W/C - 31st October: Weekly Article (15)

BuzzFeed prepares to split into news and entertainment units

https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/aug/25/buzzfeed-split-news-entertainment-jonah-peretti

Summary

Buzzfeed is a private internet media company in America and the article talks of how they are splitting themselves into two distinct units - news and entertainment. Buzzfeed feels that having a separate video department holds no substance anymore, what they can produce is just the same as having a mobile based department. The reorganization will see the creation of Buzzfeed entertainment run by president Ze Frank and will act as an umbrella to encompass all of its entertainment content. While the news side of Buzzfeed will be separate and run by co-founder Ben Smith. Buzzfeed make these changes in the hope to become the number #1 news brand for the new and changing generations that consume the news in a different way to their parents, it's the traditional VS the online. The news of the reorganization came as reports arose of Buzzfeed missing their revenue targets in 2015. 

Key Statistics - From separate Guardian Article

• Forced to cut 2016 revenue targets from $500m to $250m after missing 2015 target by more than $80m. 
• Buzzfeed  reportedly projected revenues of $250m in 2015 but generated less than $170m
• Combined worldwide mobile and desktop traffic to Buzzfeed.com fell by 14% from 330m to 287m between April last year and March this year. 

My opinion

I that the changes to the way in which Buzzfeed is operating by dividing into news and entertainment is an extremely good idea. This is because the clear distinctions will give BuzzFeed a clear target audience to aim towards as parents from the previous generations and kids of the current generation consume things in totally different ways. They are creating themselves a company, that young people can take an interest in and meet the ways in which we want to receive the news. They are taking what we are more likely to be interested in and separating it from what say our parents are more likely to be interested in. However, this separation could cause confusion as to what the aim of the company is and they may loose sight of what they are trying to provide their audiences with as they have widen their market way to much.  

    

The decline in newspapers: MM case studies

The New Day

1) What was the New Day trying to achieve?

New Day were trying to buck the trend over the ever downward newspaper sales. The New Day published with the intention of meeting the needs of those who could not find what they wanted on the regular newsstands.  

2) List the key statistics on the first page: how many people buy newspapers in the UK? How has this declined in the last year?

• About 6 million people buy a newspaper in Britain every day, Which is down even further from 2015, last year it was reported that it may as well have been a recession year for the newspaper industry. Weekly circulation fell 7% and weekend circulation fell 4%. Both showing the greatest declines since 2010.  
• Over 1 million people have stopped buying a newspaper in the past two years 
• The New Day intended to produce something that readers could digest within 30 minutes

3) What audience were the New Day trying to attract?

The newspaper was designed to appeal to both males and females and those of the 35 - 55 year old age bracket. New Day wanted to cater for their modern lifestyles and modern approach  to receiving the news being through online means nowadays.

4) Why do you think the New Day failed so spectacularly? There are several possible reasons listed in the article but do develop your own opinion here as well.

The newspaper failed for a variety of reasons in my opinion, one being that the newspaper was introduced into a already heavily failing newspaper industry which would make you question how successful it can actually be. As it says in the article, in the quote from Joe Rundle, head of trading at ETX Capital:

"In a world where print is declining there was never a place for another title that had no real USP. It is ill conceived, badly executed and completely foolish - it's hard to fathom what Trinity Mirror was trying to achieve".  


I also think that the newspaper failed so spectacularly because of the price hike that they had from charging 25p for two weeks after launch to 50p thereafter. This is because I wouldn't and I do not see why others would either pay such money for news that you can almost definitely find elsewhere. This is due to the heaviness of republication in the modern world, we often hear in the news something reported to us by Sky news but sometimes they say "According to BBC News....".  Sky therefore republished what the BBC found and broke first potentially.  

A third reason, why New Day failed was probably because from what I've read in the article they did not have a concretely set. They say in the article that they are targeting a 35- 55 year old age bracket of both women and men but as it says a few of the editions published were brought to question whether they were actually targeted at such an age bracket. People believed that the actual audience was younger for example young women with children.      

Website Reference:
http://www.journalism.org/2016/06/15/newspapers-fact-sheet/


 The Guardian

1) List the key statistics on page 10: How many unique digital browsers used the Guardian website in June 2016? What are The Guardian's latest print sales figures? How does this compare to the Telegraph? In terms of finances, how much did the Guardian lose in 2015? 

