Infographic: Momentim of Mobile

From Compuware.com:

Interesting graphic on Explosion of Media Channels (Nielsen)

From the recent Nielsen Total Market report comes this interesting timeline showing the explosion of new content delivery channels for video.

I'll have more to add from the report later.

Infographic: Storytelling in the Age of Social News Consumption (Edelman)

From the Edelman Media Network:

Hiatus over (hopefully)

I've been on a bit of a hiatus (last post was a few months ago, as my classes last fall were all research methods and statistics, and other things kept popping up.  But this term I'm back to the present - my classes are on cable, internet, and other content delivery systems, and on programming strategies for those systems (as well as more legacy broadcast and print media).
There's also been a bit of an issue as the University signed up with Google as an organization, which means I may have to shift ownership of the blog.  So bear with me, please.

What's going on with US cable news? Fox soars, MSNBC tanks

In one sense, tracking cable news program ratings is predictable - at the top.  The ratings for the third quarter of the 2013-2014 season is out.  Despite a fairly heavy news load (war and conflict in the Ukraine, Gaza/Israel, Iraq/Syria (ISIS/ISIL), saber-rattling by Russia and China, a number of celebrity deaths (Robin Williams, Joan Rivers), and new and continuing scandals in Washington, the border crossings, Ferguson MO, to name just a few) ratings for most of the cable news networks continue their freefall.

MSNBC saw prime-time average ratings drop 2 percent from the same period last year, but the really bad news is that viewing in the key 25-54 demo dropped 21% over the same time frame.  Ratings for its prime-time line-up experienced all-time lows in the key demo.  Which meant that reruns of Shark Tank on CNBC beat out every MSNBC prime-time show for the quarter.  The rest of MSNBC's programs didn't help much.  Total Day viewing was the lowest since 2007, falling 12% from the previous year.  The drop-off was worse in the adult 25-54 demo, where MSNBC lost a quarter of its total day audience from last year's performance.
CNN's new mix of news and reality/documentary programs experienced modest gains in prime-time viewing from the previous year (up 2% among all adults, and up 4% among adults (23-54).  Despite an initial modest rating spike for Anderson Cooper's live reporting from Ferguson, the news show fell back to its normal mediocre numbers, letting CNN's Sixties documentary series beat it out for the channel's most-watched show of the quarter.
The exception is Fox News Channel, which continued its domination of cable news.  This report marks FNC's 51st consecutive at the top of cable news channels ratings, and it did so with 12% increases in both total adult and adult 25-54 viewing.  This made Fox News not only the top cable news channel, but the most-watched of all cable channels (beating both USA and ESPN).
Another way of looking at the state of cable news is to consider each show's performance. Looking at individual shows, the 14 highest-rated were on Fox News Channel. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show was their top performer, coming in at 15, and Anderson Cooper came in at 18th, and Nancy Grace made an appearance for HLN at #36.

Sources -  Fox News Nabs Historic Cable Ratings Victory, The Hollywood Reporter
The Top Cable News Shows in Q3 were...,  TVNewser

The Future of Political Reporting Isn't

Three quick stories about government and politicians trying to control coverage.

The NYTimes reporter assigned to cover the Clintons, reports that one particular press aide at the Clinton Global Initiative was not only assigned to escort her to the restroom, "she waited outside the stall in the ladies' room."  Waiting at the restroom door in a crowded venue to escort her back to wherever the Clintons had gone I can almost understand.  But outside the stall door?  Seems more intimidating than helpful (or perhaps fearful that the reporter would slip a story past the normal review channels).  When Hilary's standard contract for giving speeches was leaked, it specified no press coverage or photography after a brief introduction (some speculated it was because she didn't want it to come out that she kept repeating the same speech to group after group). And the behavior isn't unique, the last few election cycles have provided a number of stories of press aides for Democratic candidates speaking at "fundraisers" of locking reporters in closets or restrooms.

