A WEB FULL OF CHOICES
How public service broadcasters can use online platform functionalities to create public valueFinal version
MSc Business Administration Entrepreneurship and Management in the Creative Industries
Eline Zick 11063858 Supervisor: Drs. P.M. Leendertse June 23, 2017
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
This document is written by Eline Zick who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract 5
1. Introduction 6
1.1 Motivation and discussion 6
1.2 Research question and objectives 8
1.3 Research methodology 8
1.4 Structure 9
2. Theoretical framework 10
2.1 Traditional public service broadcasters 10
2.2 Dutch public service broadcasters 11
2.2.1 The public domain 11
2.2.2 The need for innovation 12
2.2.3 Overcoming restrictions 13
2.3 The future of Dutch public service broadcasters 14
2.3.1 Platforms 14
2.3.2 Platform types 15
2.3.3 The functions of platforms 16
2.3.4 The importance of platforms 19
2.4 Creating public value 19
2.4.1 Data 19 2.4.2 Curation of content 20 2.4.3 Commodification 21 2.4.4 Network effects 22 2.5 Conclusion 23 3. Research methodology 25 3.1 Research design 25 3.2 Sample 26 3.3 Data collection 27 3.3.1. Operationalization 28
3.4 Quality of the research 30
3.4 Method of analysis 31
4. Results 32
4.1 Performing in the digital environment 32
4.2 The use of data 34
4.2.1 Privacy 35
4.2.2 Transparency and visibility 36
4.3 Curation of content 37
4.3.1 Independency 38
4.3.2 Pluralism 39
4.3.4 Diversity 41
4.4 Commodification 43
4.4.1 Impact 44
4.4.2 Accessibility 45
4.4.3 Reliability 45
4.4.4 Generativity for the future 46
4.5 Network effects 47
4.5.1 Interaction 48
4.5.2 Infrastructure 49
4.6 The battlefields of the public service broadcasting system 50
4.6.1 The institutional battle 50
4.6.2 Individual public service broadcasters in relation with the government 51 4.1.2 Public service broadcasters in battle with commercial parties 54
5. Discussion and conclusion 56
5.1 Summary of findings 56
5.2 Discussion of findings 58
5.3 Implications 59
5.4 Limitations and recommendations for future research 60
ABSTRACT
From a traditional perspective, the mission of public service broadcasters has always been to produce media products as a form of speaking to and engaging with citizens, which came aside with the obligation to inform, educate and entertain different audiences and to involve them in public debates (Van Dijck & Poel, 2015). Due to the upcoming new media platforms with their interactivity and specific targeted supply of programs, public service broadcasters rapidly lost their dominant position in the field (Scientific Council for Government Policy, 2015). However, these online platforms offer a lot of useful tools and functions, which can help public service broadcasters to adapt to the digital environment and recapture their position. This thesis examines how public service broadcasters can use online platform functionalities to create public value for society. Empirical data is obtained qualitatively through interviews with ten experts on innovation and development strategies in the digital domain. A thematic analysis is done by the use of interview transcript. As a result of a complex institutional situation, the commercialization and the influence of the government it is difficult for public service broadcasters to explore and experiment from a public value perspective how these functionalities can be useful. Nevertheless, the connection between the four key functionalities (usage of data, curation of content, commodification and network effects) and the most important public values give fruitful insights and visions which bring us a step closer to an adequate solution.
1. INTRODUCTION
In this section, the subject of the thesis will be introduced. First of all, the motivation for this research is explained and a discussion on the relevant literature is provided. Second, the research question and research objectives are examined. Third, a brief description of the research methodology is provided. Last, the outline of the structure of this thesis is examined.
1.1 Motivation and discussion
According to Donges and Puppis (2003) in Bardoel and d’Haenens (2008) the public service broadcasters are at the heart of public attention. Basic problems of these organizations are causing a lot of complex discussions in the broadcasting field. The origin of problems tends to be related to identity, financing and operationalizing (Achille, 1994 in Bardoel & D’Haenens, 2008).