• Guardian - Third most read website: 120m unique digital browsers, around 9m browsers daily of which approx only a third are from UK.
• Latest print sales figures show the Guardian to have a circulation of only 161,000 
• Guardian print figures well behind telegraph with 472,000
• In 2015, despite efficient cost reductions Guardian lost around £70m  

2) What has been The Guardian's strategy for reversing this decline?

Move themselves online in the majority and strengthen the backbones of The Guardian company in Australia and USA.  There was also The Guardian's ability to cover major stories live, shaping the way Guardian used on mobile devices. There strategy to reverse the decline or help themselves to survive was by being consistently innovative. For example, through live blogging and and comments sections of articles being more heavily used.  

3) What global event did The Guardian's digital coverage win awards for?

Guardian coverage of the Paris attacks won awards from the Society of Editors it got Website of the Year. The citation read: the winner’s site offers a comprehensive news service and boasts consistent innovation. It is notable for its superb live blogging, its long reads,the comment section and, in particular, fantastic coverage of the Paris shootings.

4) In your opinion, will the global website strategy be enough to save The Guardian?

It might be... it depends how The Guardian use the interest that the global website gets to their advantage. With the interest they are getting they need to innovate themselves and not just sit on their hands because they are getting a decent level of interest from readers. If they do not utilize the interest they are getting they will lose the readership that they have to other websites,which is not hard as most if not all previously print based newspaper conglomerates are now online or partially online. For readers to be able to access all the different editions of the paper is good as they can be informed of things in other countries but The Guardian need to be innovative in the content that they publish, they need to ensure that they stay clear of republished content from other news conglomerates.  

W/C - 24th October: Weekly Article (14)

Newspaper websites suffer post-Olympic dip as print sales hold steady

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/oct/20/newspaper-website-print-sales

Summary

This article talks of how after the International phenomenon that was the London Olympics 2012, online readership figures for national newspapers took a heavy dip in the interest they received.However, to the surprise of most the printed newspaper industry proved to be on the rise. The rise in circulation of printed newspapers wasn't expected and then raised questions as to what happened to the online side of the newspaper conglomerates which is what many of them heavily rely on to stay afloat as printed papers have taken a massive dip.

Key Statistics

• Double dip decline at the Independent and Daily Star
• The Sun (best digital performer) saw daily average browser numbers drop by just 1.52% month on month to 2.9 million
• Mail Online saw its daily unique browser numbers fall by 3.2% month on month in September to 14.7 million
• The Guardian dipped by 4.65% to 7.9 million 
• The Mirror dropped by 6.65% to 4.9 miliion 
• Telegraph.co.uk reported a 8.79% decline to 4.3 million
• Biggest fallers were Independent.co.uk which dropped by 11% to 3.2 million 
• Express is the second biggest faller down by 9.48% to 1.49 million 
• The third biggest faller was the dailystar.co.uk fell from 26.3% to 710,127
• Print market did better FT, Guardian, Observer and Sunday Times reporting increases in circulation month on month in September from 0.25% at The Guardian to 2.27% at FT.
• Other printed newspapers kept declines to around 1% or less
• Biggest fallers in the print market were Daily Star Sunday by 5.56% and Daily Star by 3.6%

My Opinion

I think that newspapers printed proved to be better post Olympics because they still offered other news stories whereas online in the majority was Olympics focused for a while after the events and did not offer much coverage of other stories for those in the UK. I think that newspapers also proved more successful because people not originating in the UK may have wanted to buy them/collect them for memories of the events.Newspapers were something physical that they could take home whereas online articles would require printing but also change every day.  On the other hand, online was less successful in my opinion because there is no specific audience and therefore it could be said that there are too many needs to be met. 

W/C - 24th October: Weekly Article (13)

UK Ad Viewability Below 50%, Costing Advertisers £154m a Quarter

http://digitalmarketingmagazine.co.uk/digital-marketing-news/uk-ad-viewability-below-50-costing-advertisers-154m-a-quarter/3750

Summary

The article talks of how in the UK, advertisers are loosing great amounts of money over ads that aren't actually view-able and therefore do not actually form any sort of impact on the audience overall but also the audience that they are trying to target. If a ad is sufficiently view-able then at least 50% of the ad needs to be in view on the screen for at least one second. Most ads nowadays are either blocked by our ad blockers or internet security installations and therefore they are not being viewed. 

