1 »It’s just not my thing« Why audience members don’t use participatory features of (online) news media – insights from four German case studies. Nele Heise, Julius Reimer, Jan-Hinrik Schmidt, Wiebke Loosen 4th European Communication Conference, Lisbon November 15, 2014 Thanks Cedric for the kind introduction and everyone for coming; on behalf of my colleagues – Wiebke Loosen and Julius Reimer are here today – I can say we‘re very happy to talk to you about the reasons why audience members don’t use participatory features of (online) news media.

2 (Re-)discovering the audience. Journalism under social media conditions. Funded by the German Research Foundation ( ) Blog: Today, I will present to you findings from case studies we carried out at four German news media. This research was part of a larger project we have been working on from 2011 until June this year, and which was funded by the German Research Foundation. If you want to find out more about the project “(Re)Discovering the audience”, please feel invited to visit our weblog or to contact us via Twitter.

3 From consumption to participation?Increasing participation in and through media (Carpentier et al. 2013) via various features in (online) journalism, e.g. discussion boards, feedback forms, social media profiles, traditional feedback channels Research indicates a certain reluctance or hesitance to engage with these features (Larsson 2012)  participation an »interactive illusion« (Jönsson/Örnebring 2011)? RQ: What are reasons and causes for not using participatory features and which (potential) participation barriers can be identified from the user perspective? Today, most print, TV and radio news media also run websites providing a diverse range of features, such as discussion boards, feedback forms as well as social media profiles that complement traditional feedback channels (e.g. letters, phone calls). However, previous research suggests that only a minority of committed users regularly engages with these participatory features (cf. Larson 2012). But little is known about the reasons and causes for this reluctance and (potential) participation barriers from the user perspective.

4 The jPub20 project: 4 German case studiesPolitical talk show TV daily, information oriented weekly, debate oriented Today we will present to you findings from four case studies on audience participation, we carried out at German news media and their online services: With the TV newscast Tagesschau and the daily national newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung we have two daily, information oriented news media on the left side. And then we have a political talk show running on the public service TV programs of the ARD - unfortunately, we cannot tell you the name, because the outlet wants to stay anonymous - and the more or less left-oriented print magazine “Der Freitag”, which offers innovative and unique features of audience participation on their website. Both media on the right side are published weekly and can be classified as more debate, opinion oriented than the two daily case studies. Print

5 Exploring non-usage of participatory featuresMulti-method case study design: standardized and non-standardized methods, including journalists, audience members and journalistic content Online user surveys: set of 16 items (cf. Springer/Pfaffinger 2012, Engesser 2010) and open answer field (exploration)  respondents who do not – or rarely – use participatory features or functions (e.g. giving feedback, commenting, sharing/recommending, rating, …) In-depth interviews: interviews with ›passive‹/not active audience members plus non-usage as guideline element [six to eight per case study] Today we will present to you findings from four case studies on audience participation, we carried out at German news media and their online services, each of which included a set of different empirical approaches

6 Weekly political talk showAmount of non-usage Daily newscast Weekly political talk show Daily newspaper Weekly print magazine N = 4.686 354 525 257 % of non-usage* 49.3 43.4 27.0 12.5 * „non-usage« i.e. respondents that did not (or not anymore) use participartory features/functions Differences e.g. due to: number and types of participatory features offered, familiarity with (visible) audience ›traces‹ in journalistic products (e.g. letters-to-the-editor) In general, we found notable differences regarding the percentage of non-users: While almost half of the respondents at the two TV formats never used any of the participatory features, their portion was considerably lower at the print formats. This might be due to the amount and types of participatory features offered by the media outlets – the political talk show, for instance, does not run any social media profiles. But also due to the (visible) integration of user-generated content into the journalistic products. As both print media run pages with letters to the editor, their readers might be more familiar with this type of engagement.