Traditionally, the identity of public service broadcasters was justified mostly on technical grounds. This was related to the scarcity of frequencies and on standard values associated with the Western-style democracies, such as diversity and the protection of cultural identity (Steemers, 2003). The diversity and different cultural identities came aside with various philosophy groups born by pollution within the broadcasting field (Huysmans, de Haan & Van den Broek 2004). The basic function of the Dutch public service broadcasters has always been related to providing low-cost and for everyone available and reliable information, education and culture (Coleman, 2004). According to Helm (2005) they should not be restricted to correct the market failures, because their products and services respond to the needs of citizens. It provides a balance to the commercial media and sets quality standards for the whole media landscape. Moreover, market failure is also a justification point for public financing of Dutch public service broadcasters. The facilitation of minority tastes and interests has always been an important aspect because this cannot or will not be adequately served by the commercial market in the Netherlands (Bardoel & D’Haenens, 2008). Due to the Mediawet (1978), these individual broadcasters are regulated on a strong basis with a clear mission statement. However, according to Donges and Puppis (2003) in Bardoel and d’Haenens (2008) the government seems less willing to provide the right financial conditions, which in the end has a negative effect on the overall political climate regarding public service broadcasters. This makes it even more difficult to do a good job in the highly competitive world of broadcasting. Due to the distance between politics and the media industry, it is hard to operationalize their mission into effective laws (Bardoel & D’Haenens, 2008).
Besides the issues regarding identity and finance, most important is the operational issue. Since 2006 the individual Dutch public service broadcasters are under supervision of the Nederlandse Publieke Omroep (NPO), who is responsible for the airtime each of the six individual broadcasters gets. The Dutch public service broadcasting system with all individual broadcasters makes it hard to respond accurately to the rapidly changing environment. In addition to this, adapting to the digital transformation seems to be hard because of the institutional propositions of the public service broadcasters. However, the online domain seems to be a world full of changes for public service broadcasters. Bardoel and Lowe (2007) argue that within the digital and multimedia environment, public service broadcasters must focus on the privileges of being effective communicators and the core challenge for public service broadcasters is the transformation into public service media for political, economic and populist reasons. Moreover, the most recent battle for public service broadcasters according to Van Dijck, Poel and De Waal (2016) are the new media platforms. This rise of online platforms is related to the performance of the market, government and society and matters of public interests (WRR, 2012), because they offer interactivity and a targeted supply of programs. A platform is a technologic, economic and social-cultural infrastructure using data for organizing and facilitating the online social and economic traffic between suppliers and users (Van Dijck, Poel and De Waal, 2016). Andrejevic (2013) argues that besides the current content production and distribution, the public service broadcasters need to include media, search and other information-sorting and communication utilities”. But as these platforms grew bigger, the ecosystem of connective media began to be dominated by different large global networks such as Facebook and Youtube (Van Dijck and Poel, 2015). Platforms offer a lot of new opportunities for people, but at the same time there is a lot of criticism on how these social network platforms actually work, for instance, regarding privacy. It is interesting for public service broadcasters to examine what kind of functions of these online platforms are usable to create public value. A lot is said about adapting to the digital environment, but no details are generated on how the public service broadcasters should do this in a public domain. This is a complex situation because of the institutional issues, but very inspiring and challenging. Because, how can the Dutch public service broadcasters use the functionalities of online platforms by creating public value?
As said it can be an opportunity for public service broadcasters, as these online platforms are functioning as marketplaces for the specific domains. The various functionalities of platforms need to be examined, to discuss how public values should be created and ensured by using these functionalities in the online domain.
1.2 Research question and objectives
A shift from public service broadcaster to public media service, from public space to public value and from content production to content selection and distribution needs to be made. These shifts require a dialogue between innovation and digital experts, policy-makers and academics to develop new perspectives on technologies and practices through which these kind of public values should be created and facilitated (Van Dijck and Poell, 2015). Investigating the relation between these online platform functionalities and the creation of public values by public service broadcasters, may offer fruitful insights for the public service broadcasters. As a result, it is important to study how public service broadcasters can use the functionalities of online platforms to create public value in the digital domain. The research question is as follows: how can Dutch public service broadcasters use online platform functionalities to create public value?
