Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Interactive media and new customer roles
Interactive media and new customer roles
Interactive media and new customer roles
Interactive media and new customer roles
Interactive media and new customer roles
Interactive media and new customer roles
Interactive media and new customer roles
Interactive media and new customer roles
Interactive media and new customer roles
Interactive media and new customer roles
Interactive media and new customer roles
Interactive media and new customer roles
Interactive media and new customer roles
Interactive media and new customer roles
Interactive media and new customer roles
Interactive media and new customer roles
Interactive media and new customer roles
Interactive media and new customer roles
Interactive media and new customer roles
Interactive media and new customer roles
Interactive media and new customer roles
Interactive media and new customer roles
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Interactive media and new customer roles

1,730

Published on

Workshop on Media Interactivity, Neuchatel, Switzerland, October 2009

Workshop on Media Interactivity, Neuchatel, Switzerland, October 2009

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,730
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. International workshop on Media interactivity: economic and managerial issues Neuchatel, Switzerland, 30-31 October, 2009 Interactive media and new customer roles among magazine and newspaper industries Miia Kosonen (miia.kosonen@lut.fi) Hanna-Kaisa Ellonen (hanna-kaisa.ellonen@lut.fi) Lappeenranta University of Technology School of Business P.O.Box 20, 53851 Lappeenranta, Finland
  • 2. 1 INTRODUCTION Immediate and on-going communication is a new quality in the relationship between publishers and their audiences (Chung, 2007, 2008). Interactivity is a constitutive feature of the Internet. It is particularly human (i.e. interpersonal) interactivity that new media enriches by providing applications such weblogs, discussion forums and commenting spaces. However, it also challenges traditional media as it provides users more options and allows them to participate in producing content. Despite the growing enthusiasm about the potential of interactivity to revolutionize publishing, there is a lack of studies concerning how and why news publishers apply interactive features (Chung, 2007). It is particularly the content of online publications that has been in the focus of empirical research, but the background factors that lead or do not lead to certain instances of interactivity have not gained much attention. Thus we believe the current study will advance understanding within this field. In previous research, two distinctive streams regarding interactions within online media can be identified. The first examines and classifies the provided interactive features or modes, and motivations for their use (e.g. Chung, 2008, Kenney et al., 2000, Strube et al., 2009). The second focuses on how journalists perceive the role of online media or, even more generally, how the Internet affects journalism (e.g. Singer, 2003; Ruggiero, 2004; Chung, 2007, O’Sullivan and Heinonen, 2008; Thurman, 2008; Fortunati et al., 2009). For instance, Chung (2007) identified three categories regarding online news producers’ perceptions on interactive features of the Internet: innovators, cautious traditionalists, and purists. What is lacking from the above work are investigations and categorizations of the new roles of customers in this context. The new roles of customers are inevitably linked to the roles of media professionals. If customers are to partake e.g. in producing content, how does that affect the traditional roles of journalists, for example? We suppose that given the complexity and novelty of the issue, a variety of possibly conflicting views will exist in media organizations. Indeed, Achtenhagen & Raviola (2007, 2009) have already noted the Internet has brought new tensions to newspaper companies. In terms of establishing interactive media services and benefiting from them business-wise, we believe it is first essential to unravel the different underlying tensions and concerns regarding customer interaction. Hence, our study focuses on the challenges related to the adaptation of interactive services among print publishing companies, both within newspapers and magazines. We ask how publishing companies perceive the new roles of customers, and which kind of tensions does customer interaction through Internet-based channels provoke. We conducted an empirical qualitative study among Finnish newspaper and magazine publishers, being leading-edge companies in Finland in terms of establishing innovative solutions to their websites and thus allowing us to investigate how interactive media and new roles of customers are perceived within publishing companies. Two newspapers and three magazines were incorporated in the study. This paper is organized as follows. We first discuss the theoretical background on interactive media and customer roles. Thereafter, we introduce our empirical setting, methods and data. Then the results of the empirical study are presented. Finally, we will
  • 3. discuss our findings, followed by concluding remarks and potential future research directions. 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Interactivity is seen as a defining feature and key advantage characterizing new media (Morris and Ogan, 1996). In previous studies regarding the interactive features of online news services (Chung, 2007, 2008), interactivity has been approached from two perspectives: human, i.e. user-to-user, and medium, i.e. user-to-medium (Massey and Levy, 1999, Stromer-Galley, 2000). Human interactivity in particular remains a key issue when studying the implications of new media, characterized by emergent online groups, communities and networks where social relationships are mediated by communication technology (e.g. Wellman and Gulia, 1999). Human interactivity here refers to communication between two or more users relying on online communication channels on both sides, for instance, when sending and receiving e-mail, exchanging opinions in discussion boards, or commenting weblog entries. Hence, it is interpersonal in nature. Medium interactivity, in turn, is interactive communication between users and technology. It is based on what the technology allows users to do, for instance, to navigate on newspapers’ website using hyperlinks. (Chung, 2007) Through interactivity, the online environment allows customers to participate in a number of activities, such as generating ideas, designing and testing products (Füller et al., 2006), giving feedback (Williams & Cothrel, 2000), and helping and supporting other customers within communities (Nambisan, 2002). Prior research on customer roles on the Internet has mainly focused on customer participation in new-product development (e.g. Thompke and von Hippel, 2002; Dahan and Hauser, 2002; Jeppesen and Molin, 2004; Fuller et al., 2006; Sawhney et al., 2005). Nambisan (2002) introduced a typology of four customer roles in virtual environments: • Buyers of the product. • Users, contributing into product testing, and providing product support to peer users. • Resources, providing information to companies and supporting innovation processes. • Co-creators, contributing into the design and development of new products. While this classification is able to differentiate between the different levels of involvement (buyer being the most passive, and the co-producer the most active role of participation) regarding customer roles, it may not be ideal for the exploration of customer roles in the media context. First of all, very often the online offerings of media companies do not require subscription or any form of purchase. Therefore, not all customers are buyers of the product in the traditional sense. Second, the typology focuses on new-product development, where Nambisan (2002) admits the customers have eventually played a rather limited role. We argue that current research fails to acknowledge the potential of customers to support the development of continuous creation products, such as newspapers and magazines and their websites (e.g., Picard, 2005). In the media context, Ellonen & Kosonen (2010) noted how customer participated in a variety of tasks in publishing companies’ websites ranging from providing ideas for new
