Mediaboss Marketing

To prevent this, platforms could end the practice of allowing advertisers to bring external data to their ad systems entirely. The downside is that this would eliminate good uses of these tools in addition to the troubling ones.

Alternatively, platforms could require political advertisers to move away from data opacity and toward data transparency by permitting only certain types of verified targeting lists, such as lists of all registered voters of a certain party in a certain district. More transparency would incentivize good practice, and platforms could take steps to verify audience lists and perform random audits to improve enforcement and ensure accountability.

Second, targeting categories and the advertising auctions and algorithms that deliver ads based on those categories should not make it easy for advertisers to undermine the platforms own stated goals, whether it is Facebooks desire for social cohesion or Twitters goal of healthy discourse. Just as all major platform companies have voluntarily put in place verification processes for political advertising and created political digital ad archives, instead of banning political ads they can set further limits on the categories political advertisers can target (such as geographic region, interests, ideology, race and ethnicity, or gender). Platforms could review their existing categories to ensure they do not enable targeting that can undermine their missions, circumvent community standards or is likely to facilitate illegal activity.

Third, platforms should introduce product solutions that facilitate counter-speech. For instance, when a platform publishes a political ad in its ad archive, it could enable verified rival campaigns to publish ads to the exact same audience. This approach would be a privacy-protective way of ensuring that there is an opportunity for counter-speech, since platforms could enable the functionality without passing audience details or strategic information to rival campaigns.

Finally, companies repeatedly state that political advertising doesnt have a material effect on their bottom line. If thats the case, instead of banning political ads they should put their political advertising money where their mouth is, and commit to donating all revenue from political advertising to nonprofits and researchers focused on election integrity. Or invest that money directly in the development and improvement of their election integrity products.

In the face of intense pressure by the press, activists and policymakers, tech platforms should resist blunt solutions that greatly narrow the possibilities for expression for those vying for public office and contesting public issues. Blanket bans on political ads especially harm those without pre-existing large audiences and challengers to established elites. By putting changes in place that shine a spotlight on targeting practices, we can address some of the worst abuses of political ads technologies, while also leaving space for speech thats critical for a robust democracy.

Daniel Kreiss is a principal researcher at the University of North Carolina Center for Information, Technology, and Public Life and an associate professor at the UNC Hussman School of Journalism and Media. Matt Perault is the director of Duke Universitys Center for Science & Technology Policy and was formerly a director of public policy at Facebook.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

The rest is here:
Four Ways to Fix Social Medias Political Ads Problem Without Banning Them - The New York Times

Eric Deggans:

Well, I did a piece for NPR.org where I talked a little bit about this, how you can pick the streaming service you actually want.

And one of the things you have to do, I think, is be honest about what you watch. I encourage people to do you know how some nutritionists tell you to figure out a dieting diary to see what you actually eat, write down when you have lunch and dinner.

Well, I expect that you should write down what you watch on television. Don't try to guess what you watch, but actually write down what you watch, so when you watch those "Law & Order" reruns, be honest about what you watch.

And then once you have a sense of what you're watching day to day and week the week, then you can cobble together a strategy for what kind of streaming services will get the most of what you want to watch.

Now, you shouldn't be shy about trying some services and dropping them if they don't work. You can a lot of services have a week free trial. Sometimes, you can try them for a month. You pay $6 or $7 and you get a month's service. And then you can drop it if it's not working.

We're used to the in the past having these TV structures that are pretty permanent. You put up an antenna or you buy cable service or you buy Netflix, and then you don't do anything else, and you just experience whatever that platform delivers to your home.

But now you have more control than ever as a consumer. It means you have to do a little bit more work. You have to do some research. You have to figure out what you want to watch. You have to figure out how much you want to spend on these streaming services, and then you have to try them.

But once you put together an ecology of media outlets, you will be much more satisfied with the media that you're consuming, and I bet you will spend less money.

Read the rest here:
Why more media companies want in on 'streaming revolution' - PBS NewsHour

You may have noticed over the last few days that Facebook has rolled out a change to its lower navigation bar, in order to better align the displayed icons with the on-platform functions which you actually use.

TechCrunch has confirmed that this update also includes a new capacity to more easily change your listed icons, and get rid of those sometimes annoying red dot notifications on each.

In order to remove a tab in this new process, you tap and hold on whichever one you want to action. That will bring up the option to either remove it or turn off the notification dots. You can't remove the News Feed or Notifications tabs, nor the hamburger menu, giving you a couple of tabs to play with as you wish.

Facebook's been working on better personalizing the lower navigation bar since August last year, so you may have noticed it change a few times (as I have). But aside from personal preferences, Facebook has also traditionally used the lower navigation bar to promote its latest options - like Facebook Watch or Marketplace. Now it seems that Facebook's going to give more control back to users on this front, which could help it encourage more activity.

But what I found particularly interesting in this new update - and as you can see in the image above - is that you can delete tabs from your lower navigation bar and not replace them with anything.

