to provide fair compensation for news content. Klobuchar  told attendees, “The big issue is advertising money and fair compensation. These companies are sucking up the ad dollars using the original content that you produce and they’re using the data they collect from your audiences to compete against you.”

First-party data and identity

Unsurprisingly, the upcoming deprecation of the third-party cookie was a topic of much discussion at this year’s summit. The change has destabilized the advertising ecosystem. Experts discussed how to prepare for the post-cookie reality and how publishers could invest in their first-party data.

To prepare for the post-cookie reality, Rachel Parkin, CafeMedia’s EVP, Sales and Strategy, suggested publishers strengthen relationships with advertisers and build up their arsenals and come up with the right framework for identity and authentication for users and content.

TRUSTX CEO David Kohl suggested that publishers, by acting as a group to create scale, can create competitive advantage. ” We are in transition and there’s tremendous chaos in identity and audience data. But here’s the thing: Chaos creates opportunity,” he said. “And the question is, how can publishers take the lead in organizing the chaos? How can we band together? It is time to create an ‘easy button’ for scale.”

Another session discussed how publishers are leveraging consent-based visitor relationship data sources to fuel monetization as the industry moves forward into a cookie-less future. David Rowley, senior director data and identity products at News Corp. said they feel first party data is going to be one of the most important assets to a publisher. News Corp is assessing what’s out there for external identity solutions, Rowley said, and building out a proprietary identity solution.

“Publishers use so many different types of technology, DMPs, CDPs, analytics platforms, you name it, all of them spit out and create their own identifiers. Being able to stitch all of those together to have a unified view of a user is critical, so you can have that one-on-one relationship with a user,” he said.

People and empathy

Another theme that echoed through the conference was that of managing during these difficult times. As Agnes Chu, president of Condé Nast Entertainment remarked, “I think it’s hard to drive change during a time where people are experiencing so much anxiety themselves.”

Lindsay Peoples Wagner, editor-in-chief of The Cut, outlined that it’s important for leadership to have and bring a sense of empathy. Leaders must “be able to step outside of yourself and understand that, yes, we’re all employees and work at a company, but we’re human beings,” Peoples Wagner said. “People, especially in the past couple years, have had a really hard time with mental health or their family issues or being sick. It’s important to understand, I think, that people may need time, and that push and pull as a manager, I think is more important than ever.”

The biggest shift for TripAdvisor’s Christine Maguire when the pandemic hit, was from building products to empathy. “I had to sort of take a step back and realize where everybody was in their journey,” she said. “Having empathy for what goes on in their day to day is so important, because oftentimes we come in to make a change when there is a problem, and that’s too late.”

The future of work

The newsroom of the future may look nothing like the pre-pandemic one. Indeed, as publishers move forward, they’re stepping into a future which doesn’t look much like the past. There’s upside, such as the ability to create more flexible working situations, which facilitates broader recruiting.

However, as author Anne Helen Petersen noted, when companies allow their employees to live anywhere and work any time, they may run into a lot of sticky situations.

“The larger question that a lot of companies are dealing with is if we say that people can have really flexible work schedules and can go in when it is most convenient for them, are we also going to put stipulations on the states or countries where they can live,” she said. “Are we going to say that they get into New York within the day, that they take the train in? Is that okay? Or are we going to say that it’s one flight away? What are our boundaries?”

The future of the industry

On the last day of the summit, Co-founder and CEO of Insider Henry Blodget and Atlantic CEO Nicholas Thompson engaged in a spitfire conversation about the digital media industry. They discussed the complicated relationship with platforms, new technologies like AI, NFTs and blockchain, and made predictions for web3.

Blodget was optimistic about the future of local news. However, he sees a different scenario play out for others going forward. As the industry evolves, he thinks there will be three to five big generalists, a bunch of targeted specialist publications that serve a particular niche, and everyone else is in the middle.