  • 4. articles to exchanging information about their values and needs and enticing new customers. In virtual customer communities, customers may simultaneously act in a variety of roles; buyers, users, resources, and co-creators (Kosonen & Ellonen, 2007). As mentioned earlier, the new customer roles are likely to have an impact on the roles of media professionals, and are likely to provoke tensions between opposing views in media organizations. Tensions are defined as “two phenomena in a dynamic relationship that involve both competition and complementarity” (English, 2001, 59). Therefore, tensions are closely related to paradoxes (e.g. Lewis, 2000; Poole & van den Ven, 1989) by representing seemingly opposite but simultaneously occurring demands (Achtenhagen & Raviola, 2007). In practice, they are the perspectives, feelings and practices that “signify the two sides of the same coin” (Lewis, 2000, 761). A classic example would be Leonard-Barton’s (1992) paradox between focusing on core competences at the risk of their turning into core rigidities. Slotergraaf & Dickson’s (2004) study gives and empirical illustration how one type of capability can simultaneously be considered as a core competence supporting company performance and as a core rigidity and lessening performance. Other typical organizational tensions are e.g. autonomy/dependency and global/local. When tensions arise in the organization, they are like to go through reinforcing cycles (Lewis, 2000). That is, when people try to resolve the tensions, they get trapped in exacerbating the tension. Thus, while tensions might trigger the change, they might also inhibit change. Therefore, managing tensions requires capturing the potential of the tension to enable dramatic change. In the media organizations, marketing and journalism have represented two opposing core values and cultures in newspaper organizations (Gade, 2004). Achtenhagen & Raviola’s (2007, 2009) studies illustrated how some journalists perceive new technologies as heralding the end of good journalism, while print circulations are falling and audiences are shifting to online channels. Gilbert's (2005) study noted the tensions in how newspaper professionals perceive their online operations - both as a threat and as an opportunity at the same time. In this study, our objective is to understand how media professionals perceive the new customer roles on the newspaper and magazine websites, as enabled by interactivity, and to explore what kind of tensions these new customer roles provoke in media organizations. 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In order to identify the new customer roles and the tensions related to new customer roles, we decided to collect data using methods that enabled the representatives of the publishing industry to express their viewpoints and concerns. Hence, we employed a qualitative study drawing on semi-structured interviews within newspaper and magazine publishers. When selecting the publishing companies, we paid special attention to their effort in systematic and long-term development of consumer-targeted online services. Being leading-edge companies in Finland in terms of establishing innovative solutions to their websites, we could suppose the selected companies would allow us to investigate how
  • 5. interactive media and new roles of customers are perceived within publishing companies. Two newspapers and three magazines, the latter focusing on a special area(s) of interest, were incorporated in the study. Our informants represented four organizational groups: management, chief editors, editors, and online service developers. Altogether, we made 31 interviews in May-August 2009. Table 1 illustrates the position of informants. The participating magazines had limited resources and therefore no separate resource for online service development, but the editors and chief editors acted in both roles simultaneously. Newspapers, in turn, had separate resources for these roles. Table 1. Interviews conducted in publishing companies Organizational group Newspapers (2) Magazines (3) Number of interviewees Managers 4 3 7 Chief editors 4 2 5 6 Editors 4 9 Online service developers 9 9 Total 21 10 31 The interview questions covered issues such as the current online offerings for customers, the recent development of online offerings, customer groups, and forms of customer communication. The wording and order of the questions varied because we wanted to follow the lead of the interviewees. The interviews were purposefully informal and conversational in nature, as it has been suggested that media managers tend to respond more positively to a conversational style (Hollifield & Coffey, 2006). We analyzed the data using the Atlas-TI software. We conducted an inductive analysis, representing an exploratory approach, in order to provide a data-grounded understanding of the phenomenon; identifying the roles of customers as users of interactive media and classifying the related tensions. Three rounds of analysis were conducted. Firstly, we coded the data thematically using customer roles and the related tensions as a point of departure. Hence, the objective of this analysis round was to find the relevant parts of the data for further analysis. Secondly, we identified recurrent themes, grouped them and established upper-level categories. Finally, on the third round we focused on making comparisons between groups of informants within each identified category. Reliability and validity are traditional concepts used for evaluating the quality of research, but are most often associated with quantitative studies. The quality of qualitative research is not thereby unambiguously evaluated, however (e.g., Denzin & Lincoln 2000, Kirk & Miller, 1986). Reliability in qualitative research refers to accuracy in efforts and methods (Shank 2006). Therefore, in order to maximize the reliability of this study, our aim was to provide detailed enough information regarding the research process that would enable the reader to follow the researchers’ reasoning (cf. Eskola & Suoranta 1998, Yin 2003). Validity, on the other hand, refers to the degree to which the findings are interpreted in a correct way in qualitative research (Kirk & Miller (1986, 20). In this study, we aimed at building a chain of evidence (see Yin, 2003) with the use of Atlas-ti program. Also, the three rounds of analysis and the interpretation of the results was double-checked by both authors.