As shown in the second screenshot (right), when I removed the 'Marketplace' tab, I was left with just three tabs remaining. I could also remove the Pages tab, leaving me with just two. That's interesting because, as noted, that lower tab is a prime area to promote on-platform activity, and it's somewhat surprising to see Facebook give you the option to essentially remove quick links that can promote more engagement. This may be a bug, but it looks like a feature, and may be something to experiment with.

It's also worth noting that you can control the red notification dots on any tab in your Facebook settings:

While you can also add and remove your lower bar shortcuts via your setting tools.

Giving users more control over their shortcuts and notifications seems like a good move, and it'll be interesting to see if the added personalization actually gets people tapping across to other areas within the app (I checked in on the local news section for the first time in a long time once it appeared on my lower bar).

It'll also be interesting to see if Facebook chooses to add its coming News tab to the lower bar for all users, or if these new customization tools are the new norm.

Either way, some new options to consider to manage your Facebook experience.

More here:
Facebook Adds Option to Control Your Navigation Bar Icons and Notifications - Social Media Today

Frustrated with a friend who overshares on Facebook? Or provides a status update every hour? Good news! National Unfriend Day is coming up on Sunday, Nov. 17. Comedian Jimmy Kimmel created the day in 2010 to encourage people to simplify online connections and have a fresh start focusing on true friends.

Lynn Schofield Clark, chair of the University of Denvers Department of Media, Film and Journalism Studies, shares her expertise with the DU Newsroom. She is also the author of The Parent App: Understanding Families in a Digital Age (Oxford University Press, 2012).

Why is it important to simplify your online friend list?

Social media can be a helpful way to keep track of relationships, both for ourselves and for those we care about, but its easy to lose track of whos on that list. Unfriending and simplifying our friend list gives us a chance to reflect on our relationships, both the ones that are important to us and those that may not be as positive as they once were. It gives us control over how and with whom we share information about ourselves.

Wheres the line of adding people on social media as a networking tool vs. keeping it solely for true friends?

Its a good idea to keep separate social media accounts for differing purposes. Most people think of LinkedIn as a networking tool and Snapchat as a tool for close friends. Facebook and Instagram fall somewhere in between, which is why what [technology researcher and social media scholar] danah boyd has termed context collapse can happen on those sites: People from different contexts in your life can see what was intended for a different context.

Also, many schools, clubs, sports and music groups and businesses have accounts they ask people to maintain, so posting about the organization best happens through those rather than through personal accounts.

You studied social media closely for your book The Parent App. Whats the most interesting thing youve learned about the impact it has on families and relationships?

The most interesting thing was that the parents who expressed curiosity in rather than worry about their childrens social media habits seemed to have a much better handle on what their children were doing in online spaces. It is difficult for parents to tamp down the worries, especially when some of the stuff their children encounter and experience online is pretty awful. I became convinced, though, that maintaining openness to learning from young people was key in building trusting relationships. And I also became convinced that having strong, trusting relationships was what all parents wish to have with their children.

For anyone ready to take action on National Unfriend Day, who stays and who gets unfriended?

In addition to unfriending the haters, Id recommend unfriending and unfollowing any business that youve friended that you dont own or know personally. We get too many unsolicited posts on our social media feeds already, and thats because our personalized data has already been mined and turned into profits for social media platforms. Why give brands and corporations any more access to our information, when they havent even paid us for the information they already have?

For more from Lynn Schofield Clark, follow her on Twitter @LynnSchofClark

Go here to read the rest:
Q&A: A DU Professor Tells How to Make the Most of a Social Media Opportunity - University of Denver

In a world of fake news you might assume there has never been a better opportunity for publishers, but it is an industry in pain. A strong local free press is the cornerstone of modern society, yet publishers are struggling. How did the industry get to this point?

Some say the original sin was giving free content away online. Fool me once, shame on you! But publishers were fooled twice, giving search engines free access to content, essentially handing over monetisation of their product.

To the industry this free traffic is like a drug causing long-term damage but the cold turkey period of traffic reduction is too severe for most to bear.

The second issue is advertising revenue. Classified, property, motoring and recruitment were all staple revenue streams for newspapers, the rest was icing on the cake. Once these industries migrated online many publishers could not sustain their business model.

The digital migration of content and the growth of global tech companies created an oversupply of content and inventory, significantly impacting revenues required to fund newsrooms. This is a global problem, locally intensified by our lack of audience scale.

The third issue is that traditional publishers have lost their purpose. It used to be clear; collating world and local news, entertainment/listings, information on deals and a generous helping of sport.

This week's episode of the Inside Marketing podcast features Dave Winterlich, chief strategy officer at Dentsu Aegis Network, and Laura Slattery, media journalist at The Irish Times, discussing the important topic of the future of publishing.

Google now plays the role of a modern-day newspaper, collating and organising information at scale. Facebook (and the open-web generally) fulfils the role of the modern-day publisher yet Facebook argues it is not a media company or publisher, it simply provides a platform for self-publishing. Some may argue this is fair, others take the view its sharp practice, definitional misdirection at best; at worst gross negligence and moral apathy.

