NDM News case study: Audience and Institution

News consumption in the UK: 2014 Ofcom Report

• 95% of adults in the UK say they follow the news
• 75% of adults use TV as a source of news - number has decreased since 2013
• 4 in 10 people use apps to access news which used to be only a third last year
• 16-34 year old age group who use apps have increased from 44% to 60% over a year

TV News

• Each adult watched an average of 115 hours of international and national news on TV in 2013
• 76% of this was on either BBC One, BBC Two , or BBC news channel
• 16 - 24 year olds consume 27 hours of news on TV
• 55 year olds and over consume 196 hours of news on TV

Attitudes towards different types of news

When asked what topics are considered to be news...

• 53% said crime 
• 53% said worldwide current affairs
• 51% said UK current affairs
• 49% said UK politics

Different age groups find different topics interesting

• 16- 24's are interested in crime, sports, technology and science/environment
• Over 55's are interested in general world news and UK and regional current affairs

Reasons to follow the news

• 3 in 5 adults (58%) say they watch the news to find out what's going on in the world
• 56% said they want to know what’s going on across the UK
• 49% said they want to know what's going on in their local area

NDM Story 4: How young viewers are abandoning television

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/11146439/How-young-viewers-are-abandoning-television.html



There is an apparent decrease in the number of younger viewers watching TV. As the younger generation have grown up with a variety of technology as opposed to the older generation, they have more access and knowledge to other forms of entertainment due to smartphones and tablets. 

All traditional media companies are affected by technological changes, so in this country whether it is newspapers or magazines or television, the increase in penetration of tablets and smartphones has had a substantial effect on consumption, particularly in younger demographics.

The main causes for the decline in TV viewers are, social media, You Tube and online gaming. BBC is an example of how new technology is affecting its viewers in particular their younger viewers as they plan to scrap BBC 3 a channel that is primarily aimed at younger viewers.

• across all age groups Britons watched an average of 11 minutes less television in 2013 than the previous year
•  On average they watched 148 minutes per day last year, compared with 169 minutes in 2010.
• Channel 4, which has a public service remit to reach young audiences but now attracts viewers with a median age of around 46 to its main channel.
• Some 56pc of Britons have watched TV on a tablet, laptop or smartphone in the living room, 46pc in the bedroom and 19pc in the kitchen.

In my opinion I believe that young viewers are more engrossed in how convenient it is to access almost anything from the comfort of one device, smart phones, causing them to lose interest in TV. Also shows on TV have specific timings where the viewers have to stick to for particular shows however, viewers can watch whatever they please, whenever they want from their smart phones. 

NDM Story 3: Government may privatise Channel 4, document reveals

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/sep/24/government-considering-channel-4-privatisation-document-slip-up-reveals

Despite their being many reports stating that there are no plans for Channel 4 becoming privatised, a leaked photograph of an official entering Downing street was released. The photograph shows a document that states, "Work should proceed to examine the options of extracting greater public value from the Channel 4 corporation, focusing on privatisation options in particular.” Although Channel 4 is a non profit organization with a remit focusing on innovation, diversity and new talent, catering for minority audiences, it is quite risky for  Channel 4 to become a private organisation. An insider talks about how "John Whittingdale is interested and wants to do it.” The second choice opposed to making the organisation private in doing nothing, which is an option that is not in the favour.

• The 32 year old non profit organisation is being considered for privatisation
• In August, Whittingdale told the Guardian Edinburgh international television festival that a sale of Channel 4 was not currently being discussed.
• Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), the leak states that it is the culture secretary, John Whittingdale, who is very keen on the move
• Burns, a former Treasury economist and chair of Santander bank, assures the public that Channel 4 will maintain their remit
• Despite this there are still possibilities of the sale

I believe that even if Channel 4 becomes privatised, the positive affect that they would receive would be very low as there are a variety of other methods that can be used in order to access Channel 4's television shows. I think that they would also lose the majority of their current audiences as many of the audiences may be unwilling to pay to view programmes on the channel. It may be useful for Channel 4 to try and make certain popular shows subscription shows as there may be possibilities of them generating more revenue.  

NDM Story 2: Channel 4 chief warns broadcasters over American influence

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/sep/17/channel-4-chief-warns-broadcasters-over-american-influence

The article focuses on Channel 4's chief executive, David Abraham's opinions on broadcasters such as Channel 4 and ITV who have a great fixation on the financial gains of the companies which make them seem as if they are “sleepwalking … into a different country”. Abraham believes that in recent years, TV channels are overflowing with American content whilst also slowly losing their British shows. 

Abraham claims that he is not anti-american and does not believe that america has less creativity than Britain, but he feels that we must preserve what makes Britain, great. He also lightly touched upon the privatization of channel 4 which he greatly assured was not under discussion, however he did not completely rule out the idea of it happening.

I believe that in recent years, many channels have been filled to the brim with american content and despite showing great success in viewing numbers and ratings, I think there may be too many american shows as we are almost to the extent of not being able to differentiate between american and British TV.

Despite my opinion of the american content influencing a loss of British culture in the television industry, I do understand the positive influence it has on the institutions' success and therefore, American shows should continue to air as it is now. 

NDM Story 1: Reviews, tweets, Instagram posts: why customers are the new marketers

http://www.theguardian.com/small-business-network/2015/sep/17/reviews-tweets-instagram-customers-marketers

This article explores the simple steps needed in order to build up a brand. The article introduces how important user generated content (UCG) has become as about 70% of consumers have more reliance on recommendations of friends and family rather than professionally written reviews which show the vitality of UCG for companies.