  • 6. 4 RESULTS We could claim that traditionally, newspaper and magazine publishers have seen their consumer audience in three roles: as readers and subscribers, and also as users of applications incorporated in websites. In other words, the focus has been on information broadcasting and medium interactivity. In our understanding, it is particularly human interactivity that is manifested in the new roles of customers. Based on our inductive analysis, we identified six new customer roles in relation to interactivity. First, in addition to reading newspapers and magazines, customers give feedback about their content or e.g. editorial policy definitions. In principle, this is not a new role: readers’ opinions and wishes have long represented a source of information for editorials. Yet, novelty here refers to the depth and variety of feedback. Our informants from all organizational groups outlined how the Internet has enabled a revolutionary change in terms of establishing contact between customers and publishing companies: it has lowered the barrier for readers to contact editors and also given rise to a wider variety of feedback channels such as discussions forums and news comments. It is also a new role in a sense editors now have channels to hear thoughts of customers on an on-going basis in contrast to coincidental responses and comments. “It is so much easier nowadays to contact the media, such as newspaper, there is no such threshold than in the earlier days. People contact us even in the least of issue, they are no longer ashamed of expressing themselves.” (Chief editor) We could term this role as customers being Agents, who eagerly observe their environment, present their opinions to editors, and comment journalistic policies, content, online service usability or technical functionality. By listening feedback from customers, publishers get concrete ideas to improve their offerings, and also get to know their customers better. Many interviewees described how publishing companies have only recently learnt to understand the needs of customer and to “hear their voice”: “What we at least have learnt is that you have to listen users.” (Developer) “We get feedback from customers and we also want to collect feedback, it is the only means to keep awake.” (Manager) Agents may also present tips for writing stories and send e.g. photos or video material to the newspapers/magazines. Internet-based channels have enabled customers more opportunities, reach and speed in assisting newspapers and magazines in their core task – producing journalistic content. What characterizes the role of Agents in terms of interaction, is the flow of information from customers to the company, the latter eventually keeping back the right for deciding what is published and what is not. Another characteristic is that Agents interact proactively, thus giving feedback on their own bat. Second, customers are Dialoguers. When interacting in such a role, information flows are more two-way: customers and publishing companies engage in mutual dialogue, in contrast to Agents, where customers submit feedback and content to the company. Dialogue takes place e.g. through on-going posting and commenting in editorial weblogs, and through company initiatives where customers are asked to provide feedback and engage in
  • 7. discussion with company representatives. In such a mode of interaction, direct and on-going relationship with customers is established, as the following quotations illustrate: ”We engage in dialogue with customers, and when planning major changes, we also ask for their comments. As we’re on the Net, we get constant feedback. It is practically a new thing, or a fully new dimension in our work.” (Chief editor) ”In weblogs… the relationship with the audience becomes closer, there you can establish true dialogue between the author and the reader.” (Editor) Like Agents, the role of Dialoguers came out in every group of informants, yet with slight differences about the objectives of customer interaction. Whereas editors and chief editors naturally emphasized on-going dialogue about journalistic content (news, stories, columns), developers were more concerned in establishing contact with customers in order to improve the online services, by asking feedback and ideas directly from users. A common denominator of every type of dialogue was that customers and publishers are now closer to each other than ever before. Third, customers are Debaters who actively participate in discussions in the forums. Whereas the role of publishers is more distinct when engaging in dialogue with customers, debating refers to interaction established and maintained mainly by customers themselves. The role of the publisher is more like to set the general “rules of the game” and to provide platforms for customer interaction. Yet debating was seen to provide various benefits to publishing companies, such as concrete ideas for improvement, ideas for new services, news tips, contacts to people, and more generally, potential trends in customers’ interests and use of online services. “We have created discussions, our audience engages in conversations there and they are increasingly participating in it. The forum is highly active, and also focal to our identity.” (Chief editor) ”We have valuable conversations, good content which is nice to read but which can also be exploited for other purposes in our papers.” (Editor) ”It is our core task, to listen to what people talk. We enable and steer the discussion, it provides us trends and ideas.” (Developer) In every organizational group, discussions were seen as a focal part of the publishers’ product concept. Whereas editors and chief editors emphasized the close connection between news and discussions, both supporting each other, managers highlighted how interesting discussions create loyalty among customers and provide publishers an additional channel for feedback. Finally, developers underlined the technical issues and how smoothly the implemented solutions support customer interaction. They also emphasized the benefits deriving from actively following the discussions. All in all, discussion forums were seen to allow customers an opportunity to interact directly with each other. Fourth, customers may take a role of Messengers who spread the content of newspapers or magazines, link to the content on their behalf, and thus may attract new customers. Interestingly, this role only came up in the interviews with managers and developers, and
  • 8. only by a very few notions. Being a constitutive feature of social media (e.g. Salmenkivi & Nyman, 2007), the idea of user-driven content sharing may thus far remain unfamiliar to representatives of the publishing companies. Yet it also provides them opportunities, as the following quotations illustrate: “We can harness our users to spread news and other types of content.” (Manager) “In my understanding, it is how people want to use the Net, they want to share things with their friends.” (Developer) Fifth, customers interact in a role of Testers. For instance, so-called pilot groups or online panels present opinions and exchange ideas about products and services, allowing the newspaper or magazine to further develop them. This is seen of particular importance as both the target groups and the areas of interest become more fragmented. Again, the Internet has allowed publishers to more easily reach the intended target groups and, most importantly, the most active groups of customers. What differs testing from general customer feedback (the role of Agents) or company-initiated collection of customer feedback (the role of Dialoguers), is that customers now concretely engage in using and testing a certain product or service feature, and the whole process is systematically organized by the publishing company’s side. “In magazine X’s website, we have organized a pilot group of customers for testing. We ask them opinions about the potential applications which we are planning to implement, or the content, what do they think and what kind of features they would appreciate.” (Manager) “We make beta-testing with different target groups, for instance, about user interface.” (Developer) “In technical stuff…it is vital that you have independent contributors or assistants there, who know whether it works or not. We present their comments in public and they of course appreciate that. It creates commitment.” (Developer) Through engaging customers in testing, publishers get to know their preferences better and may improve the online services more rapidly and flexibly. Two types of initiatives for testing came up in the interviews: online panels can be applied for developing the whole product concept, both print and online, and online pilot groups for testing and developing certain applications. Respectively, it was particularly managers and developers who discussed customer interaction regarding this role. Finally, customers may become Content-producers, who add content to online services. Whereas Agents also provide content to publishing companies e.g. by sending videos or photos, as Content-producers customers directly add content to the online services and not only submit material to be considered for publication. When acting as Debaters, customers also produce content for publishers’ and other customers’ benefit, but in the role of Content-producer the spectrum of content is broader and does not limit solely to exchanging opinions. Further, the generated content is immediately in use by other customers and the company. For instance, customers may assess and rate content, write supporting notes, and add information to databases.