7 Surveys: Reasons for not using participatory features»I do not use participatory features, because 5-point Likert scale: 1=“disagree completely” to 5=“fully agree”; displayed are mean values … I don‘t want to discuss with strangers« (lower at PT); … the discussion standards are too low« (lower at WM); … it is not the right medium for participation« (higher at TV case studies)

8 Surveys: Reasons for not using participatory featuresLowest agreement: »I do not use participatory features, because … I had technical problems while uploading files or comments.« … the journalists do not reply, answer or respond.« (… I prefer to participate on other media websites or online services, e.g. social media, blogs, forums etc.«) Differences between user groups point to digital inequalities or a »digital production gap« (Schradie 2011), particularly regarding: education (e.g. technical problems and usability, not daring to participate), age and – at the print cases studies – gender (e.g. not daring to participate) While the results only differ in nuances between the four surveys, we also found differences within the case studies related to socio-demographic variables such as age and educational status of the respondents, e.g. elderly non-users at the Daily Newspaper indicated significantly more often that participatory features are too complicated or that they had technical problems.   Gender: SZ (Frauen trauen sich weniger)

9 Complementary findings: qualitative dataFurther aspects as articulated in open answer fields and the in-depth interviews: People are not aware of different options for participation or do not feel invited/engaged to participate (usability) Satisfaction with the trusted medium and ›passive‹ recipient role, no motivation or need to add something »Lurking«: observing discussions and opinions of others Critical views of participatory functions in general; users feel overwhelmed; (online) participation is perceived as ineffective Users and their concerns/feedback are not taken seriously Lacking transparency of participatory conditions (e.g. comment moderation, selection of readers’ letters) Complementary findings from open answers and non-standardized interviews provide additional insights, e.g. many non-users of the Newscast and the Daily Newspaper feel content with being (passive) viewers or readers of the journalistic products they trust, without feeling motivated or even obliged to add something. Specific to the Political Talk Show, users report being frustrated because they think that their (critical) feedback is not taken seriously by the journalists or does not have any effect.

10 Conclusion Costs of participation (registration/personal data, effort/time etc.) as barriers that might outweigh potential benefits, esp. for those who do not enjoy it (»it‘s just not my thing«) or prefer ›passive‹ media usage  ›lurking‹ as meaningful activity Negative perception of and/or experiences in comment sections as potential inhibitor of participation Open questions regarding the differences between different types of news media (print vs. TV, information vs. debate oriented, daily vs. weekly) Shift of perspectives: putting the motives, expectations and conditions on the part of the audience in a more central position

11 Thank you. Wiebke Loosen, Jan-Hinrik Schmidt, Nele Heise, Julius Reimer @jpub20team

12 References Borger, M., van Hoof, A., Costera Meijer, I., & Sanders, J. (2013). Constructing participatory journalism as a scholarly object. Digital Journalism, 1 (1), 117–134. Bergström, A. (2008). The Reluctant Audience. Online Participation in the Swedish Journalistic Context. Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture, 5 (2), 60–79. Carpentier, N., Dahlgren, P., & Pasquali, F. (2013). Waves of Media Democratization: A Brief History of Contemporary Participatory Practices in the Media Sphere. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 19 (3), 287–294, doi: / Engesser, S. (2010). Barrieren medialer Partizipation: Ergebnisse eines explorativen Feldexperiments. In Wolling, J., Seifert, M., & Emmer, M. (Ed.), Politik 2.0? Die Wirkung computervermittelter Kommunikation auf den politischen Prozess (pp. 151–167). Baden-Baden: Nomos. Jönsson, A. M., & Örnebring, H. (2011). User-Generated Content and the News: Empowerment of Citizens or Interactive Illusion? Journalism Practice, 5 (2),127–144, doi: / Larsson, A. O. (2012). Understanding nonuse of interactivity in online newspapers: Insights from structuration theory. The Information Society, 28 (4), 253–263. Loosen, W., & Schmidt, J.-H. (2012). (Re-)Discovering the audience: The relationship between journalism and audience in networked digital media. Information, Communication & Society, 15(6), Schradie, J. (2011). The digital production gap: The digital divide and Web 2.0 collide. Poetics, 39 (2), 145–168. Springer, N., & Pfaffinger, C. (2012). Why users comment on online news and why they don’t. Paper presented at the 62nd Annual Conference of the International Communication Association. May Phoenix. Weber, P. (2014). Discussions in the comments section: Factors influencing participation and interactivity in online newspapers’ reader comments. New Media & Society, 16,  , doi: /