While more traditional news organizations, like The New York
Times and CNN, are powered by donors and sponsors, the new age of digital
media, like Buzzfeed and Vice, are driven by digital advertisements. When you
think about the amount of people viewing all of these different news sources,
most would think that the digital advertising would be sufficient to keep those
sites afloat because they are so popular, but those people are, for the most
part, wrong.
Donor-backed news media seem to have better survival rates
than media backed by ad sales. That does not mean that it comes with out
problems. According to the article “The Future of News,” people distrust
mainstream media now more than ever. As much as people want to believe that
journalists are reporting the news fairly and without bias, this is wrong. Not
only do journalists have opinions that can, and do, influence how and what they
report, but the organization in itself has someone to answer to. News companies
will report on certain stories based on what their donors approve of. If they
don’t do this, there is a chance that donor will back out and the company will
lose funding! If you have ever seen the show “The Newsroom,” which you should
definitely see if you have not, this is exactly what the reporters and producers
of this fictional news room go through. Do they report on this very important
story impartially like they should, or will executives’ strong arm them into
presenting a biased report or even nothing at all? These donors could be the
reason some networks are known for their biases. For example, everyone knows
that Fox News is conservative and MSNBC is liberal. Are the donors what is
keeping it this way?
And yes, you do have organizations like the Associated Press,
that present news as news without a spin on it, but without those becoming mainstream,
they will continue to be used as references in these larger stories, rather
than presenting the stories themselves.
With both big networks and digital media, ad-sales are also
in peril if the companies step out of line. This is not quite as big of a deal
with large networks, but it can still make an impact. This is especially
important for digital media sites like Buzzfeed and Vice, who are very reliant
on advertisements. Buzzfeed posts sponsored content several times a day, most
of it very well integrated. There are some articles you read that you don’t
even realize are sponsored until about halfway through the article. In the last
few years, sponsorships have become more and more scrutinized, and are now
required to be clearly labeled. There are so many ads on these types of sites,
that if they do something to make a company that advertises with them mad, the
site could fail.
Even with the hundreds of ads shown on sites like Buzzfeed
and Vice, those companies are still struggling. In fact, according to the
article “Digital Media Meltdown,” companies, like Buzzfeed, Vice and Huffington
Post, laid off over 1,000 people in January 2019. Even with Buzzfeed being,
arguably, one of the more popular “news sites” on the internet, ads are not
enough. According to Bill Day, a Vice President at a media consulting firm, we
have not yet seen digital content creation sites supported by advertising money
succeed. For example, Buzzfeed is valued at $1.7 billion, but the company has never
turned a profit. It seems like everywhere you turn, you are seeing advertisements.
Companies are getting smarter with how they use their advertising budgets, so
instead of just commercials you see social media influencers doing sponsored
posts and digital media sites having integrated ads as well as blatant ads on
the home page. They also have links in their articles to buy products
mentioned, and they will receive a commission from that. For example, on a
recent post from Buzzfeed, you are taught how to make “Leftover Loaded Pizza
Fries in 15 Minutes or Less,” sponsored by Geico. Another article is “32 ThingsSo Gorgeous You Might Be Tempted To Hit ‘Add To Cart’ Immediately.” In this
article, Buzzfeed “may collect a share of sale or other compensation from the
link on this page.” To me, it looks like the company will go into any venture
possible to stay in business.
According to Day, this is exactly what Buzzfeed, and similar
companies, need to stay away from. He says that companies, including newspapers,
need to find a niche market and somehow convince consumers to pay a small
amount to access their content. Day said, “If I were running Vice or Buzzfeed,
the question that I would want [answered] is f there is a space we can attach
and become known for well enough that consumers would be willing to pay to
engage with us.” In my opinion, it seemed like Buzzfeed had a fairly niche
market at the beginning with their “listicles” and funny content, but it was
free and then they expanded to several other markets. Even then, it is hard for
me to imagine a consumer paying for a subscription to a “listicle” and quiz
website like Buzzfeed used to be. I have my doubts about something like this
being sustainable, unless it is in a very niche market.
I know that I personally will close out of an article if I get
halfway through reading it and a box pops up that says “subscribe to continue
reading.” Unless a news source consistently produces stories that keep my
attention, I don’t foresee myself paying for news, especially when we have such
a saturated free news market.
All in all, I don’t really know where the future of the news
is going to take us. There has to be a way to have reliable (read: unbiased)
news in the free news market, but donors and sponsorships make that difficult.
Unless digital media finds a way to make profit other than digital advertising,
they may not survive long. Is there way to have an unbiased mainstream news
organization that is free to use?
I have always wondered how Youtubers can make six figures playing video games and doing make-up tutorials for a living, but the majority of journalists (other than the "big names") are looking under the couch cushions by the end of each month just to pay the bills. These YouTubers are paid via advertisers as well. Although, the more subscribers they have on their pages and the more views their videos have, the more money they make. I get that. But that is the same concept as the digital newspapers. I guess I do not see the difference.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with donor-backed media companies is like you said, they can be somewhat biased. However, so are media backed by advertisers. Regardless of your political affiliation, or which station you watch, all media does what their advertisers say. When Fox News was battling the sexual harassment accusations against Bill O'Reilly, dozens of advertisers pulled out during his show and refused to return until Fox made a change. They eventually let O'Reilly go. But the Fox News executives turned their heads for years until the stories came out, and their backs were to the wall and at the mercy of their advertisers, and the fear of losing millions of dollars became a reality. Their advertisers told them what they were going to do.
And like you said, I think “niche market” media will have an even harder time getting people to pay for content. Buzzfeed’s “listicles” started as a small market but because its popularity grew, they wanted to cash in on a good thing. But to grow, they need money and don’t have it. I’m not sure they are going to get enough people to pay for something like that. Because I too, will not subscribe to anything, especially if I have to pay for it. In this day and age of digital content, I can always find another site that has the same information for free.