  • 9. Sense of community was a widely applied concept when discussing content-producing. It was something that customers were seen to create by nature if they were given opportunities to interact with each other. Both managers and developers were yet concerned about how publishers’ online services eventually support this objective. One of the developers described how they should further develop their online services: “User generated content and user interactivity, in some form, it should support sense of community and allow our readers more opportunities to participate in what is going on there [in our website].” (Developer) However, there were also online applications that were seen to support this type of customer interactions conveniently. As one editor described the logic of creating sense of community on the Internet with a gaming application: “The Net… you get around there, click and buy, then read a story, buy new players, exchange them… There is sense of community to some degree and competing with each other to some degree, all that kind of stuff, all our content supports it.” (Editor) Developers described how the culture towards user-generated content is slightly changing and becoming more favourable among publishing companies. In particular, they have become more aware of the role of dedicated, highly active customers, and knowing what they appreciate. Thus publishing companies now more willingly produce content together with customers, instead of only targeting content for them. ”People want to do things themselves, so that others can see what they have done, we are like a gallery for all that.” (Developer) In some of the interviews, also the role of co-developing services with customer was discussed. However, for clarity we would like to distinguish between producing content, testing products and co-developing them: whereas in the former cases customers may add content to the service or they are given testing opportunities, in the latter customers gain an open interface to directly modify the product (e.g. Thomke & von Hippel, 2002, Füller et al., 2006). Such fully open mode of development does not seem valid for the newspaper and magazine publishers studied here; customers rather take an assisting role. Table 2 summarizes the identified customer roles. Table 2. New customer roles enabled by interactive media Direction Roles Examples Customer-to-business Agents Testers Sending photos or videos Testing online service features, evaluating content Customer-to-business and business-to-customer Dialoguers Content-producers Commenting news and specifying their content Adding information to databases Customer-to-customer Debaters Messengers Content-producers Exchanging opinions Linking to interesting articles Adding information to databases, sharing experiences with other customers, giving ratings In our understanding, when playing any of these six roles, customers contribute to value creation processes and support the media organizations’s objectives of creating value both
  • 10. for the firm and its stakeholders. However, it seems that publishing companies are not able to harness the potential built into these new customer roles, and we suspect this has much to do with the ambiguity of the internal changes needed. 5 DISCUSSION: TENSIONS PROVOKED BY NEW CUSTOMER ROLES As evident from the above, different professional groups in the publishing companies put different emphasis on the identified customer roles and also differed in their views about the related opportunities and risks. Hence, a number of tensions related to the new customer roles seem to prevail in publishing companies. Let us elaborate on the tensions in the following six sub-chapters. 5.2.1 The tension between the traditional role of editors vs. the new role as a facilitator of customer interaction A prevalent theme regarding customer interaction was the lack of editorial participation in the discussion forums or news commenting. Many of the interviewees emphasized how they know customers would appreciate that; they have received very positive feedback from customers regarding active discussions with the representatives of the newspaper or magazine. For instance, editors were described as “safeguards” or “big brothers” with whom customer could share their concerns, and who have access to things and places where the general public does not. Yet the idea of active participation does not seem to realize. We could suppose one reason is attitude towards open discussion with customers. Managers described the attitude of editors as follows: ”Editors seem to have reservations about engaging to the discussion by name, for instance, about a story they have written. I think it is an issue that should be changed.” (Manager) ”If the discussion forum is the most valuable part of the service, there should be less content-producing to the website and more engagement to the discussions, facilitating it and participating actively.” (Manager) As a result of inactive participation, the credibility of online discussions was seen to suffer, as well as the perceived level of expertise. Another reason for the lack or participation could be the traditional roles of journalists in producing content. For instance, editors respond to customers when they are asked, but do not take a proactive role in facilitating discussions. As the editors themselves pointed out, the importance of engaging in active discussions is widely recognized but the daily work routines prevent this. Hence, it is particularly lack of time that seems to prohibit participation. “In a perfect world where there would not be as much productive pressure, some of us could go there and open the discussion, even if no one had directly asked us anything.” (Editor) According to the developers, better understanding about the nature of interactive online services would require on-going participation and presence. Yet the culture among editorials is different: they are used to a situation where work gets ready in one stroke,
  • 11. after it has been published. Across all organizational groups, the publishing-companies’ ability to understand the nature of the Internet interactions was questioned, relying too much on the logic of print publishing: ”Our most significant weakness is that we do not understand the nature of the new medium, we do not operate Net-like on the Net. We should take advantage of its benefits, flexibility, speed and interactivity.” (Chief editor) “An editor does not appreciate such work [discussing] in a similar vein because it is a lot different. It is not that I write a story, then I publish it and then I will have a coffee break. You must be passionate about it, getting there to see what others have commented.” (Manager) Thus in many instances, customer interactivity practically means discussions in the forums, nurtured by the customers themselves. Altogether, this tension has arisen from the new roles of customers as Debaters and Dialoguers. It is manifested as reactivity, resulting from time pressure and suspicious attitude towards engaging in public discussions with customers. Inactive participation by the company’s side could lead to decreasing interactivity on the website and ultimately with the false conclusion that customers do not wish to participate in discussions. Therefore, the managerial challenge is to build a culture where the new role of editors is valued in the organization and ideally lead the way by showing an example by active online participation. 5.2.2 The tension between existing organizational structures vs. demand for new structures, responsibilities, processes, and technology Secondly, we identified a tension related to creating internal structures and modes of operation that would support customer interaction. Even when customers are highly active in producing content or engaging in discussions for their part, the company eventually lacks ability to integrate the related knowledge and ideas into its processes. As a result, the advantages of interactive media remain under-utilized from the publishers’ side. ”What we should do better are the readers who in principle are very active and high in expertise… we could do much more to benefit from them, hear their experiences and ideas.” (Manager) All organizational groups were rather unanimous in their perceptions about the challenges regarding internal structures. For instance, many of our interviewees described a situation where interactive services “live their own life” and the company’s attention is elsewhere. In other words, services supporting customer interactivity are implemented – often because other newspapers or magazines seem to have them, as one of the developers pointed out – but the company lacks concrete plans how to benefit from the services and how to develop them further. “The most difficult part is the further development and elaboration of the service. And editors are not the most long-span people in the world, on the contrary.” (Editor)