“I do think we’re all going to face pressure and there’s going to be a lot more consolidation because there are enormous returns to scale,” Thompson replied. “We see that every day with The New York Times, when they roll out some cool new tech feature that they can spread across their 10 million subscribers.”

“Let us just acknowledge that The New York Times is Netflix of journalism,” Blodget said. “My view is in five to 10 years, they will have 25 million subscribers and they will still be growing strong and they will become one of the most powerful English language journalism publications in the world. And the rest of us are gonna have to find places to carve out what is left.”

The post Regulation, revenue, and relationships top of mind at the 2022 DCN Next: Summit appeared first on Digital Content Next.

Facebook claims that most of the content on its platform comes from its users’ friends and family. The report states that news (or content that appears to be news) only represents a small fraction of what users see and share. It appears the company wants us to believe its platform is filled with family pictures and GIFs of kittens. Move along, industry watchers. According to Facebook there’s nothing to see here!

Cleaning house

The New York Times uncovered that this wasn’t the company’s first such report. According to the Times, Facebook prepared a Widely Viewed Content Report for Q1 but not release it. Apparently, the picture it painted wasn’t pretty.

According to the Times, “the most-viewed link was a news article with a headline suggesting that the coronavirus vaccine was at fault for the death of a Florida doctor.” Although the article came from a major publisher, it was the headline – and the way it was shared in a particular context by anti-vaxxers – that put it on top. Meanwhile, the 19^th most popular page during Q1 was from the Epoch Times, an outlet widely known for pushing conspiracy theories.

Weird. These aren’t exactly posts about grandma’s mouth-watering apple pie or dare devil kittens hanging from ledges.

Remember, Facebook only reluctantly published the Q2 report after it spent a year discrediting external research from its own CrowdTangle data, which measures engagement (liking and sharing). When Facebook dismissed these reports, academics and researchers responded by pointing out that they were simply using the data Facebook had, itself, put out into the market. Meanwhile, CrowdTangle’s personnel were dispersed to other parts of Facebook, and the tools were pared back by Facebook, in what looked like an effort to regain control of the data and narrative.

It kind of feels like Facebook is hustling us in a giant game of Three-card Monte.

Revisionist history on repeat

Maybe there are those still inclined to give the company the benefit of the doubt. As Facebook spokesman Andy Stone soft-played their actions when he tweeted “we might have been guilty of cleaning up our house a bit before inviting company.” Unfortunately, the dumpsters full of incendiary trash impacted untold numbers of “guests” way before Facebook purportedly tidied things up and invited the “company” of critical analysis.

Facebook has a long track record of covering up and thwarting transparency at critical moments including the countless times where they enabled companies to collect data about consumers and then repurpose that data for number of reasons. Notably, these included selling Facebook’s data to third parties like Cambridge Analytica, which turned out to be one of the largest data breaches in history.

Deception is part of the business model

Recently, Facebook blocked researchers ability to gather information about what political ads are being shown across their services. It was especially galling that Facebook justified its decision as a protection of “user privacy.”

Given the company’s track record, it shouldn’t be surprising that Facebook once again opted to block full transparency. And yes, once again, the real reason is because it could hurt the business model. Even the FTC weighed in and warned Facebook not to use privacy “as a pretext to advance other aims.”

Truth told

For the Facebook model, it doesn’t matter whether the content is truthful. In fact, if there is a bias at all, it must be in favor of the least trustworthy, most salacious content (e.g. vaccine misinformation, Epoch Times) because that content tends to catch fire more quickly. And profits are way up. The business model is clearly working.

On top of that, at key junctures in Facebook’s history, executives have unequivocally chosen to hide the truth to maintain these profits. Vague commitments to transparency come only when they find themselves once again caught with a hand in the proverbial cookie jar. And now, even those promises to “do better” come with a giant caveat: We’ll only tell you something if it makes the company look good.