In order to answer the overall research question, the following sub questions are formulated: - How can Dutch public service broadcasters use data to create public value?
- How can Dutch public service broadcasters use online curation to create public value?
- How can Dutch public service broadcasters use online commodification to create public value? - How can Dutch public service broadcasters use network effects to create public value?
Thus, the aim of this explorative research is to gain more insights in the online platform functionalities, which can be useful for public service broadcasters to create public value for society. This study is done by using theory of online platforms and functionalities as guideline, related to the public values of public service broadcasters. This is in line with research done by Van Dijck, Poel and De Waal (2016) about the infrastructure of platforms as a platform society related to public service broadcasters and the consequences for public values.
1.3 Research methodology
For examining this research question, expert interviews were conducted. This was necessary to gain a better understanding of how public service broadcasters can create public value in the digital domain. Primary data were collected by doing 10 face-to-face, semi-structured interviews with experts on digital innovation, strategy and policy making for public service broadcasters. Data are analysed by doing a thematic analysis based on theoretical constructs. Those themes and patterns are in the end supported by interviewee quotations. More details regarding the research methodology of this thesis will be provided in chapter 3.
1.4 Structure
The structure of this thesis will start with chapter 2 as literature review, where the issues of the public service broadcasters and their mission regarding the creation and ensuring public values will be discussed. After that, theory about the different types and functions of online platforms will be discussed. Subsequent, platform theory is applied to the public service broadcasters. Problems of public service broadcasters to follow their mission in the online environment will be described as well. Chapter 3 will explain the methodology of this qualitative research. This section examines the research design and strategy and the data collection method. Additionally, the operationalization and the sample, the quality of the research and the method of analysis will be provided. In chapter 4 the results of this case study will be described. Chapter 5 provides a discussion about the results and a conclusion, including the limitations of this research and recommendations for future research.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
This section first examines theoretical insights in the traditional public service broadcasters and the restrictions that are encountered in adapting to the digital world. Second, the future of public service broadcasters will be discussed in the light of digitalization and the rise of platforms. This is done by examining different functionalities of platforms in general, which will in the end be applied to public values.
2.1 Traditional public service broadcasters
The foundation for public service broadcasters originated from the possibilities for various philosophy groups (born by pollution) such as KRO, NCRV, VARA, AVRO and VPRO to use and produce radio (Huysmans, de Haan & Van den Broek 2004). After producing radio, the first television broadcast was in 1951 and popularity grew fast. The large amount of members, resulted in individual broadcasters that wanted to collaborate and divide their airtime, coordinate the different broadcasts and shared their resources. But as their popularity grew in the following years, the problems did as well because commercial broadcasters came in. Since the 1980s, there is a division within the Dutch media landscape between public service broadcasters on the one side and commercial broadcasters on the other side (Van Dijck & Poel, 2015). According to Gripsrud and Weibul (2010) in Van Dijck & Poel (2015) public service broadcasters from different European countries responded to the emerging commercial broadcasters by imitating the successful formats and tactics of these commercial broadcasters (such as shows, quizzes, reality TV and talent contests). Nevertheless, when the public service broadcasters became more successful in competing with commercial broadcasters, competitors claimed that they were misusing their position. The invention of public service broadcasters originates from the fact that they should solve a ‘market failure’. However, they undermined this position by imitating the commercial broadcasters, which is argued as unfair competition (Van Dijck & Poel, 2015). As a result, the commercial broadcasters wanted that the privileges of public service broadcasters should be terminated. In 1978, the Mediawet came in to regulate both the public service and the commercial broadcasters. Besides these new laws and legislations, the government seemed less willing to provide adequate financial conditions for the public service broadcasters (Donges and Puppis, 2003 in Bardoel and d’Haenens, 2008). This made it even more difficult to do a good job within the highly competitive world of broadcasting.