  • 12. In some cases, the interviewees outlined ideas how customer interactions could be facilitated in order to support the content-creation process and online service development, but thus far they remain rather speculative. “These are only my thoughts, I haven’t spoken with the management, but… I find it very interesting, harnessing the social Net, taking the online audience along from the very beginning of making a story, and throughout the process. I mean, like crowdsouwcing.” (Editor) “The best companies have on-going beta versions, their users actively engage in developing the online services. And I hope we will be able to do that in the future.” (Manager) This tension is also related to the wealth of information that customer interaction on the Internet enables. The key issue is no longer how to receive enough feedback, but what to do about it, how to systematically evaluate its content and how to identify the most integral parts: “But the issue is how we manage to harness feedback to actual development of our services. You should be able to filter it, you should be able to assess its relevance…” (Manager) In summary, this tension is manifested as lack of attention towards interactive services, rigidity in establishing new services and developing them further, and lack of systematic processes to manage customer feedback. This is pervasive in a sense all organizational groups were aware of them. In addition, all the identified new customer roles (Agents, Dialoguers, Debaters, Messengers, Testers and Content-Producers) seem to fuel this tension: practically every type of customer interactivity that carries a promise of having an on-going relationship with customers online challenges the print-product oriented type of organization. The managerial challenge here is to put more effort and resources into building the necessary structures, while not cannibalizing the organizational structures that are optimized for the print product. 5.2.3 The tension between being closed vs. being open to the voice of customers This tension refers to losing control over customers due to increased use of interactive media and, in particular, social media. Newspapers and magazines no longer “hold the agenda”, as it is increasingly defined also by customers themselves. This long tradition of being safe from the opinions of the general public also came up in the interviews, manifesting attitude towards customer interaction in publishing companies: ”It is not easy for all people here to stand if someone from the audience dresses down on your work, in public. I think it is a part of this work, if you are in public position, then you should be able to accept both compliment and praise.” (Developer) “If we ask readers’ opinions… Of course we would truly need to be willing to change, even if we completely disagree with readers… We just have to listen to what they say and act accordingly, I think it will be kind of a difficult thing for us.” (Developer)
  • 13. Another instance of this tension was the tendency to downplay online services and content, even when they remain more popular than stories in print newspapers or magazines. While many of the interviewees considered such attitude to characterize the older generation of editors, others saw it the other way round: in some instances they were actually the most eager to publish online and get feedback from customers. The following quotation also illustrates the attitudinal side: “It was like ’let them be, it’s just the Net and nothing more’. But there are more people there than our print products attract, so they should also be noted somehow.” (Developer) Across different organizational groups, newspapers and magazines saw themselves rather uncourageous in allowing customers more power in terms of what is publishable, and accepting the self-emerging nature of online interactions. Yet this tension was most salient in the interviews with developers, as they have a “box seat” in establishing interactive online services and understanding the demands they set for publishing companies. Further, this tension is eventually related to the difficulty of finding a balance between whose voice publishers are to listen and whose not. In other words, when publishers more openly receive feedback from their audience, they have to decide when customers’ comments lead to action and when they do not need to do so. The tension is not only about preserving the traditional roles of journalists, but also the openness of communication. For instance, as one of the developers described, if ideas are openly discussed with customers on the Internet, there is a danger that competing newspaper gets all the benefit as it has more flexible organization to implement the novel solution. In summary, this tension is manifested as trivializing the content and nature of online interactions, withdrawing from open dialogue with customers, and unwillingness to react to customer feedback. Indeed, we see this tension to arise from all the identified customer roles, as they call for acknowledging the role of having active customers instead of passive receivers of information filtered by publishers. Again, the managerial challenge related to the fear of losing control and sense of ownership is to feed an organizational culture and related practices that position journalists closer and more equal with their readers without belittling the prestige of journalistic work. 5.2.4 The tension between active vs. inactive customers Further, lack of participation from customers’ side also raises tensions regarding customer interactions. Many interactive services only attract a small number of active people and the publishers feel they are incapable in fostering customer commitment. As noted earlier, newspapers and magazines do not fully use the knowledge and ideas of their audience, even when the applied online channels would in principle allow that. According to the interviewees, one reason is that the amount of actual interactions remains minor and the company lacks vision on how to mobilize customers to participate and produce content. This tension appeared most salient in the group of online service developers, whose role and position calls for detailed understanding how customer behave online, and respectively the means how to foster customer interactions. One of the developers described how the term ”user-generated content” makes the content-creation process sound easy from the