The three points to build up a brand are create opportunities for engagement, look for brand ambassadors and focus on peer recommendations. The article gives many examples of firms that have flourished through using these 3 points such as Owow chocolate which focused on social media more than selling at the beginning which led to the company being very successful.

In my opinion, I believe that UGC is a very important aspect in media today as it allows expression to be seen by a worldwide audience. It also allows society to get a "real" opinion on products and situations as UGC is created by someone who has no gain in comparison to professionals. 

I also feel that companies do not have much control over UGC as with today's technology, people have the ability to find many different alternatives in order to voice out their opinions.

The impact of Google

1) Why has Google led to the decline of the newspaper industry?

As Google takes most of the advertising business away from the newspaper industry this has led to the decline in the traditional print news as its main source of revenue has critically dropped. More than $40 million of the potential $60 million went to Google which is 60% of the advertising revenue in 2012.

2) Do you personally think Google is to blame for newspapers closing and journalists losing their jobs? Why?

In my opinion, I believe that Google, along with other search engine sites are solely to blame for the decline in demand of print newspapers. Within a few seconds, any information on current affairs can be found on Google after typing in a few key phrases and on top of that, Google grants access to this information without any costs. In a society where the majority of the population are hard working citizens, aiming to save money as much as possible, the free service that Google provides is understandably more attractive in comparison to print newspapers in which many of the newspapers, we have to pay for. Additionally, the convenience of Google is a very attractive aspect as the site can also be used on-the-go through smartphones as Google is either offered as a built in browser or can be accessed on an app. 

Through these many elements, Google has gained popularity for servicing the public with compiled websites where they can find out the current news, thus making many print newspapers close down. However, I feel that Google is not making journalists lose their jobs as journalists are still very necessary. Although print newspapers' journalists may be unneeded, journalists are still needed for news websites that still distribute news to the public but now using the internet. 

3) Read the comments below the article. Pick one comment you agree with and one you disagree with and justify your opinions in detail.

Obviously, Google is not to blame. I don’t think it’s about blame. I think the Internet is incredibly poorly designed. Rather than being free, everything on it should cost something in order to compensate creators. We have a proven system for doing this through organizations like ASCAP and BMI. The principal of royalties for profiting from the content of others is well established. Google came along, and, at least in the case of Youtube, knowingly robbed content creators for years in order to build up the business. The ideal system would be one in which every click resulted in a nano-charge on your phone bill, maybe 1/1000 of a cent for a news story, for example. Sites like Google that link to other sites could also pay in very tiny increments.

Although I do agree with the opinion that Google is not to blame, I do not agree that a charge should be incurred when a page is open. Google received such success due to the free service they offer to the public and by charging people when they open a news page will push people to find another source to find out about the news.


The vast majority of Google’s revenue comes from searches with commercial intent I.e. “cheapest coffeemaker” or “Miami hotels”. They don't earn very much from news related searches like “benghazi interviews”. I would argue they make their money on the backs of commercial enterprise, not journalists. Sergey and Larry owe the news industry nothing.

I agree with this comment as Google's prime source of revenue is from advertisements that give the public good offers, often relating to purchasable commodities. Advertisements about the news do not attract much attention in comparison to their adverts, meaning that they do not earn much from the news industry.

New and Digital Media and News.

The Guardian

•  Founded in 1821
• Online access:  http://www.theguardian.com/uk
• The Guardian was named newspaper of the year at the 2014 British Press Awards
• In the 2015 UK general election, The Guardian endorsed the Labour Party.
• Owned by the Scott Trust who owns The Guardian Media Group
• 1995 - 2015: Edited by Alan Rusbridger
• 2015 - Present: Edited by Katharine Viner 
• Online edition was the second most widely read in the world as of October 2014, with over 42.6 million readers
• Combined print and online editions = nearly 9 million readers.

BBC News

• First broadcast on 14th November 1922
• Online access: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news
•  World's largest broadcast news organisation and generates about 120 hours of radio and television output each day, as well as online news coverage
•  Annual budget is £350 million
• James Harding - Director of News & Current Affairs
• Mary Hockaday - Head of Newsroom
• Huw Edwards - Chief Presenter

SKY News

• Provides non-stop rolling news on television, online, and on a range of mobile devices
• Online access: http://news.sky.com/
• Launched: 5 February 1989
• Their slogan is "First for breaking news"
• Sky News  provides content for Yahoo! News
• 10th May 2015, Sky News won a BAFTA in the News Category, for Alex Crawford's coverage of the 2014 Ebola crisis.
• Awarded the 2015 Royal Television Society - News Channel of the Year, for the ninth time

Radio 4

• Second most popular domestic radio station in the UK
• Online access; http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4
• The station controller is Gwyneth Williams
• Their slogan is "Intelligent Speech"
• First air date: 30 September 1967
• highest audience, of 11 million listeners, in May 2011
• Costs £71.4 million
• Radio 4 has also been frequently criticised for being too middle class and being of little interest to non-white listeners

Daily Mail

• The Daily Mail is a British daily middle-market tabloid newspaper 
• Online access: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
• First published in 1896
• second-half of 2013 had a 54.77% female readership the only British newspaper whose female readers constitute more than 50% of its demographic.
• average daily circulation of 1,708,006 copies in March 2014
•  daily readership of approximately 3.951 million, of whom approximately 2.503 million were in the ABC1 demographic and 1.448 million in the C2DE demographic.
• Editor Paul Dacre