2.2 The current Dutch public service broadcasters
The traditional Dutch public service broadcasting system including institutional issues influences the way it performs nowadays. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2012) argues that the Nederlandse Publieke Omroep (NPO), Bertelsmann and Sanoma Group are the biggest suppliers in the television market; they supply 84 per cent of the whole Dutch television market. Within Dutch society there are four television channels that reach more than a quarter of the citizens, which are: NPO 1, RTL 4, NPO 2 and SBS 6 (Benchmark van de Publieke Omroep in Europa, 2015). The NPO is responsible for programming audio-visual content of all different public service broadcasters and the distribution of their programmes by radio-, television-, internet- and digital- theme channels within the Netherlands (Commissariaat voor de Media, 2016). The Commissariaat voor de Media, Council for Culture and the supervisory board of the NPO, determined that in the period of 2016-2020 the following broadcasters will get airtime: BNN-VARA, AVROTROS, KRO-NCRV, EO, Omroep MAX and VPRO, and the task broadcasters NOS and NTR (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2012). Besides this, there are three broadcasters who are candidate for the Dutch public service broadcasters system and also get airtime: WNL, PowNed and Human.
2.2.1 A public domain
The complex institutional system, the relation with the commercial broadcasters and the influence of the government are critical regarding the performance of public service broadcasters. Nevertheless, their mission is to produce television as a form of speaking to and engaging with viewers as citizens, which came aside with the obligation to inform, educate and entertain different audiences and to involve them in public debates (Van Dijck & Poel, 2015). This mission is also related to the task of the public service broadcaster to guarantee public values, which are matters of such importance to society that the organization deserves collective care (WRR, 2000; 2012). To assure these public values, public service broadcasters need to set standards for quality, authenticity, engagement and their media product should differ from general perspectives. The Mediawet (2016) describes in their policy numerous public values for the NPO. These are most important because the focus of this research is on how public service broadcasters can use online platform functionalities to create these public values. The first public value is independence, which means that the demand is independent of commercial influences. The second value is reliability, where content that is provided should be reliable. Third, internal pluralism is related to the different views and/or philosophies that are reflected by the products/services. External pluralism is related to products/services that reflect a certain perception and/or philosophy of life in society by recognizable coloration. Fourth, the content needs to be diverse, it contributes to the
reflection/representation of different population groups. Last, the media product needs to have impact. This means that the media product contributes to the social cohesion, quality of democracy and society, cultural participation and/or the development and deployment of individual people in society. In addition, the public service broadcasters need to facilitate these public values and have a responsibility in protecting these values for citizens. Bardoel & Lowe (2007) explain that the Amsterdam Protocol explicitly claimed that public service broadcasters are directly related to the democratic, social and cultural needs of European and in specific Dutch citizens and a necessity for upholding pluralism.
2.2.1 The need for innovation
Despite the consistent mission of public service broadcasters in the Netherlands, Betzel and Ward (2004) discuss that there have been huge changes in the broadcasting sector in West Europe over the past two decades with the growth in number of channels available and the development of new platforms for delivery. Bardoel and Lowe (2007) argue that to adapt to these developments a demand-oriented approach is required to provide media products rather than the supply-oriented characteristic of the past. According to Helm (2005) in Bardoel & D’Haenens (2008) public service broadcasters should not be restricted to remedying ‘market failures’ as they respond to the needs of citizens (different form consumers). It provides a counter-weight to the commercial media and sets quality standards for the whole media industry. Additionally to these issues in adapting to the digital domain, in the early 2000s the multitude of interactive platforms and online services came up. Bardoel and Lowe (2007) argue that within this digital and multimedia environment, public service broadcaster providers should focus on the privileges of being effective communicators. Moreover, they argue that the core challenge for public service broadcasters is to transform into a public service media for political, economic and populist reasons. According to Bardoel & D’Haenens (2008), the system should be made leaner and meaner and focus on popularization or purification in their program strategy. The authors argue that the public service media can be a forum for a new concept about values, processes and practices, which will affect everyone to an important degree because media and society are interdependent (Bardoel & Lowe, 2008). This online environment including platforms, made it possible for public service broadcasters to function as central actors. It has created the necessity for public service broadcasters to act correspondingly and cover the whole area of its public mission (Raats, 2012). As a consequence of the institutional issues, the exploration of the digital domain was limited and not realized to the full extent.