Key Statistics

• Less than half of online ads served UK minimum view-ability threshold
• Not meeting minimum threshold is costing advertisers £154m based on IAB/PwC's Adspend figures
• Only 49% met the IAB and Media Ratings Council's recommendation that 50% of the ad was in view for at least one second. 
• 49% is a marginal improvement on 47% from the second quarter of 2016
• UK remains behind other European countries in terms of view-ability levels:

-- Austria is at 69%

-- France is at 60%

-- Germany is at 59%

• £615m wasted annually on non view-able banner ads alone
• View-ability levels for video ads are better at 68%, against a measure of 50% in view for at least two seconds

  

My Opinion

I think that advertisers need to figure out a way to basically make there ads almost irresistible to block. They should do some market research to find out what their audiences want from the ads that they are seeing on online websites over and over again and adjust there adverts accordingly. For example, if Coca Cola find that there target audience want interactive adverts then they should adjust there current ads to accommodate this. If they ensure that they are constantly changing their ads and accommodating what there audiences want then the money lose is less likely to be as large as they will actually see results from them as they are having an impact on the audience.   

NDM: The future of journalism

1) Why does Clay Shirky argue that 'accountability journalism' is so important and what example does he give of this?

2) What does Shirky say about the relationship between newspapers and advertisers? Which websites does he mention as having replaced major revenue-generators for newspapers (e.g. jobs, personal ads etc.)?

3) Shirky talks about the 'unbundling of content'. This means people are reading newspapers in a different way. How does he suggest audiences are consuming news stories in the digital age?

4) Shirky also talks about the power of shareable media. How does he suggest the child abuse scandal with the Catholic Church may have been different if the internet had been widespread in 1992?

5) Why does Shirky argue against paywalls? 

6) What is a 'social good'? In what way is journalism a 'social good'?

7) Shirky says newspapers are in terminal decline. How does he suggest we can replace the important role in society newspapers play? What is the short-term danger to this solution that he describes?

8) Look at the first question and answer regarding institutional power. Give us your own opinion: how important is it that major media brands such as the New York Times or the Guardian continue to stay in business and provide news?

1) ClayShirky argues that accountability journalism is important because it is what keeps  the dishonesty of people at bay. Accountability journalism helps to bring out the true stories He talks of the movie "spotlight" which centers around editor Marty Baron of The Boston Globe assigning a team of journalists to investigate allegations against John Geoghan, an unfrocked priest accused of molesting more than 80 boys. In the talk is mentioned that without professional journalism/journalists we would never have found out about this case.  

2) Relationships between newspapers and advertisers isn't great because previously advertisers have had to pay over the odds for spaces to advertise, but this is because there wasn't a well known enough place other than newspapers to advertise in the past. Previously, the internet was not used in the same way that it is now so it wasn't a good platform to advertise on with the goal to be getting maximum interest and coverage across a variety of different people. Clay goes on to say of how advertisers were not only overcharged but also undeserved not even getting the chance to say "don't report on my industry". The example talked about is Ford ad's and being advertised in the New York Times during the rollover stories.

3) We are now viewing newspapers ONLINE!!! The difference between the consumption of newspapers before and now is that we only read and actually remember what we want to, as for before when we would read everything that was in the newspaper. Citizen journalism has taken off and its consumers rather than producers that are bundling together the content. Before content was printed for everybody whereas now we choose what we want to read and therefore it is specific to our needs.

4) If the internet was more widespread in 1992, the scandal involving the catholic church definitely would not have been able to be hidden. Before, in a interview for a newspaper people would say things and they would be reported based on how the journalist interpreted  it. However, if the internet was widespread in 1992, people could share the real story more easily and the sharing would just keep going until those involved or anybody else for that matter would not have been able to control it.

5)  Shirky argues against paywalls because he feels that they a restriction, we all need accountability journalism but why would we pay for it when so much of the content that is behind a paywall is republished and reused on a number of different free sites. For example, if someone is subscribed to The Economist nothing stops them sharing a story they have found on social media which would then get reposted and reused by other media organisations.  

6) A social good is a good or service that benefits the largest number of people in the largest possible way that it can. Journalism can be seen as a social good through the publication of stories such as the catholic church scandal because they would otherwise have been covered up completely or made not to look as bad as they were.

7) Shirky says "We need a class of institutions or models, whether they’re endowments or crowdsourced or what have you — we need a model that produces five percent of accountability journalism. And we need to get that right 17 times in a row. That’s the issue before us. There will not be anything that replaces newspapers, because if you could write the list of stuff you needed and organizational characteristics and it looked like newspapers, newspapers would be able to fill that role, right?". 