  • 14. company’s part – users do it on their behalf – but yet the actual workload is far from such ideal: ”Even if we think that user-generated content is ’made by users’ and made on your behalf, well yes, but it also requires a whole lot of effort to activate people there.” (Developer) Further, higher levels of customer interaction would require appropriate means to motivate them to participate, such as awarding active contributors. Even if there were successful cases regarding e.g. beta-testing of an online service with customers, the key concerns were that the company is lacking general understanding how to facilitate and motivate different types of customer interaction, and recognizing the fact that customers actually need to be concretely esteemed. ”It has been very difficult to understand here that if we want to get our customers to participate, and to promote the feeling that our services are truly valuable, we have to provide them feedback and openly regard what they have done.” (Developer) ”You must create the feeling that others see it, there is always someone who reacts.” (Developer) Referring to the customers’ roles as Messengers and Dialoguers, the interviewees also described concern about how the publishers do not fully use the potential of active users and readers who would spread the content: “You should do right things there [in social media]. All such things, how we spread the content and make our customers to spread it. In addition, Google and other search engines, how visible we are there. These are the two most critical issues in this business.” (Manager) ”It is not an end in itself that you are in Twitter or Facebook, if you just pump out feeds there, I think it is a huge mistake. The key idea in social media is being interactive.” (Developer) All in all, this tension derives from publishing companies’ capability gaps in terms of how customers behave online and how they focus their attention. It is manifested as an inability to facilitate customer participation and to harness the full potential of customers spreading and creating content. Respectively, the tension arises from all new customer roles but from the customer community-oriented roles (Debaters, Messengers, Content-producers) in particular. In other words, the more customer-to-customer type interactions are (see Table 2), the less controllable it becomes from the company’s part. This calls for subtle means to encourage and motivate customer activity. 5.2.5 The tension between the expected quality vs. the nature of customer interaction One of the management-level interviewees crystallized the change related to the Internet audiences as follows: “We have seen a new tension rising, in other words our audience in social media, and how they affect our editorial content. Nowadays, the general public may express their opinions
  • 15. in the discussion forums, about our news, editors’ attitudes, or communication in general. I think social media serves as a superb channel for us: now we can have direct feedback from consumers, what do they think about our product.” (Manager) Interestingly, all informant groups expressed such a positive tone towards the Internet-enabled interactions by customers. Yet there are differences in what publishers actually expected from customers: while reasoned feedback is highly appreciated, other types of interaction are necessarily not, particularly among editors. Let us elaborate this argument more in detail. The appropriate policies for hosting online discussions raised much debate in every organisational group and there is no consensus about the right or wrong. One of the key issues is registration vs. anonymous discussion. Another critical topic is moderating and how it is executed; changes in hosting and moderating policies have caused confusion among users. The interviewees also expressed much concern about the culture or tone of online discussions. For instance, it is too often stuck in certain topics, runs totally off-topic, or involves racism, insults and masses of provocative messages. The tension thus arises from the fact that online discussions are highly valued by publishers, but their logic does not fit with journalistic ideals of good content. Companies also need to cultivate the positive brand image and cannot publish illegal content and provocations. The following quotations illustrate the controversies regarding online discussions. ”There has to be a system with which to follow the discussion so that it meets the quality criteria.” (Chief editor) “I am so old-fashioned that I would like to see discussions with real names, but I don’t think it’s possible anymore. Nowadays it is pseudonyms, preferably.” (Chief editor) ”It is not easy to get good discussion. It requires strict moderation… good moderation.” (Editor) ”I thought we could have more customers to participate, but there are so many thresholds, such as that they are forced to register.” (Developer) ”If we think about the discussions… It’s still haunting there: each message is read beforehand and it is either accepted or not.” (Developer) ”I think it is a good indicator how we haven’t been able to create any discussion culture there. Rather it is a constant war of what is accepted and what is not accepted, and our users celebrate if a provocative message every now and then gets published.” (Developer) ”It is totally absurd… The thing that we have three anti-editors, whose mission is to stamp content and destroy content that users have produced.” (Developer) Altogether, the editorial line about good content differs remarkably from developers’ perception of valuable content. What is of essence here is who eventually sets the frames for which is acceptable and how to find a balance between opposing viewpoints: too strict policies are seen to exaggerate the problems caused by open debate and also erode the establishment of a conversation culture (developers’ view), while it is practically
  • 16. impossible to adopt such policy where all type of content by customers would be allowed on publishers’ website (editorial’s view). Respectively, the perceptions about how to best nurture customer relationships online differed remarkably among the informant groups. Whereas online service developers were concerned about “getting closer to the customer’s thinking”, understanding how they actually behave on the Internet, some editors described how they first and foremost need information on which topics are of interest for customers. This concern was also prevalent among management and chief editors: the Internet was seen as a source of on-going feedback from customers. In other words, while the former implies a need to understand how customers want to interact online – developers referred to “netizens” and their behaviour – in the latter case the key question is what the customers want to read stories about. The threat is that publishing companies only focus on delivering journalistic content over online channels and while suffocating with this task, end in undervaluing the human-interactive nature of online media. Indeed, as one the editors described: “The only way to get committed customers online is high-quality content. When we know it is good, we also show respect to our customers. --- I think our core strength online is the content. But… the problem is that it is not unique. We don’t have anything special there.” (Editor) The tension between journalistic standards and customer-driven interaction thus leads to a paradoxical situation. By engaging in online discussions, customers create communities that are unique in their tone and content, whereas the editorial content may not provide such unique value to the service. Yet the publisher cannot tolerate any type of debate, as they also have to take care of legality and the limits of freedom of speech. Hence, finding a balance between the two – control and freedom – remains a focal concern. In summary, we see this tension eventually derived from the collision between journalistic ideal of high-quality content and the role of customers as Debaters and Dialoguers. Newspapers in particular have faced long and heavy struggles in defining appropriate policies and culture regarding the discussions and their moderation. In managerial terms, it seems necessary for the media organizations to be able to set different standards and expectations for the quality and nature of print and online content. 5.2.6 The tension between customer loyalty vs. customers’ fragmented use of interactive media Earlier, when discussing the tension about being closed vs. open to the voice of customers, we noted the company-internal attitudinal challenge regarding the position of newspapers and magazines: in line with the development of interactive media, they no longer hold control over readers and define their agenda alone. Finally, the tension between customer loyalty vs. fragmented media use refers to customers’ attitude towards newspapers and magazines. It derives from the general perception that customers now have a variety of opportunities regarding media choice and channels of interaction. As a result of engaging in social-media-enabled networks and sharing content with peers, they are seen to manifest less loyalty to a single newspaper or magazine brand.