At this point, there are legitimate questions about whether Facebook is a good-faith actor that can ever play a constructive role. Facebook’s business model is at odds with transparency and their executives seem committed to running the business like a Three-card Monte hustle. With deep political divisions in our country hindering our ability to tackle a shared crisis (or even have a thoughtful discussion), we need leaders to step forward and demonstrate an unequivocal commitment to transparency and trust.

The post Seeing through Facebook’s transparency report appeared first on Digital Content Next.

The new decade calls for a perfect ‘20/20’ vision, said Jason Kint, CEO, Digital Content Next as he kicked off the closed-door, off-the-record gathering. That encompasses continued focus on audience desires, pushback against the myth that all content has to be free, and the elevation of trust and transparency in an era marked by ‘fake news’.

The European Union’s recently enacted copyright law is a win for the industry, with similar discussions expected this year in the U.S, noted Kint. Federal and state investigations as well as emerging regulations are all good signals toward protecting consumer privacy, regulating data use and anti-trust concerns, notes Kint.

We can also expect a steady rise in content investments. UBS estimates that in 2020, a combined 16 media firms will spend $100 billion to produce content. More than $35 billion will allocated on streaming video content, as new players such as Disney Plus and NBC’s Peacock emerge.

“I’m feeling really good this year about where things are headed,” said Kint.

Platforms and policy

Jim Bankoff, CEO, Vox Media said he valued being at the DCN Summit. He described it as a place where premium publishers come together to “find ways to partner and to check our healthy, competitive impulses … and figure out ways to work together” in the wake of ceding ground to third party big tech platform and ad network “that have proven time and again not to have our best interests in mind.”

Investigative journalist Carole Cadwalladr, who freelances for the Guardian and Observer, captivated the audience by recounting her experiences unearthing the activities of Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. She was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for her work, which sparked international investigations as well as inspiring the Netflix documentary, ‘The Great Hack’.

“This was my introduction to this world of creepy disinformation, but also complete reluctance from the platforms to even acknowledge the problem, let alone deal with it,” she noted. She was instead subjected to legal pushback from Google and Facebook as well as online bullying.

She also called for media companies to not compete against each other. Instead, she encouraged those in the room to join together to “compete against lies and falsehoods. We’ve seen it in Britain and you’re next,” said Cadwalladr.

Monopolies

Scott Galloway, professor, NYU Stern School of Business, said he believes that the big tech companies on the antitrust radar should be broken up. Monopolies kill economic growth and are a “key step to tyranny,” he contended, adding a co-opted government can’t serve as a dominating force for protection.

Galloway pointed out that efforts to regulate the behavior of big tech fines have been largely ineffectual. To date, the fines haven’t been punitive enough to dissuade the big tech companies to modify behavior, he said. He also criticized the federal government for being slow to act.

Money matters

Monetization and concerns about subscription fatigue were recurring themes at the summit. Yet DCN research shows that younger audiences in particular appreciate the value of a subscription and finds that there is still consumer appetite for subscription products.

Jonah Peretti, founder and CEO, Buzzfeed noted that over the course of a few short years, the company has begun to generate significant revenue from Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Netflix from licensing.

“I don’t think Facebook or Google wants to buy news companies,” said Peretti. Of the platforms movement toward paying for content, he said that “They get the benefit of sharing some of the costs of the production of that content. News is a great way to direct repeat visitors and to build trust in the platform to avoid some of the problems of misinformation.”

Media shifts

Kevin Turpin II, president, National Journal, noted his longstanding publication adapted to the changing media landscape by transforming itself from a media company to government research and consulting services company for which subscribers are willing to pay premium prices.

Jim VandeHei, co-founder and CEO, Axios; Executive Producer, AXIOS on HBO said, “you have to deliver content in a way that I would deliver in a conversation with you over a drink, like what is new.” However, to create value, “Tell me why it matters. Give me some context. Give me the power to go deeper.”

For Complex, the path to success hasn’t been simple. Rich Antoniello, CEO and founder, Complex Networks said, “we call ourselves a brand that happens to monetize through media.” He said his company shifted from an ad-dependent model in 2016, ahead of the curve.