8)  I think that it is extremely important that newspapers such as The Guardian and New York Times stay in business. This is because they are the newspapers that hold the institutional power to hold people to account that have done wrong, without them stories would have been covered up and those people would have got away with it. 

EXAMPLE - Q8

W/C - 17th October: Weekly Article (12)

Daily Mail owner to cut more than 400 jobs amid print advertising decline

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/daily-mail-online-jobs-cuts-400-losses-dmgt-a7336986.html

Summary

The dizzying decline of the newspaper industry has meant that The Daily Mail has followed in the footsteps of many other major newspaper conglomerates and is cutting jobs as the print industry is seizing to exist. With sales in printed newspapers not existing in a big enough majority to bring in a good revenue level newspapers are struggling to pay journalists salaries. 

Key Statistics

• Daily Mail will cut more than 400 jobs
• There has been a double digit decline in print advertising in the last year
• Re-organisation will result in an exceptional operating cost of £50 million - more than 3 times the amount suggested earlier in the year
• DMGT (Daily Mail and General Trust) employs around 10,000 staff worldwide
• In May, DMGT said print advertising revenues had declined 13% in the 6 months to the end of March 2016
• Newspaper circulation revenues rose 1% in July and August, helped by recent cover price hikes for its national titles. 
• The group increased the price of The Daily Mail for the first time in 3 years in February by 5p to 65p

My Opinion

In my opinion, with the continuing developments of the new and digital media the print industry is not going to survive!!!! The Sun has already cut jobs to accommodate for their move to digital platforms. Now The Daily Mail has followed with cutting jobs and its only a matter of time before the remaining newspapers do the same.

W/C - 17th October: Weekly Article (11)

Spotify UK revenues surge to almost £190m as mobile subscriptions take off

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/oct/14/spotify-uk-revenues-surge-to-almost-190m-as-mobile-subscriptions-take-off

Summary

Spotify is the world's biggest music streaming service it gives customers access to more than 30m songs from artists ranging from Ellie Goulding to Taylor Swift and even American based artists. The article focuses on how their revenues have grown enormously in the last year. Chief Executives say that the rise in revenues is thanks to the drastic technological changes that are working there way through society. We are increasing listening to music and doing a multitude of other tasks on the go rather than on a desktop which is why subscriptions to mobile apps/sites are on the rise. 

Key Statistics

• Revenues at Spotify's UK business rose to almost £190m last year 
• Subscription income soared to over 40% with the increased use of the mobile site
• Spotify carries a $8.5bn (£6.9bn) valuation 
• Total UK revenues rose by 18% from £159m to £187.2m last year, fueled by a 44% surge in subscription revenues from £119m to £171m.
• However, last year ad revenue fell slightly from £11m to £10.8m 
• Offers access to over 30m songs
• Spotify charges a fee of £9.99 a month for subscriptions 
• The UK company (Spotify) made a small pre tax profit of £2m, up marginally from £1.67m in 2014
• Ed Sheeran most streamed artist in the UK last year

My Opinion

As we all are very well aware NDM is quickly developing with us converting from desktop technologies to portable technologies such as tablets and mobile phones. Using portable technologies I think is half the reason why subscription rates are on the rise as we are increasingly wanting services that are easy to access and can be used on the go.However, the rise is subscription rates to mobile sites is also down to the developing market of mobile internet which is only growing I mean we are so far at 4G internet!!!!. Due to the convenience of mobile sites we are not that bothered about paying a small fee in most cases for the content that we need and want. I personally am subscribed to Soundcloud and Spotify and as I am within a generation of digital natives who live out of mobile phones I think that the success of mobile sites is only going to continue. However, saying this YouTube is still a heavily used site and caters for those who are less accustom to mobile sites.     

Newspapers: The effect of online technology

1) Do you agree with James Murdoch that the BBC should not be allowed to provide free news online? Why?

2) Was Rupert Murdoch right to put his news content (The Times, The Sunday Times) behind a paywall?

3) Choose two comments from below the Times paywall article - one that argues in favour of the paywall and one that argues against. Copy a quote from each and explain which YOU agree with and why.

4) Read this article from the Media Briefing on the continuing decline of the newspaper industry. 

5) Why do you think the Evening Standard has bucked the trend and increased circulation and profit in the last two years?

6) Is there any hope for the newspaper industry or will it eventually die out? Provide a detailed response to this question explaining and justifying your opinion.

