Who Pays for Content? Funding in Interactive Media

Thoughts:

The main reason for choosing this article was the interest to find out what an interactive media is and how it’s funding effects its content now and in the future.

The discussion of interactive media’s expenditures and incomes is more and more growing in Estonia where the internet user base has grown rapidly and more is consuming though internet (especially media – postimees.ee etc).

You get what you pay for. So according to the owners of for example newspapers people nowadays will soon not get anything relevant because they don’t pay for nothing. This is somewhat true.

But as stated by the research, non-profit (volunteer) based websites can and will exist. The reasons behind that for me are in the case of Estonia following – there is no point of paying for interactive media, because even the traditional media lacks quality. Also for the younger generation (majority of the consumers of interactive media) there are always free alternatives.

I would never ever pay a dime for a news site, because there is practically no difference linguistically what I am reading. Therefore I can consume free alternatives from the rest of the world (BBC, non-profit projects etc). Then it leaves the location factor. I think – at the moment at least – that the quantity of information I receive about Tallinn or Estonia today greatly exceeds reasonable amounts. That is because I am a victim of information-overdose, and that is mainly because of the so many free content providers that operate in .ee environment. In that kind of condition the question „Am I willing to pay for information“ is absurd. If anything, I’m willing to pay for some close-downs of certain content providers.

So in the end I think content (interactive media) will remain free where needed. The technical necessities to do that will only decrease (the fee for a server space has greatly declined in Estonia e.g. for as the technical spefications have improved). What about the quality of content? Now there’s the weak spot.


---
The authors of the research clarified, that there are 4 types of interactive websites - Sales and Promotion, Sponsored Content, Public Information and Sponsored Content offering sites. Researchers feared that the latter 2 may die out because of the high maintenance costs. That itself comes from the situation, where consumers won't pay for content, if there are free alternatives available.

The aim of the research was to create a model of funding for a specific website, taking to account 3 categories: the site’s "interactivity, ideologies related to intellectual property, and audience size".

Authors referenced to a ongoing fight about copyright in web-based environments as a faceoff between the belief of "information wants to be free." vs. "information wants to be worth something."

The more common idea of "the primary business of content creators is not the creation of content but the creation of audiences" (seen in USA, where television creates ultra-entertaining but content-lacking (or quality lacking) broadcasts would be the main thrive for web-based sites as well. But the results of that kind of thinking would be “a system where content has little or no meaning except as a tool for attracting an audience which can be bought by advertisers".

The authors proposed three hypothesizes of which the first one took account the sites interactivity - sites are more interactive, when its user base is volunteer, non-profit or governmental. Also it was stated that sites value copyright beliefs more, when they receive funding from firms, government or they simply have mixed-funding. And finally – sites, that receive funding from advertising or government, will have larger audiences.

When measuring websites interactivity, the researchers used content-analysis. Autohers defined interactivity, using Heeter's definition: "She identifies six characteristics of interactivity: complexity of choice available, effort users must exert, responsiveness to the user, monitoring information use, ease of adding information, and facilitation of interpersonal communication". The justification for using Heeter’s definition was, that the “definition is one of the few analyses of interactivity that offers specific, measurable dimensions".

Specifically when grading sites interactivity, the things followed were: number of links on the first page, the presence of a search engine. Also there was a view on the tools what the website offered to its users: menu bar on the first page for example. NB! "While navigational tools might make the novice user more comfortable in using the site, they actually reduce the number of choices the user makes.” Thus it was believed that a elaborate navigational system would decline the sites interactivity.

Also there was a notion on the field that does the website have bulletin-boards or forums (which enable the user to quickly have interpersonal communication) which would increase the sites interactivity.

Conclusively researchers stated that despite the current situation (funding of non-profit websites, i.e. volunteer) being good, "for the future, public intervention may be needed to insure that costs of creating content remain low enough that multiple voices can be heard in arenas such as Community Content".

One of the interesting guides publicized in the article were the implications for communication educators, differenced for the 4 models: “Students need to have a broad range of skills if they plan to create computer-mediated communication content. Those creating Sponsored Content sites will need many of the same skills employed by traditional journalists. Those creating Sales and Promotions content will need the skills of advertising and public relations practitioners as well as selling skills. Those creating Public Information will need to learn to create databases and information environments. Those creating Community Content will need to blend interpersonal and mass communication skills.” It was also stated, that anybody, who wants to create content for the site types under research, the understanding of the interactive nature of the medium - regardless of how much interactivity is included in the site, is necessary.


The model created as a result of the research

Sales and Promotions Funding: Cost of doing business primarily of for-profit companies. Purpose: Direct sales and/or promotion of organization's products/services. Communication: One-to-one from sender to receiver.	Public Information Funding: Cost of doing business primarily of government and education organizations. Purpose: Provide detailed, complex information in a searchable format. Communication: One-to-one from receiver to sender.
Sponsored Content Funding: Advertising and/or sponsorship fees support creation of content. Purpose: Provide information and/or entertainment that attracts targeted and/or mass audiences. Communication: One-to-many from sender to receiver.	Community Content Funding: Volunteer efforts, non-profit groups, and other community-minded organizations. Purpose: Dialogue, networking, community building. Also provide information and increase awareness. Communication: Many-to-many with no clear distinction between sender and receiver.
Low	High
Level of Interactivity

Link to text:
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue1/mcmillan.html