One example is the wild success of its “Hot Ones” program. It features10 questions of its celebrity guests that get progressively more personal along with the consumption of hot sauce that gets progressively hotter. And the business model is based not on advertising, but on the sales of high-margin hot sauce.  

Antoniello also outlined the success of ComplexCon, the company’s flagship event, which connects cultural icons with fans who spend $100 to $700 for VIP tickets, with hundreds of thousands sold. Fans also snap up merchandise from Complex and its app-based vendors such as Nike and Adidas.

The power of fandom arose again when Howard Mittman, CEO, Bleacher Report spoke of how his company’s app and successful franchises attract sports fans. He described how individual athletes hold more sway in their fandom habits than sports franchises.

Nearly 10 million fans have signed up for alerts and the app accounts for half of the company’s user engagement. Bleacher Report’s focus is not on breaking sports news, but creating engagement on its own platforms, according to Mittman.

Her story

Media continues to go through cultural shifts toward diversity both in company staffing and in targeting readership such as women. “Women are generally not seeing themselves in media and advertising to the extent that they should be,” said Catherine Levene, president, chief digital officer, Meredith National Media Group.

“We have been the first to support #SeeHer, a national organization committed to accurate representation of women in media and advertising,” she said. She added that’s not only good for supporting women, but also for the bottom line. Women who see themselves in media and advertising are 45% more likely to recommend a product to a friend and purchase it, said Levene.

Despite the controversy it has attracted by those who question the veracity of its science, Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop brand is growing, noted Elise Loehnen, chief content officer. The platform embraces several media forms and covers topics from relationships to health, including alternative therapies. She said that the controversy has been good for keeping the brand at the forefront of popular discussions.

“We’re tired of being talked down to,” said Loehnen. “We’re a strong female brand undisturbed by the chaos.”

Adapt or die

Rishad Tobaccowala, chief growth officer, Publicis Group,noted that the only way to get ahead as a legacy company is to “kill your core. You have to rethink your entire business.”

Levene from Meredith believes that the mobile world and 5G will create an even greater market for video. And, with 50% of searches conducted on the more than 200 million voice-enabled devices in U.S. homes, opportunities and challenges will arise.

Google’s action to purge third-party cookies against the backdrop of GDPR and CCPA will impact the entire digital ecosystem, Levene noted.

“Data is going to be the currency of the future. Those who have it at scale and the ability to drive a lot of insights from it are going to win,” she added.

Kindness matters

In a social media environment that is being blamed for everything from decreasing personal contact to radicalizing disaffected youth and intensifying suicide rates among girls, Tatyana Mamut, head of product, Nextdoor, made the case that her platform is creating connections on a micro-level in a neighborhood at a time when people hardly know their neighbors

“I believe that kindness is the next big thing in tech,” she added.

Palo Alto journalism educator Esther Wojcicki made the case that helicopter parenting has impacted the workforce and its ability to embrace risk and innovation. She calls for parenting – and management – to embrace trust, respect, independence, collaboration and kindness. She also promotes the idea that every student should take a journalism course to build media literacy skills.

The future will be fraught with change. And as Tobaccowala pointed out, “human beings know how difficult change is.” But to survive, media companies must continue to evolve.

“We have the power to shape minds and hearts, to fill the world with laughter and tears to inform the truth,” said Kint. “Here’s to 2020 bringing the roar of the crowd as we focus on what matters most: the audiences we serve.”

The post Publishers focus on the evolution of the business at the annual DCN: Next Summit appeared first on Digital Content Next.

Selective partnerships

According to the Tow report, this new publisher sentiment is a complete departure from a year ago, when publishers were still hopeful about partnering with platforms to help sustain the news business. Today, publishers report that they are examining internal business strategies and the rise of reader revenue to further revenue diversification (e.g. live events and podcasts) to regain control of their audiences.