1) Yes, because for many reasons namely the developments in NDM the quality of the news we are getting has gone downhill. News nowadays is not coming to us through major news conglomerates but instead through NDM sources such as social media primarily due to the rise of citizen journalism.  However, we do pay the licensing fee which makes me question whether the statement of if the BBC should be allowed to provide free news online is something to agree with or not. This is because the news online that we are provided with is not technically free. I think that other news companies though should charge for news online to give readers something that has not been already heard somewhere else which we are more likely to pay for as it isn't copied news. However, with saying that it should be considered that The Sun did already attempt to charge people for online news and it failed so their paywall was removed. 

2) To begin with, The Times paywall seemed to work as The Times and The Sunday Times had amassed a total of 140,000 paying digital subscribers. The Times titles added 13,000 new subscribers in the first half of 2013, implying a monthly acquisition rate of 2,100. However, it then comes to questioning whether or not The Times and The Sunday Times paywall works/worked, as we know already though it did not work and was therefore removed. As Mike Darcey CEO at News UK, says you only reach profit through subscriptions when you've deducted the cost of acquiring and retaining users. The Times Newspaper Ltd, lost £28.7 million for the year to July 1, on turnover of £361 million. Essentially, what I'm trying to say is The Times and The Sunday Times should not have put their content behind a paywall because the aim was to help them increase profits but instead they lost money. However, they gained more readership because they got more subscribers from the time that it was behind the paywall.

3)  

I disagree with this comment about The Times and The Sunday Times not having a very big presence in the online world. This is because their presence may be minimal but with the heavy changes that the online world brings as long as The Times and The Sunday Times market themselves correctly then they can have a better online presence and therefore become a more digital based news conglomerate. 

I agree with this comment because a newspapers success does depend on cost, differential quality and niche information not available anywhere else. If you offer something that is not able to be found anywhere else they people will be more willing to pay for reading their content. However, as the comment states The Times and The Sunday Times should improve the quality of the content and could potentially re try the option of a paywall as advertising revenues are in a slump and are not a sufficient source of revenue. 

Media Briefing article

5) In my opinion, The Evening Standard has bucked the trend and increased circulation because the title has a free daily circulation of around 900,000. I think that the circulation figures are of such a high number because despite being free The Evening Standard is available in free newspaper bins in a wide selection of places. For example, The Evening Standard is distributed via retailers, supermarkets, corporate headquarters, hotels, mainline train stations and a team of over 300 branded merchandisers. Then, The Evening Standard has increased profits in my opinion as a result of advertising, with its increase in circulation from 700,000 to 900,000 more people are wanting to advertise in the paper as it has a wider and more recognized reach than most papers.  The paper made a pre tax profit of just over £1m for the year to the end of September 2014.

6) I think that despite the way in which the newspaper industry is quickly dwindling through a downward spiral there is still hope for it but I do not think that the positive  hope lies with the print side of the industry but instead with the broadcast and more predominately e- media platforms. As NDM develops we are able to access news that used to only be available in print forms over a selection of different devices. As a result, we are taking less and less interest in printed newspapers and despite companies offering them to us free we as whole prefer to get the news in the most convenient way possible. Convenient to us currently means accessing the news through an electronic means which does not require us to make any major changes to the way in which we go about our everyday business.  As for the print industry that is slowly seizing to exist it will eventually die out completely due to the developments of NDM.      

Website References

http://www.metroclassified.co.uk/productsandaudiences/esdatadistribution

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/evening-standard-triples-profit-to-3-4m-helped-by-print-circulation-increase/

W/C - 10th October: Weekly Article (10)

The Sun and Daily Mail accused of 'fuelling prejudice' in report on rising racist violence and hate speech in UK

Referencing the death of Lucy Meadows 

Summary

From the newspaper conglomerates of the UK The Sun and Daily Mail have been pin pointed in a report on ' hate speech' and discrimination. The ECRI (European Commission against Racism and intolerance) took a targeted aim at some British media outlets particularly tabloids for being offensive, discriminatory and provocative in the terminology they used in their news. The ECRI findings highlight in a even greater presence how much of a problem hate speech is so much so that people have taken their own lives because of it. It talks of how newspapers are guilty of a dishing out a huge amount of monstering and harassment.  People affected by the published articles even spoke up about the problems  that they faced but were point blank ignored. The report from the ECRI also concluded how reports on immigration, terrorism and the refugee crisis was contributing to a environment of hostility and rejection. For example, Katie Hopkins infamous column in The Sun citing refugees as 'cockroaches'. ECRI is urging the media to take more notice of the importance of reporting not only to avoid such stories coming out again but also to stop targeting vulnerable groups of people.

