Future of News Media: Advertisers, Agencies, and Consumers Weigh-In

It’s worth drawing attention to consumers’ relative confidence, in particular, regarding the future prospects of BBC America relative to cable television news typically more associated with overtly partisan content. For instance, a full 75 percent of consumers indicated their confidence in BBC America’s ability to “thrive in the future,” as compared to 64 percent of consumers who would say the same of MSNBC — which was precisely the same share of consumers who expressed confidence in Fox News thriving in the future.

Although certainly far from immune to bias, BBC/BBC America — despite dogged suggestions of a pro-establishment bias (along with a preference for various left-leaning social issues) — is arguably perceived as slightly above some of the partisan fray of American politics. It’s a point that may be fueling elements of consumer confidence in the brand.

This comes at a time when, according to a September Ipsos poll, fewer than half of Americans believe that the news media reports fairly or even-handedly on political issues. However, advertisers, agencies, and consumers would be wise to keep at the forefront of their minds that, of the top 25 cable news programs in Q3 2019, the first 22 consecutive slots belonged to programs on either Fox News or MSNBC. This may be a particularly important reminder for agency respondents, who expressed a 15-percentage-point higher estimation for MSNBC’s future prospects than those of Fox News. (Interestingly, the relative difference in advertisers’ confidence between the two networks was much less significant).

So, even if there might be reason to believe that the future may favor a move away from overly partisan coverage, at present, that appears to be what sells — even as demographic concerns continue regarding the consumers of cable news aging.

On a related note, respondents largely failed to grasp the disconnect between profitability and the perceived ability of certain brands to thrive in the future. For instance, 75 percent of advertisers and 80 percent of agency professionals expressed confidence in BuzzFeed’s future prospects, despite the well-documented struggles that the digital media company has had in generating profits. This notably culminated in its January 2019 decision to lay off 15 percent of its workforce to support its efforts to reach profitability.

Thus, it is interesting that advertisers would express greater confidence in this category for BuzzFeed than for The New York Times, the latter of which has seen increased profitability due to its recent expansion towards a greater reliance on subscription-based revenue. But still, a chasm existed in confidence within BuzzFeed’s future prospects between professionals and consumers, where only 59 percent of consumers expressed similar confidences. The glitzier, “new media” BuzzFeed was also preferred by professionals in this category, as compared to Forbes — even at a time when Forbes reported 2018 as being its most profitable year since 2006.

Also of note was the range of responses to the perennially-elusive question of the perceived social responsibility of certain brands. This question comes amid a broader national conversation about the role corporations ought to have (or not have) in pursuing interests other than maximizing returns to shareholders. To this effect, approximately 200 corporate chief executives of the Business Roundtable signed a letter in August, suggesting that they would act with other interests in mind than that of just their shareholders when making decisions.

This is a break from those who would argue, as Milton Friedman did in his famous 1970 New York Times Magazine essay, that “the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.” This is all to say that social responsibility is in the eyes of the beholder, and its meaning can be interpreted very differently by well-meaning, good faith parties putting forward different definitions. So, in this case, 67 percent of advertisers and 76 percent of agencies argued that The New York Times is socially responsible, compared to the 25 percent and 30 percent, respectively, who said the same of Fox News. The New York Times has been widely criticized, for instance, for its unquestioning support of various foreign policy decisions, including the war in Iraq, for which then-public editor, Daniel Okrent, subsequently had to issue an apology.

And, given the currently in-vogue definition of social responsibility, many would find that Tucker Carlson’s recent economic endorsements are likely far more redistributive than those supported by many New York Times columnists and contributors. To this point, 47 percent of consumers expressed a belief that Fox News exhibited social responsibility — nearly double the number of advertisers who said the same.

A final major point of interest concerns the differing perceptions between professionals and consumers of a brand being culturally relevant. Responses regarding The New York Times, again, present this case clearly, as agencies and advertisers appear to overstate the cultural relevance this publication has relative to consumers. It’s a similar story with regards to The Wall Street Journal, where 70 percent of advertisers and 71 percent of agency professionals indicated their belief in the cultural relevance of The Wall Street Journal, relative to 57 percent of consumers. A similar breakdown existed when evaluating BuzzFeed, with 80 percent of advertisers and 88 percent of agency respondents articulating a belief in the brand’s cultural relevance, as compared to only 60 percent of consumers.

On the other side of the coin, professionals underestimated the cultural relevance of ABC and CBS relative to consumers, while overestimating the cultural relevance of CNN, MSNBC, and NPR relative to consumers. This is in line with responses in the “thrive in the future” category, in which some media professionals may fail to fully appreciate the differences between the types of media often consumed in major cities versus consumer preferences in other parts of the country. For instance, professionals overestimated the cultural relevance of Spotify relative to consumers and underestimated the potential cultural impact of iHeartRadio, as compared to consumers. Differences in perceptions between media professionals and consumers have been well-documented and have both economic and content implications.

In all, the study’s findings offer worthwhile insights into the current state of news media and how perceptions can differ among advertisers, agency professionals, and consumers. As we learned:

• Partisan media’s ascendancy may not be guaranteed in the future
• There exists, in certain cases, a lack of engagement with the actual profitability of various news companies
• There are marked differences of opinion over what social responsibility means
• Media professionals and consumers often have a different sense of what cultural relevance entails

Also, of worthwhile future exploration is an examination of attitudes about various news business models some companies have been experimenting with lately — from The New York Times’ (and others’) increasing reliance on subscription-based revenue to those outlets such as The Guardian, which notably broke out of the red, via the increasingly-popular revenue model of voluntary contributions from readers.