Lack of press access at the White House has been a continuing drama over the last few years, to the point where the White House Correspondents' Association (WHCA) and major news organizations have filed a number of formal complaints about the lack of access to supposedly public events for both reporters and press photographers.  (My favorite was when a White House  ceremony promoting "transparency" was closed to the press).
The latest twist, though, is that the White House has started reviewing pool press reports before sending them out, and have insisted on the pool reporter making changes.  (The White House press office manages the email list of reporters and organizations that get the pool reports, and does the actual emailing.)

“The independence of the print pool reports is of utmost importance to us,” said Christi Parsons, a Los Angeles Times reporter who is the WHCA’s new president. “Our expectation is that the White House puts out the pool report and asks questions later.”

The issue is even more troubling given the fact that coverage of White House and Presidential events are increasingly restricted to the pool reporter.  Parsons added that she was assured this summer that the White House wouldn't meddle, but subsequent incidents show a White House still reviewing and insisting on changes (delaying release of the pool report by as much as a day).  Things have gotten to the point where the WHCA is investigating how it could manage pool report distribution itself, removing the White House press office from the process.

The third news item wasn't about the White House or political coverage explicitly, but still reflects a disturbing trend.  The US Forest Service (USFS), whose signs and statements keep telling us that the national forests and parks they oversee belong to us (the people of the U.S. and the world), seem to be taking another in a lengthy series of steps to restrict "our" use of "their" resources.  In this case, the USFS is proposing a new permanent rule to require media to get a permit to film and shoot photographs in national parks and forests.  The problem is that the USFS wants to make two significant changes to the existing rules.  First, to remove the exemption for "breaking news situations."  Second, to expand the USFS's authority to deny permits based on the nature and purpose of the project.  A spokesman for the National Press Photographers Association framed the issue succinctly: "What if they deny you a permit because they don't like the story you're working on?"  Steve Bass, head of Oregon Public Broadcasting, has a history of working with USFS on permits.  He understands that officials want to limit the impact large commercial shoots can have on the land, but cautions:

"Does the government get to decide what's newsworthy and what's not newsworthy? It's my understanding of the First Amendment that they don't get to decide that."

And that's the problem with all of these. Government and politicians have always sought to control news coverage.  Historically, the press pushes back, under the protection of the First Amendment.  Will they do so against politicians and agencies they favor as strongly as they do against politicians and agencies they don't like?

Sources - The Clinton team is following reporters to the bathroom.  Here's why that matters, Washington Post
Reporters say White House sometimes demands changes to press-pool reports, Washington Post
Forest Service wants media to obtain permits; move alarms First Amendment advocates, Montana Standard

The Distant Past of Video Journalism

From Poynter's This Day in History, some early Edison movies on journalism.

First, war correspondents rushing to file stories at the telegraph office.  Reminds me of early slapstick. (1889)

Second, coverage of Roosevelt's Rough Riders embarking for Cuba during Spanish American War (1898)

Third, a Cuban ambush of a Spanish patrol (looks kind of staged- actually most of the battles filmed look like they were staged re-enactments). (1898)

Milepost: Social networking (almost) ubiquitous.

From Pew Internet: In January, 89% of young adults (18-29) use social networking sites.  By now, that's likely over 90%.  And penetration likely over 50% even for those least likely to use.

 Prompted by a Pew Internet tweet https://twitter.com/pewinternet

Signs of the Print Holocaust

Over the last year, the newspaper industry has seen a lot of departures - with major newspaper companies getting rid of a lot of their major properties.  The Washington Post Company sold the Washington Post to media newcomer Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com.  The New York Times Company sold the Boston Globe to John W. Henry, owner of the Boston Red Sox.  And Time Warner basically gave away what had been its' premier product, Time magazine (whose new owner also found itself burdened by an additional $1.3 billion in debt).  The Tribune Company has been trying to sell major papers, like the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune for years (and finding limited interest).  Even Murdoch's News Corp took action last year, splitting its print operations from its broadcast, digital, and entertainment operations.