Key Statistics  - Not directly from the article but relates

Statistics from Met Police - CRIMES

As per the article, the key statistic that I drew out was the rise in hate crimes particularly Islamophobic crimes as reported by Met Police which is some what at the fault of the newspapers and what they have been printing. In July 2015 reported Islamophobic crimes were at a total count of 83 whereas July of 2016 reported crimes were at a total of 161 which is percentage change of +94.0%. 

My Opinion

Personally, some of things that I have seen published in the papers growing up has always had me questioning why newspaper conglomerates were publishing such things, because as soon as I read them I questioned why they published such things that even I could tell would cause outrage. A lot of newspapers are known for dishing out scandals but is this the way to go if we are trying to reduce London crime rates. Despite, this newspapers print stories like this because they think that stories like those on immigrants etc is the only way to get a audience back from what already is a dying market because of citizen journalism. However, this is not the case because newspapers such as the FT get just as much interest from audiences as those printing these outrageous stories about Islamophobia. This all takes me back to a saying that I was told when I was growing up which is something that I think newspapers should abide by which is: " Treat others how you would like to be treated", newspapers should think about what they are printing and how readers will see it before it is printed. Would all those hot shot editors sitting at the top of the chain on wealthy salaries like to be called gold diggers or worse... NO!.    

W/C - 10th October - Weekly NDM news article (9)

Ad-blockers: are publishers tempted to feed the hand that bites them?

https://www.theguardian.com/media-network/2016/oct/04/adblock-plus-publishers-tempted-feed-hand-bites

Summary

This article talks about how Eyeo the company behind ad blocking tool Adblock Plus provoked a violent backlash when it came about that they were launching a ad tech platform for publishers. It was reported that Adblock Plus would start selling ads to publishers. The company simply has extended its existing "Acceptable Ads" platform launched in 2011 creating a more efficient way to whitelist ads.  Whitelisting is when a advertiser gives a list of websites that they permit their ads to be placed on. The new platform that Eyeo have launched is essentially being pitched as a slicker operation. It allows publishers and bloggers to choose form a marketplace of pre whitelisted ads allowing them to drag and drop these on to their sites. Though, Johnny Ryan head of ecosystem at PageFair spends his days fighting against ad blocking software and does not agree with this more automated system. Although, publishers will have to pay a licensing fee for there ads to be deemed acceptable and therefore whitelisted. 

Key Statistics

• In addition, to the licensing fee to pay, larger publishers and ad networks will also see 6% of the total advertising revenue from these ads go to Adblock Plus.  
• 90% of companies on the whitelist don't actually pay a dime
• Larger entities who gain more than 10m additional ad impressions per month who also pay  licensing fee will see a total of 30% of the overall revenue going to Adblock Plus.

My Opinion

With the developments of NDM, I think that more and more of us are using ad blocking sites to get rid of all those unnecessary ads that appear in our news stories, games etc. But, with more and more of us doing this I think that the advertising industry was in deep trouble so advertisers essentially needed to work with ad blocking agencies to make ads more specific to an audience which is why they are paying Adblock Plus among others to only put ads on specific sites. However, the aim of ads being presented online etc in the way that they are companies were intending to make money from it but paid out more that they got because they paid a licensing fee on top of additional costs to advertise. I think that for advertisers to actually grab our attention and therefore stop us using ad blocking sites. They need to carefully think about what ads they are showing to what audience.     

NDM: Build The Wall analysis

1) Summarise each section in one sentence:

• Section 1 (To all of the bystanders reading this…)
• Section 2 (Truth is, a halting movement toward...)
• Section 3 (Beyond Mr. Sulzberger and Ms. Weymouth…)
• Section 4 (For the industry, it is later than it should be…)

2) Summarise David Simon’s overall argument in 250 words.

3) Read this Guardian comment by AC Grayling piece on the state of journalism that was published the year before David Simon's essay. What references to new and digital media can you find in AC Grayling's argument? Overall, do you feel the comment piece is positive or negative about the influence of new/digital media on the newspaper industry?

4) Finally, what is your own opinion? Do you agree that newspapers need to put online content behind a paywall in order for the journalism industry to survive? Would you be willing to pay for news online? Critical autonomy is the key skill in A2 Media - you need to be able form opinions on these issues.