The upcoming global networks and new media platforms with their interactivity and specific targeted supply of programs resulted in a rapid loss of the dominant position of public service broadcasters in the field (Scientific
Council for Government Policy, 2015). The consequence of growth of online services and interactive platforms was an ecosystem of connective media, dominated by different large global networks such as Facebook and Youtube (Van Dijck and Poel, 2015). This affects public service broadcasters, because people spend more time in the digital environment now instead of watching tv. This digitalization leads also to a multiplication of distribution channels (Bardoel & D’Haenens, 2008). To adapt to these developments, exploration and innovation should be the core of public service broadcasters. Additionally, Commissariaat voor de Media (2016) adds to this that on media platforms information can be shared very easily and quickly among a large group of people, which can be an advantage and opportunity for public service broadcasters. Van Dijck, Poel and De Waal (2016) argue that the usage of platforms also gives the opportunity to gain detailed information on content, but also preferences, interests and characteristics of users. This could add value to the personalization of content from public service broadcasters. Moreover, Van Dijck and Poel (2015) argue that is possible to develop a strategy and tactics for cross-media and cross-genre content that is popular but still distinctive when compared with the commercial offer. The public service broadcasters need to recognize, support and strengthen the independent, creative and innovative creators within the industry through collaborations in production and distribution (Commissie Toekomstverkenning Mediabestel, 2014). Thus, the opportunities to use these platforms are definitely worth it to create public value in the digital domain and reclaim their position within the field. But is it as easy as it seems to be?
2.2.2 Overcoming restrictions
As already mentioned, according to Achille (1994) in Bardoel & D’Haenens (2008) the difficulties in adapting to the digital domain are related to identity, financing and operating problems. The Dutch broadcasting system consists of individual broadcasters with a membership (apart from the provisions included in the Mediawet of 1978 for news, culture, education and religion). Due to the institutional pluralism, the Dutch broadcasting system is highly complex (Bardoel & D’Haenens, 2008). Besides this, the government is reducing the financial resources more and more and the situation regarding law and legislation of the online possibilities for public service broadcasters is very complicated as well (Van Dijck & Poel, 2015). The government enables the establishment and implementation of public interests, but took a step back from determining what public interests are and performing them (Van Dijck, Poel and De Waal, 2016). Nevertheless, where a specific space was created and financed by the government for the public values in the offline domain, this is (not yet) done in the online domain. This influences the competitive struggle with the commercial broadcasters and online
platforms as well. According to Raats (2012), these aspects result in a definite gap between the utopian idea of a networked public service media, based on partnerships on the one hand and regulation and actual public service broadcaster behaviour and daily practices on the other hand. Nonetheless, this does not mean that it is not possible. The institutional issues are influencing performance freedom of public service broadcasters, but that makes it even more interesting to examine new opportunities. Performing in the digital domain requires new strategies, adapted media products and clear insights in technology, which can result in a big chance for public service broadcasters to create public value.
2.3 The future of Dutch public service broadcasters
During the past decades, large media organisations did have a leading position within the system, as they monopolised their access to society (Turow, 2012). However, it becomes clear that the viability of public service broadcasters can no longer be taken for granted due to the digital developments. Bardoel & D’Haenens (2008) argue that these public service broadcasters should be more externally focussed. Many public service broadcasters have undergone considerable changes already, but they are more evolutionary than revolutionary and unfortunately they have not let to major improvements of their position (Bardoel & D’Haenens, 2008). Andrejevic (2013) argues that ‘beyond content production and distribution the public sector needs to include media, search and other information-sorting and communication utilities’. He urges that the media-ecosystem needs to be build on existing initiatives and creating connections between public service broadcasting, libraries, community centres, public museums and so on. From different perspectives within the industry, people need to see opportunities for public service broadcasters to use various functionalities of online platforms or even change into a kind of platform. Also Van Dijck, Poel and De Waal (2016) argue that public service broadcasters could fulfil the role of digital media platforms within Dutch society. But how? The next section will give detailed insights about these platforms.