The notion of spinning off print newspapers from broadcast and digital seems to have caught the interest of other media conglomerates -, particularly those with poorly performing print operations.  Over the last few weeks more splits were announced.  The Tribune Company split off most of its newspapers into a separate company (along with $350 million in debt).  E.W. Scripps Co. announced a merger with Journal Communications, and then quickly followed that by spinning off the combined print newspaper assets into a separate company.  And most recently, Gannett announced it would spin off its broadcast and digital operations from its struggling print newspapers next year.

While these announcements tout the prospects for the new print companies, most analysts see the moves as cynical efforts to dump assets with declining value and limited futures.  The lack of serious potential purchasers for major urban dailies in recent years hasn't helped - leaving conglomerates with few alternatives for dealing with newspaper properties in decline.  Spinning print off may be their best financial option at this point - particularly if they see no profitable future for their print dailies.
  

And if companies whose beginnings were in urban print dailies, whose traditional self-image was as newspaper moguls, are at the point where they see no future in that segment anymore, it's hard to be optimistic about the industry.

“I’m very skeptical that in the long term you are going to have a hard copy daily newspaper in each market,” Mr. Huber, an analyst with Huber Research Partners, said.

Sources -   Print is Down, and Now Out,  New York Times
Gannett, Owner of USA Today, to Split Its Print and Broadcast Businesses, New York Times
Now Scripps Is Splitting, Too,  The Wall Street Journal

Case-Study- the Philadelphia Papers Long Fall

A good piece by Joel Mathis on the decline and fall of the Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News.  Working from a financial report, he tracks the progress from being a reliable cash cow to bankruptcy in a little over a decade.

A large chunk of the problem was the same faced by most large urban dailies in the U.S. - a big drop-off in advertising revenues as one industry after another found better alternatives online.  It didn't help that this was followed by the recession - which hit all advertising revenues hard.

But when the industry started to recover after 2010, the loss of advertising continued to fall by double digits for the two Philly papers.  The fact that the papers changed ownership 4 times in 12, and the lack of consistent business strategies, didn't help either.

A look at the numbers suggests some other factors at work. 

• Like most media facing revenue declines, the papers owners tried first to just cut costs.  But in Philly, it seems, the focus was on cutting staff (labor costs went from $243 million in 2000, to $135 million in 2012).  That's more than just trimming dead wood - it's the kind of cuts that will necessarily have an impact on quality.
• Those deep cuts can also be seen circulation losses.  Circulation fell from a high of 374,000 (2002) to 166,000 in the last audit - a loss of more than half their readership.  Such losses necessarily impact the value of advertising in the papers, accelerating ad revenue declines.
• Circulation revenues also declined, but much more slowly than circulation losses.  This suggests that the papers tried cutting subscription discounts and/or hiking prices.  Increasing costs to readers while reducing the value of the product also feeds into the negative feedback loop for circulation.

Thus the various manager's plans created a near "perfect storm" of negative feedback.  Initial shifts in advertising categories prompted cost-cutting,  That led to a focus on cutting staffing, which impacted the value of the news product.  Declines in product value led to circulation losses, which were exacerbated by cost increases.  Massive circulation losses reduced the value of advertising, which gave advertisers even less of a reason to return to the papers as the recession ended.

There's one other interesting aspect to tease out.  Note that there's a large, but shrinking, difference between print ad revenues and total ad revenues.  That would include digital advertising, which hasn't grown much.  It also includes preprint advertising (i.e. inserts) - and for a while it seemed that the papers were doing well with that revenue category.  However, large circulation losses make inserts less valuable, and by 2012 it seems that the Philly papers had lost that advertising sector to competitors as well.

Sources -  "The Long Fall of the Philly Newspapers,"  PhillyMag.com
It turns out the 2000s were not a good decade for The Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News,  Nieman Journalism Lab