  • 17. In line with the increase in the supply of interactive services and the rise of social media, customers are also seen to attach to more entertainment-type of content, and search for lighter information than before. This characteristic was associated with younger consumer audience. Newspapers, in particular, have long been in a situation where they have enjoyed a stable and safe position on the market – a position that social media on its part has challenged, as many of our interviewees underlined. This tension most notably arises from the role of customers as Messengers. Our interviewees described a variety of situations where the newspaper or magazine “falls through the net” as customers have a variety of channels to interact and share content directly with each other. Overall, newspapers and magazines now compete with other media not only regarding customers’ time and attention, but also in terms of the content produced by other media and the customers themselves. “What people do, they hang around on the Net, on Flickr, YouTube, Facebook, they want have a good time there… We simply don’t have any that kind of stuff to offer to our customers.” (Editor) Again, this tension was basically related to the different use culture of the Internet in comparison to consuming journalistic content: “The Net is awfully fast, things just come and go.” (Developer) “People may not come directly to our site, instead, they pop in here and there.” (Developer) Another example of this tension is that while publishing companies need to ensure that they gain visibility through search engines – as one interviewee put it, for many customers Google is the internet – they may simultaneously weaken as a brand: customers are redirected to the online services by Google and may not be aware that the service is a part of newspaper or magazine. In summary, we see this tension to derive from the increased opportunities of customers to use interactive media, produce and share content, particularly in the role of Messengers. This, for its part, is seen to contribute to the fragmentation of media use and expressing less loyalty towards newspaper or magazine brands. In managerial terms, the fragmented media use calls for practices to foster customer commitment, many of which have been discussed in earlier sections. Having discussed the tensions raised by new customer roles, Table 3 summarizes the identified tensions and the respective roles of customers. Table 3. The tensions provoked by new customer roles Tension Which new customer roles provoke the tension 1. The traditional role of editors vs. the new role as a facilitator of customer interaction Dialoguers Debaters 2. The existing organizational structures vs. demand for new structures, responsibilities, processes, and technology Agents Dialoguers Debaters Messengers Testers
  • 18. Content-producers 3. Being closed vs. being open to the voice of customers Agents Dialoguers Debaters Messengers Testers Content-producers 4. Active vs. inactive customers Debaters Messengers Content-producers 5. The expected quality vs. the nature of customer interaction Dialoguers Debaters 6. Customer loyalty vs. customers’ fragmented use of interactive media Messengers Further, Figure 1 summarizes the managerial challenges raised by the tensions. As it can be seen, the new customer roles provoke managerial challenges and risks related to the amount of actual interaction, the quality of interaction and the attitude towards interaction both internally in media organizations and externally in relation to their customers. Figure 1. Challenges related to managing tensions 6 CONCLUSIONS This paper investigated the new customer roles enabled by interactive media, as perceived by newspaper and magazine publishers. Secondly, it unravelled the tensions arisen by these new roles of customers. We identified six new customer roles – Agents, Dialoguers, Debaters, Messengers, Testers and Content-producers – and examined the related tensions, regarding editorial roles, organizational structures, degree of openness, level of customer activity, nature of interactions, and online media use. The theoretical contribution of this paper is twofold. Firstly, it provides a categorization of new customer roles within newspaper and magazine publishing industries, as enabled by company-ext ernal (customers) company-i nternal amount of interaction quality of interaction attitude towards interaction Tension 4  Inability to harness customer networks Tension 1  Inactive participation Tension 2  Inappropriate organizing Tension 3  Losing control over readers Tension 5  Inability to understand the nature of customer-driven interactions Tension 6  Ignorance by customers
  • 19. interactive media. This categorization is valuable for media researchers, as it complements the traditional customer roles of reader, customer and user by six other roles enabled by interactive media. The categorization could also be applied to other online non-product development –oriented virtual environment, where Nambisan’s (2002) typology falls short. Secondly, our study unravels and classifies the underlying tensions regarding customer interaction and thus makes a contribution to the field of media research by investigating the background factors that are related to the establishment of interactive media services and features. It is important for media managers to note that while new customer roles empower them to take a more visible role in the value creation, the internal tensions within media organizations may be the bottleneck for leveraging the potential. This sets challenges for media managers not only to identify the tensions, but also to use them as the catalyst for drastic change (cf. Lewis, 2000). Based on our study, some future research directions can also be outlined. Firstly, as our study focused on the insights of the representatives of the publishing companies, it would be of interest to further refine and elaborate the identified customer roles so that the actual customer interactions would be investigated. Secondly, the new customer roles could be linked to different types of interactive features, as identified in previous studies of interactive media. Finally, managing the tensions arisen by the new customer roles provides an interesting avenue for future research.
