Hello all.
Something we’ve not discussed at all in our assessment of digital technology and press freedom is how a changing audience has factored in.It’s fairly well documented that audiences now have more choice in how they consume media, so companies have to try harder. Look at this e-book summary of Competitive Strategy for Media by Sylvia M. Chan-Olmsted. She reiterates what we’ve learnt over the course of the year.
So how does this relate to digital technology? Obviously, there’s the internet. Blogging means that the audience can interact with a show. PM and the Today programme on Radio 4 have particularly good “interactivity.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/pm/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/
Other programmes are catching up, but these two have been using blogging and websites for a long time. Impressive, especially as it’s Radio 4.
As Charlotte mentioned in our presentation q&a session, the BBC is special because it relies on the license, not on advertising revenues. (Other than the World Service.) So it should, in theory, listen more to the audience than, say Channel 4.
I get email feeds from Newsnight, who tell me what’s coming up in tonight’s show and ask me what I think, and from World Service Have Your Say. The latter is a very personable email from the editor of the programme. He even emailed me personally when I originally subscribed to ask where I listen from and what I thought of the show. The whole premise of WSHYS is interactive, so perhaps it’s unsurprising that they’re so good with “digital technology.”
Where else does digital technology affect audience, and how do audiences affect journalists use of digital technology?
If we look back to January, and the “battle of the bongs,” Huw and Trevor went head to head. The BBC used digital technology, and ITV an exclusive interview. The 10 o’clock news had John Simpson in Zimbabwe, broadcasting to London via satellite. The News at 10 had an exclusive with Hasnat Khan, Princess Diana’s former lover, and featured the “and finally” story.
The BBC “won” that night, their viewing figures were 4.9million, as opposed to ITV’s 3.8 million.
Does this prove that digital technology draws in more viewers? Not especially. The audience wouldn’t have known that there would be a special report on the BBC that night. In fact, security was incredibly tight due to the very nature of the broadcast. But, as audiences get more accustomed to better, more immediate broadcasts thanks to digital technology, it does show us up when we fall behind. The viewer expects more.
LC
March 11, 2008 at 9:17 am
Excellent post Lora. Yes audiences are vital to consider in the digital world. Technology widens the potential audience so you have to think about who you’re actually aiming at. Do you: a)Water down any stance you have to appeal to the widest possible audience? or b)Target a specific branch of people you know will really care about what they’re watching? I fear that all too often the ’success’ of a programme is calculated on viewing figures and advertising revenue. But, that is after all how much of the world works. One of the beauties of multi-channel-anyone-can-make-it-news, is that specific groups of interest can be targeted. Though they run the risk of going bust very quickly.
T.I
March 16, 2008 at 9:34 pm
I agree with you tom but I think that the beauty of online news is that the audience can pick its own news. The public can choose which news source to use. Of course that makes the psb mission of education difficult. How can you expose people to new ideas if they simply have no interest in them and will therefore choose a news source that doesn’t challenge them?
EG