We are at a critically important time in society. Whatever your political leaning, irrespective of your views on the media, we need a vibrant local news and publishing industry. Its a worrying future where control of the news agenda sits so powerfully with so few. We have a duty of care to support local media, but the industry needs to help itself, so what can publishers do?

News provision is no longer a differentiating purpose. Most news is a commodity, widely available from a variety of sources. Its even more stark in Ireland as were too closely aligned to the UK geographically and culturally. Other markets, Sweden or Denmark for example, are not flooded with the same degree of native language news their purpose is considerably clearer.

Having more recently defined themselves, newer publishers have a clearer purpose. The Journal grabbed mobile-first news, Joe.ie went for entertainment for the Irish male.

Legacy publishers face a tougher challenge. Weve seen the birth of a new genre, the slow-news movement; publishers focussing on what they do best, deep-diving on topics for those wanting more than headlines. New publishing platforms like Tortoise and The Correspondent, whose purpose is very eloquently put as unbreaking news, or The Athletic (sports journalism) all have a very clearly defined proposition.

But it doesnt have to be a case of new versus old, you can have crowdsourced journalism with quality control. Traditional publishers can continue to run quality paid newsrooms while still providing a platform extension for self-publishing.

Publishers, ask yourselves what do you offer that is better than anyone else? Be clear on what makes you different, and live by it.

Many legacy publishers were slow to adopt digital, refusing to migrate content online or simply slapping their newspaper on-site. Republishing content is not enough; it must be redesigned for each platform. Today journalists must tell their story across different channels, 500 words for mobile while retaining the essence, accompanied by video/audio content. The job of the publisher is to make content discoverable across the full, platform-agnostic news ecosystem. The New York Times expansion into ancillary products such as The Daily (podcast) and The Weekly (TV) is a great example. Its strategy is clear the roles for these channels is to increase brand engagement and affinity, ultimately growing subscriptions.

Nicholas Sparks said publishing is a business. Writing may be art, but publishing, when all is said and done, comes down to dollars. Legacy publishers face a specific problem that newer publishers dont; an inflated sense of worthiness in parts of the business. Commercial revenue is no longer a by-product of the editorial output; commercial is the lifeblood, it funds newsrooms. Publishers must maximise revenue, particularly from sunk costs.

Most publishers have visual, audio and print production capabilities in-house but studios often operate below capacity. Publishers can exploit new revenue streams by offering a white-labelled content production service. Copywriting is a craft in short supply and with high demand from brands we see numerous copywriting agencies appearing online. This seems like a missed opportunity for publishers.

Publishers are turning to readers to shape/fund content. De Correspondent raised $2.5 million in 29 days, and the Guardians blunter approach asking readers for donations seems to work. Patreon is a global platform that allows creators build a community of voluntary contributions. If publishers deem their content valuable, audiences should too.

Locally, Journal Media launched Noteworthy, an innovative funding approach asking readers to submit stories they want the newsroom to cover. Vetted stories are placed on-site along with associated costs to cover each one. Once the story is fully funded via discretionary donations the work begins and the democratically-funded story is then freely available for any publisher.

Publishers underestimate the potential of the Irish diaspora. For many it is an untapped resource without risk of cannibalisation. RTs GAA Go product is a great example, and other publishers should follow suit simply set your performance agency a CPA budget 50 per cent lower than subscription level as a test.

Publishers who generate healthy revenues from a hybrid of subscriptions/donations, ancillary services and advertising will thrive moving forward. Publishers must get smarter with data, offer better audience targeting/insight and tailor content to users. Advertisers get this from Facebook/Google and they expect it elsewhere. This can involve costly tech, but it can also be done through user self-selection, The Guardian asked readers what they wanted to see covered, thereby increasing relevance. Data is key too but the value exchange must be clear if users are to pay in data

Publishers must unite to provide a viable alternative to the global giants. The Ozone Project is a great example of leading UK publishers coming together to provide a viable solution for advertisers. One platform/log-in unlocks multiple publishers content.

In addition to strength in numbers there are advantages in technology costs. Things like SSPs, CMS, DMPs and execution-layer tech such as viewability tracking are all costly but standard price-of-entry. There is no reason why publishers cannot share certain tech platforms and let their journalism be the differentiator, this will help them provide scale and improve targeting while leveraging their trusted environments.

A strong local publishing industry is vital. Publishers are wounded but are more than capable of revival. Quality journalism is an industry worth supporting, and while there may be favourable tailwinds coming in terms of anti-trust legislation, the reality is this is a fight they have to win themselves.

Dave Winterlich is chief strategy officer with Dentsu Aegis Ireland

Inside Marketing is a series brought to you by Dentsu Aegis Network and Irish Times Media Solutions, exploring the issues and opportunities facing the world of media and marketing. For more information, visit irishtimes.com/insidemarketing.

The Insight marketing podcast is available on Soundcloud

Visit link:
Publishers are wounded but a brighter future is within their control - Irish Times