Publishers are thoroughly assessing which platforms fit their needs best and identifying the necessary requirements for the platforms to meet. Tow’s research identifies four key explanations as to why publishers are more selective today about platform partnerships. They:

1. No longer feel they are missing out if they choose not to partner with a platform
2. Have seen insignificant return on investment from previous platform partnerships and products
3. Better understanding of the extensive integration costs and expense of supporting third-party products
4. Have greater recognition of the conflicting business models between publishers and platforms

Little fanfare for new platform products

Publishers note that platforms are closely following subscription growth in the marketplace and now offer their own subscription products. Last year Apple announced and launched Apple News+, a magazine and news subscription service at $9.99 a month. In their deal with publishers, Apple takes 50% of the revenue and the remaining is left to be divided among participating publishers.

Google rolled out a product called Subscribe with Google (it takes in the range of 5 to 15 percent of the revenue); and Facebook launched a paywalled version of Instant Articles. However, unlike previous rollouts of similar offerings, these overtures received little fanfare from publishers.

Platforms investment in relationship

Further, publishers recall Google’s and Facebook’s “goodwill initiatives” to help build stronger relationships with news publishers with healthy skepticism. In January 2019, Facebook committed $300 million to local news projects. In March, they kicked off with their first local news summit as an effort to address newsroom operations. At the same time, Google announced its commitment to local news and started a boot camp for eight local subscription publishers.

Then in May, Facebook announced that it was bringing its Digital News Initiative stateside by funding projects to help generate revenue and increase audience engagement for local news. And, in September, Facebook awarded “Community Network” grants, to support initiatives that connect communities with local newsrooms. Even with these significant investments (in the range of $1.0 billion in total) publishers remain very skeptical about the platforms’ commitment to journalism.

Publishers reinforce the basics

Publishers think a lot about the future. Undoubtedly, the platforms and their role in the online information ecosystem cannot be ignored. As seen in the Tow report, publishers present their new awareness in pragmatic terms. They are regaining control of how they publish and how they bring in revenue. Importantly, while publishers are not abandoning the tech platforms, they are much more carefully evaluating platform products in terms of business models, audience growth, and the editorial relationship.

The post Publishers have reevaluated their platform relationships appeared first on Digital Content Next.

But which approach leads to the best results for advertisers? Should publishers give in meekly to the “can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” mentality that’s been lining the pockets of these companies for well over a decade? Or should they take stock, take a stand, and find profitable ways to compete against them?

We’re in a unique age of digital domination

The advent of digital has brought with it a dilemma for publishers and their advertisers. It is possible to reach a wider audience than ever before. In most cases, that means they need to pay for exposure with the globe’s biggest and most influential big tech firms, Google and Facebook.

However, many publishers are embracing the challenge of taking on these closed publishing ecosystems. They have confidence in their methods, and they want to prove to their customers that their brand is in fact in safer hands when it’s away from the monopolistic claws of the duopoly.

Others, however, believe that the walled gardens created by such companies make it nigh on impossible to compete for reach in the wider market. And some of them look to inter-provider collaboration as a way to guarantee results for their customers (and keep their business afloat).

The case for competition

A growing percentage of today’s publishers are hesitant to collaborate with big tech because they’ve been burned by them in the past. And many they don’t trust platforms to deliver the exposure and brand-safe contexts that their advertisers need.

The topic of trust has come to the fore in recent years. A series of antitrust investigations have been exposing the monopolistic practices of big tech, particularly in the US, where 50 state attorneys recently opened general investigations into Google’s advertising policies.

High fluctuations in traffic from these providers hasn’t improved their reputation for stable, consistent results, nor has the withdrawal of many features from these platforms that were intended to help publishers share, and profit from, their content. Facebook’s Instant Articles, for example, died a rather untimely death after just two years thanks to inconsistent reporting and a lack of opportunity for monetization.

The technical challenges involved with cooperating with these companies are also proving to be barriers to successful collaboration. Many big tech firms, not least Facebook, expect publishers to build their own separate content injection API, a process that is costly, time-consuming and inconvenient.

