I like some of the ideas and research here, but had a few issues with the assumptions. In digital measurement there are all kinds of metrics, not just "audience metrics." And most metrics are designed for marketing and ecommerce, not content consumption, so most metrics have been misused and misinterpreted because they aren't designed for describing news consumption in a digital environment.
Measurement software interfaces never provide the proper context needed to convey what their numbers actually mean. Each metric is explained individually, but never how they work together and affect human actions/business goals.
Based on my experience and on most reported stories of media companies trying to use metrics, media businesses and content producers don't understand that content popularity, current audience needs, audience growth, and business growth are all completely different sets of metrics. Each requires different tactical approaches to affect and need to work together.
So it's not just an issue of "what happens when newsrooms use audience metrics." It's more about "what happens when editors and creators get a sliver of the data they need to actually make decisions that help their audience, appropriately respond to the consequences of network effects, and help the business." Otherwise, you're just getting the newsroom version of "gamified optimization to boost engagement" and that's not good for anyone.
I think your getting at some of the questions I even had with how we determine the effects audience metrics has on journalism, perhaps taking it a bit further. The research is inconclusive, possibly because audience metrics are being conflated, as u note, or possibly because of the studies’ methodologies, which tend to vary.
I’d like to think I concede a bit ur concerns here in the piece: that we all seem to assume journalism is highly influenced by the feed-back-loop of “audience metrics” yet it’s more complicated then that; however, I do try to push that it’s still relatively “early days” when it comes to this tech, and we see more softening of news in certain content areas like AI…
Thanks for the reply. And yes! We are early days, but measurement tech as it is now is used quite clunkily to justify long-term unsustainable decisions on both the editorial and ad sales side. The whole rigamarole has been a plot on prestige tv, which I wrote about a few years ago: https://www.content-technologist.com/newsletter-anniversary-insights/
I'm a former paperboy who clings to my love of printed news but realizes that it was almost exclusively approved for publication then as now. But I spent time learning to "read between the lines". Media now are even more controlled. Free speech exists to a certain extent but I will not become another zombie staring at plastic rectangles at the expense of living life.
I like some of the ideas and research here, but had a few issues with the assumptions. In digital measurement there are all kinds of metrics, not just "audience metrics." And most metrics are designed for marketing and ecommerce, not content consumption, so most metrics have been misused and misinterpreted because they aren't designed for describing news consumption in a digital environment.
Measurement software interfaces never provide the proper context needed to convey what their numbers actually mean. Each metric is explained individually, but never how they work together and affect human actions/business goals.
Based on my experience and on most reported stories of media companies trying to use metrics, media businesses and content producers don't understand that content popularity, current audience needs, audience growth, and business growth are all completely different sets of metrics. Each requires different tactical approaches to affect and need to work together.
So it's not just an issue of "what happens when newsrooms use audience metrics." It's more about "what happens when editors and creators get a sliver of the data they need to actually make decisions that help their audience, appropriately respond to the consequences of network effects, and help the business." Otherwise, you're just getting the newsroom version of "gamified optimization to boost engagement" and that's not good for anyone.
I think your getting at some of the questions I even had with how we determine the effects audience metrics has on journalism, perhaps taking it a bit further. The research is inconclusive, possibly because audience metrics are being conflated, as u note, or possibly because of the studies’ methodologies, which tend to vary.
I’d like to think I concede a bit ur concerns here in the piece: that we all seem to assume journalism is highly influenced by the feed-back-loop of “audience metrics” yet it’s more complicated then that; however, I do try to push that it’s still relatively “early days” when it comes to this tech, and we see more softening of news in certain content areas like AI…
Thanks for the thoughtful response!
Thanks for the reply. And yes! We are early days, but measurement tech as it is now is used quite clunkily to justify long-term unsustainable decisions on both the editorial and ad sales side. The whole rigamarole has been a plot on prestige tv, which I wrote about a few years ago: https://www.content-technologist.com/newsletter-anniversary-insights/
I'm a former paperboy who clings to my love of printed news but realizes that it was almost exclusively approved for publication then as now. But I spent time learning to "read between the lines". Media now are even more controlled. Free speech exists to a certain extent but I will not become another zombie staring at plastic rectangles at the expense of living life.
“all at the expense of hard news.”
Now that may be part of the bias you write about and yet assume should be taken for granted. It’s only hard news if it’s life threatening? Click bait.