Chapter 1: Introduction

Tables 7.1 and 7.2 indicate the range of participatory channels available at each of the case study sites and how open they are to public interaction. These tables refer to channels available between October 2010 and October 2011.

All of the two-way communication channels were not moderated first, although in some cases there was post moderation to remove unsuitable or inappropriate content. Where one way communication prevailed all content was moderated. The tables above indicate that participation via a one way moderated channel existed at the first stage of participation in the newsgathering stage (refer to Table 1.2) this prevented readers from being involved in the production stage. The website bournemouthecho.co.uk invited readers to submit stories, photos and videos “for a chance to get published”, rather than to direct upload content to the website. However the final stage of responding was a more open process with no moderation and greater communication between parties. The only exception to this would be Twitter which was unmoderated at both the newsgathering and responding stage. Indeed Twitter appeared to be the only participatory channel which breached most gatekeeping rules. During the English Defence League march in Leicester the web editor embedded a Twitter widget on the thisisleicestershire.co.uk website with hashtag #leicester. This was not moderated and included strong language which would not normally be tolerated on the newspaper website in content by journalists or readers. However a view was taken by the web editor that it was acceptable as the content was identifiable as a Twitter feed and not Leicester Mercury content. Also it was not archived material but a constant rolling feed therefore it had no permanence on the website. In this instance readers were also producing content with no gatekeeping from the newspaper.

The research reveals that the Bournemouth Daily Echo attempted to engage audiences and interact with them to a far greater extent than the Leicester Mercury. During the observation period it was apparent that the Bournemouth Daily Echo web team were continually creating new ideas to get readers involved in their brand and the local community. The digital projects co-ordinator experimented with a range of social media platforms such as Tumblr, Delicious, YouTube, Flickr, Twitter and Facebook although due to time constraints was not able to continue with them all. Two accounts were set up on Tumblr but these had been inactive several months. The Flickr groups had been a success however and there were a range of groups with a few hundred members each. These included a monthly group where readers took photos representing the month and these were voted on by the public. The best photos were published in the newspaper and on the website. This was continued all year round and resulted in thousands of photographs being posted to Flickr. Readers were permitted to submit three photos a day and each month the newspaper selected the best 18 photos and asked readers on Facebook and Twitter to vote for their favourite. The most voted seven to 10 photos were then published in the newspaper and on the website. Another round of voting then took place on Flickr to find the best photo for each month. This process allowed readers to be involved in the selection process of production although the original selection was made by the newspaper. Readers could also discuss the photos on Flickr, Facebook and Twitter as part of the responding process. This is an example of readers being involved in the production process albeit within boundaries set by the newspaper. However the majority of these photos were not news related and this interaction was based around building a recreational photography community related to the Bournemouth Daily Echo as a trustworthy, community brand. It also served an economic function by enabling the Bournemouth Daily Echo to regularly produce photography books based on reader photographs. Readers were given a byline for their photographs rather than payment and proceeds from the sale of the books went directly to the newspaper company.

A further example of generating interaction at the Bournemouth Daily Echo was recorded during the first week of observation. One of the web team was creating the hashtag #echoshow for Twitter users to discuss local bands and give them live feedback from shows. The web team also spoke about utilising reader photos from major events such as the annual air show. These were planned months in advance so they could be promoted and designated areas could be created on the website. This was in opposition to the reactionary approach of the Leicester Mercury which tended to wait and see how many reader photos were submitted after an event before deciding whether to build a gallery on the website or dedicate a page in the newspaper to reader photos.

It was immediately apparent from the results at both case study sites that the vast majority of web users visited the website or accessed its digital platforms on a daily basis and the main objective was to read the content, which in this study has been defined as passive participation. Graph 7.1 displays the results of the reader questionnaire as a percentage and indicates the frequency of online visits. This graph includes visits to the newspaper website, associated social media platforms and/or receiving the newspaper’s email newsletter or RSS feeds.