Data driven

In fact, walled gardens are notoriously cagey with their data as a whole, making it difficult to remove and activate key information from their own systems and thereby rendering it incompatible with other aggregation platforms that might have better (read: more relevant) features for publishing houses.

This has led to many publishers relying heavily on their own primary data as their main insights to the market. Doing so might be restrictive, but the upside is, at least the company in question has complete control over how much of this data is released, and who sees it.  

Experience matters

When considering the case for competition, we also need to look at the way in which the buying public respond to ads from various channels. Research has proven that people are sick of screens covered with paid search ads, but are receptive to advertising in the context of trustworthy content. A report from Nielsen goes so far as to say that local media receives three times higher consumer trust and 2.5 high positive sentiment compared to ads from high market-share platforms, suggesting that ads from magazines, TV and newspapers are less annoying to (and thus more successful with) consumers.  

The case for collaboration

Google and Facebook not only dominate the publishing space, they’re directing it. It could be argued that they are doing a lot of the hard work by blazing the trail. Thus, all collaborators need to do is keep up – and use the features and innovations delivered via their marketplaces to the advantage of their advertisers. A key argument for collaboration is that shared data equals better data. Having access to the insights shared by walled gardens benefits the whole of market. That is, if this data hasn’t been manipulated for these companies’ own gain, of course.

And here we are, back to the elephant in the room. The issue of trust. Those who are still keen to collaborate should be encouraged by the fact that some big tech CEOs, including Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, do appear to be addressing publishers’ concerns head on.

Yes, more needs to be done when it comes to levelling the playing field for publishers. (And proposed policies such as the Journalism Competition & Preservation Act are going to go some way to alleviating publishers’ concerns.) But the fact remains that these companies lead the market because they have nailed a model that, for the most part, works. According to a survey from Adform, some 13% of publishers even believe that walled gardens simplify revenue generation and the distribution process. Despite the bad press, there are publishers out there who are happy with what’s on offer and who will keenly collaborate.

Finding the best approach

Both approaches have their own merits. The only way that publishers can decide whether they want to compete or collaborate with Google and Facebook is to consider their long-term goals, then determine how the features on offer from each platform will help them achieve them. They also need to think about where they stand on content sharing and control, data ownership, and the availability and accuracy of their reporting metrics.

And there’s no reason why publishers can’t adopt a dual strategy that allow them to compete and collaborate in equal measure. After all, collaboration doesn’t mean giving in to big tech. It just means keeping their biggest adversaries onside – and using access to big tech’s products and policies to better inform their own strategy.

Can we really compare news publishers with big tech firms?

Regardless of the relationship they have with Google and Facebook, smaller publishers must remember that they offer something different to the tech giants of today. They’re unique from big tech in three important ways:

1. Advertisers trust them, because they have control over where their ads appear.
2. They can not only prove campaign ROI, but also deliver recommendations that add value to their offering. It’s an element of personalization that Big Tech struggles to emulate at scale.
3. Crucially, they the capabilities to deliver omnichannel campaigns in a much more agile way than the bigger firms. This is key in a market that’s increasingly embracing the combined power of digital, print, OOH and events advertising channels. 

There is most definitely an argument for publishers to focus to their own strengths, not big tech’s well-documented weaknesses.

The post Compete or collaborate? Two approaches to dealing with walled gardens appeared first on Digital Content Next.

If Google escapes all 50 state attorneys general investigations unscathed, will the pressure from publishers and legislators be enough to force change? The likelihood of any specific outcome aside, this recent news has led to a fascinating game of “what-ifs.” Well beyond mere speculation, this exercise is helpful for legislators, publishers and tech giants alike.  

So, what changes if Google loses? 

Whether Google faces fines or recent scrutiny leads to legislative changes, most agree that Google will have to make fundamental changes in the coming years. Since News Media Alliance reported that Google made $4.7 Billion in 2018 from aggregated news content, calls for Big Tech to begin sharing a piece of that revenue pie have grown louder and more insistent. 