  • 20. REFERENCES Achtenhagen, L. & Raviola, E. (2007). Organizing internal tension: Duality management of media companies, in L. Achtenhagen (Ed.), Organizing Media: Mastering the Challenges of Organizational Change, pp. 127-145. JIBS Research Report Series No. 2007-01, Jönköping. Achtenhagen, L. & Raviola, E. (2009). Balancing Tensions During Convergence: Duality Management in a Newspaper Company. The International Journal of Media Management, 11: 32-41. Chung DS. (2007). Profits and perils: Online News Producers’ Perceptions of Interactivity and Uses of Interactive Features, Convergence: The International Journal of Research Into New Media Technologies, 13(1): 43-61. Chung DS. (2008). Interactive Features of Online Newspapers: Identifying Patterns and Predicting Use of Engaged Readers, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13: 658-679. Dahan, E. & Hauser, J. (2002). The virtual customer. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19: 332-353. Denzin, NK. & Lincoln, YS. (2000). Introduction. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Denzin, NK. & Lincoln, YS. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp. 1-28. Ellonen, HK. & Kosonen, M. (2010). Treat your customers as equals! Fostering customer collaboration through social media, forthcoming in International Journal of Electronic Marketing and Retailing. English, T. (2001). Tension analysis in international organizations: a tool for breaking down communication barriers, The International Journal of Organizational Analysis 9(1): 58-83. Eskola, J. & Suoranta, J. (1998). Johdatus Laadulliseen Tutkimukseen [Introduction to Qualitative Research]. Osuuskunta Vastapaino, Tampere. Fortunati, L., Sarrica, M., O’Sullivan, J., Balcytiene, A, Harro-Loit, H., Macgregor, P., Roussou, N., Salaverria, R. and de Luca, F. (2009). The Influence of the Internet on European Journalism, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14: 928-963. Füller, J., Bartl, M., Ernst, H. & Mühlbacher, H. (2006). Community based innovation: How to integrate members of virtual communities into new product development. Electronic Commerce Research, 6: 57-73. Gade, P. (2004). Newspapers and organizational development: Management and journalist perceptions of newsroom cultural change, Journalism and Communication Monographs, 6(1): 3-55.
  • 21. Hollifield, C. A. & Coffey, A. J. (2006). Qualitative research in media management and economics. In Albarran, A. B., Chan-Olmsted, S. M. & Wirth, M. O. (Eds) Handbook of Media Management and Economics, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.573-600. Jeppesen, L. & Molin, M. (2004). Consumers as co-developers: Learning and innovation outside the firm, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 15(3): 363-383. Kenney, K., Goreli, A. & Mwangi, S. (2000). Interactive Features of Online Newspapers. First Monday, 5(1). Retrieved 28 September, 2009 from http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/720/629 Kirk, J. & Miller, ML. (1986). Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, Newbury Park. Kosonen, M. & Ellonen, HK. (2007). Virtual customer communities: An innovative case from the media industry. In L. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh, P. Novais & C. Analide (Eds.), Establishing the Foundation of Collaborative Networks, pp. 391-398. Springer Publishers. Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 111-125. Gilbert, C. (2005). Unbundling the structure of inertia: resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5): 741-763. Lewis, MW. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide, Academy of Management Review 25(4): 760-776. Massey, B. & Levy, M. (1999). Interactivity, Online Journalism, and English-Language Web Newspapers in Asia, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76(1): 138-151. Morris, M. & Ogan, C. (1996). The Internet as Mass Medium, Journal of Communication, 46(1): 39-50. Nambisan, S. (2002). Designing virtual customer environments for new product development: toward a theory. Academy of Management Review, 27(3): 392-413. O’Sullivan, J. & Heinonen, A. (2008) Old values, new media. Journalism role perception in a changing world, Journalism Practice, 2(3): 357-371. Picard, R.G. (2005). Unique characteristics and business dynamics of media products, Journal of Media Business Studies 2(2):61-69. Poole, MS. & van den Ven, AH. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories, Academy of Management Review 14(4): 562-578. Ruggiero, TR. (2004). Paradigm repair and changing journalistic perceptions of the Internet as an objective news source. Convergence: The Journal of Research Into New Technologies, 10(4): 92-104.
  • 22. Salmenkivi, S. & Nyman, N. (2007). Yhteisöllinen media ja muuttuvat markkinointi 2.0. [Collaborative media and changing marketing 2.0], Talentum, Helsinki. Sawhney, M., Verona, G. & Prandelli, E. (2005). Collaborating to create: the Internet as a platform for customer engagement in product innovation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19(4): 4-17. Shank, GD. (2006). Qualitative Research. A Personal Skills Approach, 2nd edition. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Singer, JB. (2003). Who are these guys? The online challenge to the notion of journalistic professionalism, Journalism, 4(2): 139-163. Slotegraaf, RJ. & Dickson, PR. (2004). The paradox of a marketing planning capability, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32(4): 371-385. Stromer-Galley, J. (2000). On-line Interaction and Why Candidates Avoid It, Journal of Communication, 50(4): 111-132. Strube, M., Knuth, I. & Wellbrock, C. (2009). User motivation on generating content. A critical review of recent research and an analysis of motivation for different UGC types. A paper presented in the annual conference of European Media Management Association (EMMA), Paris, France, 13-14 February, 2009. Thompke, S. & von Hippel, E. (2002). Customers as innovators: a new way to create value. Harvard Business Review, April 2002, 74-81. Thurman, N. (2008). Forums for citizen journalists? Adoption of use generated content initiatives by online news media, New Media & Society, 10(1): 139-157. Yin, R. (2003). Case Study Research. Design and Methods, 3rd Edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Wellman, B. & Gulia, M. (1999) Virtual communities as communities: Net surfers don’t ride alone. In M Smith and P Kollock (Eds), Communities in Cyberspace, pp. 167-194. Routledge, London. Williams, R. & Cothrel, J. (2000). Four smart ways to run online communities. Sloan Management Review, 41(4): 81-91.

×