1) The real audience of this article is Katherine Weymouth and Arthur Sulzberger Jr. people who have the power to save high end journalism, two people that can rescue a sinking industry, as they are at the helm of The New York Times and The Washington Post trying to find some piece with the digital revelation though they have failed so far.   

2) Summarising David Simon’s argument I would say that he is saying what everybody is thinking. Something has to be done and quickly to revive the dying newspaper/media industry. He talks of how those who represent fundamental institutions such as The New York Times and The Washington Post still have an influential hand they can still help the industry. David Simon thinks that content should be paid for but content is the key, from what I understand. If the newspapers can offer us something interesting and unique then we are going to be obliged to pay for it. He says that on a specific date everybody must act together and inform readers that content will only be free to those who subscribe.  David Simon states in his argument that ‘no half measures’ should be taken, no offering some articles charged and others for free, no limited availability of certain teaser articles etc. However, he does still take on board the changes that the internet has brought to the world of media as he says “ A radical revisiting of the dynamic between news-papering and the Internet, there will be little cohesive, professional, first-generation journalism at the state and local level, as your national newspapers continue to retrench and regional papers are destroyed outright.”. David Simon goes on to say how some newspapers seem to be like hybrids despite talks already having happened/happening about charging for online subscription some newspapers like those under the empire of Rupert Murdoch rethought or do not yet have an online subscription model but if everybody works together they will soon follow, in the opinion of David Simon.     

Section 2: As the days go on a movement of to revive the dying newspaper world is being created, they are contemplating the idea of charging for the online distribution of news; the times and the post lead and others will simply follow.

Section 3: Many professionals in news-papering have underestimated the phenomenon of the internet and the changes that it brings to their companies, they did not look at the wider picture.

Section 4: For the newspaper industry, the transition into using the internet to distribute news has happened a lot later than it should have done. 

3)  

• Twin phenomena of blogging and interactivity
• The influence of the internet as a whole on the political process
• NDM has opened up the room for democratization of opinions and debate 
• How long before the internet is policed 
•  Freely permits debate
• Anonymous, viciousness and sneering attacks and volume of rubbish posted 
• Strong presence of a positive relationship between the media and the blogosphere

Overall, at first I would have said that this piece does not sway towards one side more than the other over the influence of NDM. It takes the time to weigh up the pros and the cons of NDM on the political world. However, on reflection; i think that this article sways more towards talking about the damage the NDM has done to the newspaper industry and the political side, it states how the power of the press is weakening and therefore not holding as much influence. 

4) In my opinion, with the drastic changes that NDM have presented the traditional means of media with they need to figure out a strategy quickly to keep themselves afloat which is what they have tried to do by undertaking a digital revolution and moving online (The Independent). However, I do not agree with the idea of putting content behind a paywall as being the way for the newspaper industry to survive and keep what little audience it has left. This is because, who is going to pay for receiving news when they can get printed free newspapers at train stations etc. Though, saying this the idea of going online is for the convenience it presents us with to fit in our daily/ weekly etc news read into our busy schedules which means some people may well pay for the news behind a paywall, particularly as not everybody commutes via a train station on a regular basis. Rather than a paywall, I think that newspapers could potentially strengthen themselves once more by working together with the millions of citizen journalists out there and distribute news by putting their skills together rather than resenting them for the getting to the news before they did because they do not have to go through a  gate keeper. For example, citizen journalists could work with a news company and develop the piece of news they have captured into something much more which will pull in a greater audience. 

Personally, I am a digital native I have grown up surrounded by the internet and therefore I have never really read printed news or for that matter paid for my news but instead I've got it online for free. If newspapers put there content behind a paywall I do not think I would pay for it unless it was something that I really wanted to read. Which I think is the opinion, that many other consumers like me would hold. We as consumers are only ever prepared to pay for. If newspaper are going to use a paywall then they need to decide on the most effective content to restrict behind a paywall which will still pull in the audience.      

NDM: The decline of the newspaper industry: Economist Article

The future of newspapers

1)On your blog, write a paragraph summarising the argument the article makes. Then answer the following questions:

2) Do you agree with its view that it is ‘a cause for concern, but not for panic’?

3) The article is 10 years old - an eternity in digital media terms. Have the writer's predictions come to pass? Use statistics from your Ofcom research to support or challenge the writer's argument.

4) The Economist suggests that high-quality journalism in the future will be backed by non-profit organisations rather than profit-seeking media corporations. Is there any evidence for this? How is the Guardian funded? What do major stories from the last year such as the Panama Papers suggest about how investigative journalism is conducted in the digital age?