Proposed policies like the Journalism Competition & Preservation Act would enable publishers to collectively negotiate directly with Big Tech platforms to “improve the access to and the quality of news online”. Senators John Kennedy (R-LA) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) introduced this legislation in June, a key tenant of which is the establishment of a 48-month “safe harbor” (a.k.a. regulation-free period for Google) for publishers to “band together to negotiate with dominant online platforms.”  

One must wonder what is preventing publishers from doing this now, and what would be achieved. You’ve armed David with a slingshot, but where is the stone? For some, it is hard to believe four more regulation-free years for Google would lead them to start paying publishers for their content. 

Either way, publishers must emphasize how they compete 

If the changes on the table are unlikely to move the needle for publishers in a significant way, can publishers compete with Big Tech? Yes! And they should. The challenge for ad sales teams is to learn how they stand out against Big Tech digital advertising and be prepared to clearly articulate this to advertisers.  

Too many local publishers are unprepared to compete with Google and Facebook, and believe their only option is to partner directly with their biggest competition. What they fail to realize is that if they could only communicate to advertisers why they should add local advertising into their marketing mix, they could tap into an important revenue source.  

In the eyes of marketers, how do publishers differ from Big Tech?   

Here are four difference that publishers can capitalize on: 

1. Trustworthiness 

DCN has long emphasized the importance of quality, trustworthy content. And this is not just for the sake of readers and the future of journalism, but also because these factors are critical for advertisers. Due to the “black box” nature of Big Tech algorithms, campaigns from trusted brands may end up in distasteful corners of the internet. This is not only embarrassing for reputable brands. It can have a detrimental impact on their bottom line. 

In contrast, publishers are not only focused on the quality of their content, but they vet their advertisers as well. Marketers need not fear their ad campaign showing up next to pornography or propaganda. The trust that readers place in a quality publication is extended to the brands that advertise there. And this value is nearly impossible to replicate on Facebook or Google.  

Ad sales teams must be prepared with the facts about ad fraud and why trustworthiness is critical for campaign success.  

2. Audience data 

Advertisers don’t want to purchase impressions or ad space – they expect access to specific audiences.  Google makes this easy. Do you? Publishers have an opportunity to show advertisers that they can leverage their first-party data for a better user experience and higher-quality, audience-driven campaigns.  

If your publication is behind a paywall (in full or in part), you already know the value of your first-party subscriber data. Be the opposite of Google’s algorithmic black box. The more transparent you can be, the more value marketers will see in your audience.  

3. Omnichannel campaigns 

Advertisers want easy to understand campaign options, a clear understanding of campaign ROI, and they want doing business with a publisher to be easy. With the right tools, publishers can deliver on all these things – but they must go one step further.  

We’ve shown that publishers can compete head-to-head on trustworthiness and quality data. But what can publishers offer that Big Tech cannot? Omnichannel campaigns that cross mediums and deliver clear results. Who else can combine digital and print with OOH and events?  

As publishers diversify their revenue streams, they must be careful to train sales staff to understand the uplift these additional channels can provide for advertisers.  

4. Marketing expertise 

More and more publishers are adding marketing services to their offerings, and it’s no wonder. Research from Borrell Associates indicates that agencies and advertisers alike look to media companies for marketing expertise. This means your sales teams need to be prepared to be that expertise. The consultative selling approach has been proven effective. However, it requires a dedication to understanding the latest trends and recognizing how your products and services can help advertisers capitalize on them.  

Time will tell if Google and Facebook will be held to account for their monopolistic practices. Regardless of how policies change, publishers must recognize that they’re already able to compete with Big Tech. It is critical that ad sales teams understand what differentiates them from the Googles and Facebooks of this world. If they can, they’ll become an invaluable resource to reputable brands and local advertisers.  

The post Yes, publishers can compete with Google (here’s how) appeared first on Digital Content Next.