2.3.1 Platforms
According to Van Dijck, Poel and De Waal (2016), the exchange of information, goods and services between citizens, consumers, organizations and the government is almost unthinkable without different platforms. A platform is a technologic, economic and social-cultural infrastructure using data for organizing and facilitating the online social and economic traffic between suppliers and users (Van Dijck, Poel and De Waal, 2016). These platforms do have a serious impact on time spent on a daily basis. Commissariaat voor de Media (2016) argues that young people (from thirteen to nineteen years old) spend more than four hours a day on online platforms,
while they do not spend at least five minutes on reading daily newspapers and magazines. Besides this, these platforms help to rearrange and change the social-economic and society system, because this enormous network determines in many ways the rules and conditions of all data traffic online (Van Dijck, Poel and De Waal, 2016) They argue that these digital platforms create technological innovations and add value to the ‘society of participation’. This means citizens do have more empowerment as consumers or entrepreneurs and don’t need intervention of large organizations and institutions. Kreijveld (2014) argues that platforms blur the line between consumers and producers, which results in faster innovations for companies, organizations and governments. In line with this, platforms argue less government and less overhead costs (TNO, 2015). Andrejevic (2013), argues that public service broadcasters need to build on existing initiatives and create connections between public society and third parties which create content (such as cultural institutions). The different options of platform mechanisms (the way the technologies, business models and practices of these platforms work) are enormous. These mechanisms can evolve in a new system by organizing a lot of different users and suppliers (Van Dijck, 2013). But before it is even possible to think of this reality, it is important to set out the functionalities of online platforms to see which Dutch public service broadcasters could use them to create public value.
2.3.2 Platform types
According to TNO (2015) there are four different types of digital platforms to distinguish. First of all, the ‘resellers’ distribute content on their platform, which they have produced or acquired, to end users (such as Netflix). Second, ‘marketplaces’ such as Bol.com facilitate transactions between the users and user groups on the platform. These transactions can concern any product or service and can have an impact on a wide array of markets. Third, ‘social networks’ enable the social exchanges between users, so a social network as Facebook generates and shares content. Last, ‘platforms of platforms’ are platforms or ecosystems on which other platforms work such as Apple. Platforms can also be a mix of the four types named above. Within this research, the social network platforms are most interesting. This is because this kind of platform offer the possibility to share content very easily as argued by Commissariaat voor de Media (2016) and public service broadcasters make use of the various functions these social network platforms offer. Thus, it is interesting to examine which of the functionalities are useful in the public domain of public service broadcasters.
2.3.3 Functions of platforms
The way technologies, business models and practices work is different for every platform. Nevertheless there are also functions that platforms have in common. Kreijveld (2014) argues that this is because these platforms do have a shared technology, standards and other (business) economic and social agreements such as cross-licensing agreements and cooperation. When a platform is more mature, shared value could also provide a basis on which various players in the ecosystem in various combinations can coordinate their activities:
• Data: All platforms use and generate data to a certain extent, but there are differences in the way platforms use and treat data. According to TNO (2015) there is a difference between internal and external data. On the one hand internal data means that platforms choose to keep the user data within the platform to personalise their products and services, and not to share it with other companies (other platforms or advertisers). On the other hand, platforms could use data generated by users externally as well, for example with advertisers. According to Van Dijck, Poel and De Waal (2016) one of the most important driving forces of platforms is datafication, which is to track, quantify, interpret and predict social interaction through platforms, as well as the daily use of platform data by users. It can be understood as the ability of platforms to trace a large number of phenomena and events, quantify, interpret and predict (Van Dijck, Poel and De Waal, 2016). The authors argue that where informal activities and exchanges never have been registered before, every action on platforms is traced and backed up to users. According to Gerlitz & Helmond (2013) interactions of users are immediately transformed into data and presented to other users, which generates more traffic and engagement. Issues regarding privacy, safety and transparency of userdata are very critical for public service broadcasters, because the public service broadcasters need to determine how to use these platform tools in a responsible way. The opportunity to personalize and improve content for specific user groups can be very useful to create public value.