Graph 7.1: Frequency of visits

More than 85 per cent of readers at both case study sites visited the website or other digital platforms daily, with around 10 per cent visiting weekly. This indicates that the habit of reading a printed newspaper daily has transferred across to the online environment. Table 7.3 and 7.4 give a breakdown of the different digital platforms that readers were accessing. The figures shown are the total number of responses for each answer.

Figure 7.1: Leicester Mercury daily activity of users

Figure 7.2: Bournemouth Daily Echo daily activity of users

It is interesting to note in Tables 7.3 and 7.4 above that text based engagements tended to be daily but the viewing of photo and videos was a more occasional activity. This may be due to photos and videos being more entertainment based rather than breaking news and not being updated as regularly. Graph 7.2 explores in more detail how often readers view Flickr and YouTube content.

Graph 7.2: Bournemouth Daily Echo percentage of user participation rates on Flickr and YouTube

The responses were similar for both Flickr and YouTube, although viewing Flickr content was more popular than YouTube. Most readers viewed both sites every few months, and more frequent visits were less common.

Although most readers were passive users of the case study online platforms there was evidence of sharing activity particularly on the newspaper websites. Tables 7.5 and 7.6 show how often readers shared material on the newspaper websites by emailing stories to other people or posting stories to their social media feeds (Share website content). Readers also shared material via retweeting on Twitter (Retweet LM/BE tweet) or hyperlinking to the newspaper website from another website, blog or Facebook (Link to LM/BE story).

Table 7.5: Leicester Mercury users sharing frequency

Activity	Daily	Weekly	Monthly	Every 2 to 6 months	Never
Share website content	6	26	21	25	63
Retweet LM tweet	0	7	5	3	126
Link to LM story	1	9	9	15	107

Table 7.6: Bournemouth Daily Echo users sharing frequency

Activity	Daily	Weekly	Monthly	Every 2 to 6 months	Never
Share website content	13	39	42	72	108
Retweet LM tweet	3	8	14	4	245
Link to LM story	2	11	24	28	209

The combined results illustrated in Graphs 7.3 and 7.4 indicate that at both case study sites sharing content from the website was the most popular sharing activity, followed by linking to the website and thirdly retweeting on Twitter.

Graph 7.3: Leicester Mercury users sharing activity

Graph 7.4: Bournemouth Daily Echo users sharing activity

The results were very similar at both case study sites with more than 50 per cent of readers sometimes sharing website content as well as linking to the website and retweeting to a lesser extent. As Tables 7.5 and 7.6 indicate readers were likely to share content occasionally rather than daily. The results were spread fairly evenly between sharing weekly, monthly and every two to six months. However at the Bournemouth Daily Echo sharing website content was more likely to happen less regularly than at the Leicester Mercury but this may have been due to more readers sharing content overall even though it was less frequent.

From the reader interviews it was possible to identify patterns in reader sharing activity and why it occurred occasionally rather than daily. All of the readers who shared content said they sent stories of particular interest to friends or family. Interest may be due to knowing someone in the story, the story having a quirky angle or a story covering a topical issue of importance to the reader and their social circle. LR3 said “I link to stories from Facebook about people I know and things that are amusing, usually humour/entertaining stories”, whilst BR3 said “I email stories to my parents outside Bournemouth and to a friend, stories that might be of interest to them”. For LR3 the whole experience of using the Leicester Mercury website was a social one as well as an informative one.

Some readers took a more political approach and shared stories with the intention of informing peers about issues they felt strongly about that might lead to further political action. LR4 said that due to living in America they were interested in sharing health stories in the UK press to their friends because “the USA is going the way of the NHS and it will be a disaster”. Furthermore BR2 admitted that they were a lobbyist for environmental issues and they shared stories to further their campaign:

I forward stories on environmental issues to friends or colleagues I think might be interested. I might post an Echo story on Facebook and I have access to a couple of blogs where I might post things. Sharing news is important to me, to encourage debate and to encourage people to write to the local paper for issues to be aired and debated (BR2).

It can therefore be seen that sharing news is an important social and political activity for readers.