1)  

• Exposing of President Nixon helped the print newspaper industry and the media as a whole to soar in the USA.
• There was a time when print mediums soared in popularity because they were able to hold important authority figures to account. 
• Newspapers used to set the agenda for other types of media, newspapers are what created the media in the opinion of the article author.
• Nowadays newspapers are referred to as an gravely endangered species.
• Philp Meyer in his book "The Vanishing Newspaper" says that by 2043 the last crumbled edition of a printed newspaper will be tossed aside in the USA and the print medium will be no more. 
• It states how even the most cynical newspaper baron (CEO) could not deny that more and more young people are getting their news online. Britons aged 15-24 years old say that they spend almost 30% less time reading national newspapers once they begin to use the web. 
• It goes on to argue how newspapers have been pushed out because of a advertising slump which means that newspapers cannot make any money. Newspapers haven't shut down just yet but only a matter of time. 

2) I agree that the newspaper printed medium slump is a cause for concern not a cause for panic. This is simply because I think that the large newspaper conglomerates need to figure out the best way to adjust to the changes in the platforms that people use to distribute the news. We are using broadcast, e- media platforms a lot more than that of the print medium so newspaper conglomerates just need to figure out to best get the news to us via these means which at the moment I do not think is done very well. Conglomerates have just created a website that is updated with news articles and got themselves on social media... but they need to learn how to use such apparatus to its full potential. 
  
3) I think that the writers predication in this economist article have come true to a certain extent as we can clearly see without the use of statistics a definitive decline in traditional news mediums and a increase in the use of the web. 43% of internet users likely to be us digital natives in the majority use the internet to source and consume the news. In comparison, with just 34% of newspaper readers who ONLY use newspapers to get their news. 4 in 10 adults use the internet compared with 16 - 24 year old's (digital natives) who primarily use the internet or company apps to get the news. 

4) The Guardian is funded by Scott Trust Limited, in 1992 the Trust identified its central objective as being "To secure the financial and editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity: as a quality national newspaper without party affiliation; remaining faithful to its liberal tradition; as a profit-seeking enterprise managed in an efficient and cost-effective manner. With this quote I am disagreeing with what The Economist is suggesting which is that high-quality journalism in the future will be backed by non-profit organisations rather than profit-seeking media corporations. As the Guardian are wanting to remain true to what is known which is being a profit seeking organisation. With major stories like the Panama papers a traditional yet secretive approach was taken in that the leaked documents were photocopied and sent to news paper conglomerates globally. Though, with the developments of the digital age, investigative journalism has developed as it can be done in any number of ways from a phone to a computer to a tablet. 

W/C: 3rd October - Weekly NDM news article (8)

A brand new game

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21662543-people-spend-more-time-social-media-advertisers-are-following-them-brand-new-game

Summary: This article by The Economist talks of how advertising through mediums other than online has become a thing of the past. More and more advertising is done online, with companies spending a lot more on more than one type of online advertising. Advertising on social media used to be something that was left to summer interns to do but now it is something that is given a lot more thought and consideration by people higher up in the company chain. This article is also talking about how some companies such as car companies and their complexities of advertising online with it being so easy for dissatisfied customers to share their views. The most popular form of online advertising is social media nowadays advertising like the way that they can gather all sorts of information on each users age, consumption patterns etc. This information benefits advertisers as they can then alter their adverts to ensure they get the best response from them. Online advertising of all sorts just continues to grow, budgets for social media advertising a likely to grow as the years go on

Key Statistics:

• 2 billion people worldwide use social networking sites
• Social media ads have gone from virtually nothing to approximately $20 billion this year
• Facebook is the advertising favourite, it claims nearly five times as many users and nine times as much revenue as Twitter
• Pinterest  has 70m users
• Twitter has 300m users 
• Facebook has 1.5 billion users

Advertising expenditures - different platforms

My Opinion

Advertising is changing by the second, which is good because companies need to continuously change their tactics to carry on pulling in the audiences and general interest. If we as audience members keep seeing the same dried up adverts we are not going to take any interest in them and therefore advertisers are not making any money which could impact them heavily overall, as a lot of companies rely heavily on online advertising to pull in the audiences. However, nowadays a lot of companies advertise online or sometimes in a game that we play or even on the websites we visit but we use AD BLOCKERS a lot so no one is seeing the extravagant advertisements being shown. Which leads me to the question of " Is online/social media advertising really the path that companies should rely on so heavily?".