1.
Multimedia and Interactivity on Newspaper
Websites:
A Multi-Study Analysis of Six English-Speaking
Countries
Robert Bergland
Lisa Crawford
Sarah Noe
David Hon
Online Journalism Symposium 2010

2. Problem/Purpose of study
Shortage of studies which compare different countries
Different methodologies used in various studies makes
true country-to-country comparisons problematic
Goal: To examine several countries using a similar
methodology

3. Brief Literature Overview
Some key newspaper website studies:
• Peng et al 1999 survey and 80-site analysis
• Greer & Mensing’s 1997-2003 U.S. longitudinal study
• Sparks, Young and Darnell 2003 analysis of 113 Canadian news
sites
• Bivings Group’s 2006 Top 100 circulation U.S. papers
• Hashim et al 2007 study of 12 Australian newspapers
• Russial’s 2009 survey of 210 U.S. daily newspapers

4. Research Questions
RQ1: What are the levels of interactivity and multimedia within
the individual countries?
RQ2: What impact does circulation have on presence of
interactive/multimedia features?
RQ3: How do these countries compare in their newspapers’ use
of multimedia/interactivity?
RQ4: Is there a connection between computer
ownership/broadband in the countries and their newspapers’ use
of these features?

5. Methodology
Looked at top six English-speaking countries where
English was the first/dominant language: U.S., UK,
Canada, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand
 Survey methodology (a la Russial) was considered, but
dismissed: Concerns over response rate, reliable contact
information, cost, time
Chosen method: One-pass website analysis employed by
Bivings Group, Darnell/Sparks/Young

6. Methodology
●
Process
Team reviewed literature, examined websites to create 25-feature taxonomy for
U.S. 2007 study; added 7 features in 2008 study of the other countries
Compiled lists of newspapers for each country from Editor and Publisher directory
Used random sampling of U.S. papers (360, every fourth, of 1437 U.S. dailies),
with a +/- 4.5% margin of error
Used all of newspapers from other countries, eliminating duplicate sites (Note: only
12/60 Australian papers coded in time window)
Conducted pilot/inter-rater reliability test (95% in 2007; 96% in 2008) of 10
websites
Coded data over a one-month period

7. Number of Newspapers studied
US: 360* (Random sample—25%)
UK: 117
Canada: 100
Ireland: 9
New Zealand: 24
Australia: 12* (of 60)

8. General categories

9. Sample Spreadsheet

10. Results: Impact of Size
U.K./Ireland Newspapers Sites

11. Results: Impact of Size
U.S. Newspapers Sites

12. Results: Impact of Size
Canadian Newspapers Sites
(blue under 50K; red over 50K)

13. Results: Multimedia

14. Results: Multimedia

15. Results: Multimedia

16. Results: Multimedia

17. Results: MM/Interactivity

18. Results: Interactivity

19. Results: Interactivity

20. Results: Interactivity

21. Results: Interactivity

22. Results: Distribution

23. Connection Between Computer
Ownership/Broadband Penetration
In some countries, there seems to be a direct connection between
computer ownership/broadband and the ability and motivation for
newspapers to put multimedia and interactivity on their websites. Ex:
Ukraine with 1.7% broadband penetration in 2008, had very little
multimedia especially in a 2009 study:

24. Connection Between Computer
Ownership/Broadband Penetration
• Not much of a connection in English-speaking
countries studied
• U.S./U.K. numbers were fairly similar in many
categories
--Too little difference in CO/BP to judge, esp
given year gap
• Canada, with highest % of computer ownership
and higher than U.S. broadband, had some of the
lowest rates of multimedia/interactivity
• New Zealand did show some connection, with
the lowest rates of CO/BP and also the lowest
amount of multimedia/interactivity

25. Computer Ownership 2006

26. Broadband Penetration 2008

27. So what explains the difference?
Perhaps
• Economic Factors: Resources
-Personnel
-Equipment/Software
• Economic Factors: Ownership/chains
• Social Factors--Computer usage and
expectations of users
• Focus of management
• Journalism education/training

28. Limitations of study/Future research
Weakness of content analysis vs survey
One-pass vs multipass—might not have
viewed site on typical day
Redo study in 2011, looking at all sites
during the same period for equal comparison