• Curation of content: The online world makes it possible to have access to a lot of different content on the various platforms. If content is created by users, platforms can choose to select content or edit data to bring it in line with the specific policies of the platform. This is named curation and has to do with algorithms, which are instructions for input data to transform it in the favourable output (Bucher 2012). These algorithms are used to select, navigate and link information, which results in selective information on platforms. Van Dijck, Poel and De Waal (2016) argue that the selection of content, subjects, objects and actors are relevant for information and communication mechanisms within platforms. Because of this selection of content, the independence of content of public service broadcasters is at stake. On the one hand, this selection makes it possible to personalize content for users. On the other hand, filter bubbles created through algorithms can result in very selective information in
line with what people like or find interesting. As public service broadcasters distribute their content through social platforms, this could affect pluralism of their content. A lot of people are not aware of the filter bubble they could be in. Pariser (2011) argues that users don’t chose the criteria by which sites filter information in and out, you might expect that the information that comes through a filter bubble is unbiased and objective and true, but it is not. Actually, the curation of content (including personalization of content) is totally claimed by commercial platforms. That is why it is even more interesting how public service broadcasters can convert this to the public domain by creating value.
• Commodification: Another important mechanism according to Van Dijck, Poel and De Waal (2016) is commodification, which is the way how platforms bring objects, operations and ideas to the market, or convert them into marketable products with economic value. This is related to how public service broadcasters convert objects into content with public values for society. According to Van Dijck, Poel and De Waal (2016) it refers also to the accessibility for people to use these platforms, how they can promote themselves and their content or products. Social media platforms make it possible for users to act like media producers and gain attention by promoting themselves, their work or activities by platforms. Fuchs (2012) in Jennes, Pierson and Van den Broek (2014) argues that although social media provide users ‘mass-self-communication’ and the collection and distribution of content, the aim of the platform is not to empower users but to commodify their personal data. Despite the fact that these commercial platforms use commodification to provide data to advertisers, the public service broadcasters should use these useful tools in the public domain. The phenomenon of commodification is also related to generativity, where platforms enable others to create value and pick up, combine and curate information. Elaluf-Calderwood, Eaton, Sørensen & Yoo (2011) claim that generativity refers to a technology’s overall capacity to produce unprompted change driven by large, varied, and uncoordinated audiences. Additionally, Zittrain (2008) examines five principles for generativity related to the degree to which a technology provides help in performing certain tasks (leverage), how flexible and modifiable the technology is in performing various different tasks (adaptability), how simple the technology is to use for broad user groups and how much previous knowledge is required in order to capture its full potential (ease of mastery), how easy it is to get access to the technology (availability) and last, how easily and accessible changes and updates in the technology are distributed among its users (the level of transferability). Because of the highly accessible social platforms of today, people focus a lot on acquiring social and professional capital: more friends and followers means greater visibility and recognition argue Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe (2011). This promotional effect of online platforms is indispensable and inescapable for (offline) media organizations nowadays. Thus, it is
necessary to consider how accessible the platform and content are and evade to a high click through ratio and unnecessary barriers to make it interesting for potential users. Public values that need to be ensured are related to the accessibility of using a platform, sharing reliable information and the created impact the objects have. Public service broadcasters should select the most useful aspects, to develop a strategy in transforming media content into content with public value instead of making money.
• Network effects: digital platforms are commonly based on exploiting network effects, which can be direct or indirect. TNO (2015) argues that the direct network effect means that a platform becomes more attractive for users if the total number of users on the same side of the platform grows (such as Netflix). More and more is expected from society and individual citizens, as they should be active in organizing various social services. This should be done by using platforms to share and spread their products and services, which is also known as the collaborative or sharing economy (Botsman & Rogers, 2010). The indirect effect means that a platform becomes more attractive at just one side of the platform This can be realized if the number of content providers on the other side grows (at Bol.com for example). These networks become more attractive for their users if the number of content providers grows, which is related to the extent of curation of content by users or suppliers. Besides this, the personalized data flow increases by the interaction of Datafication and commodification: by leaving a review, evaluation or liking a photo of a friend. These aspects can be fruitful tools for public service broadcasters to use and to create public value. Besides this, personalization (as part of the content function) and the extent to which content goes viral are important aspects of selection mechanisms because it can result in changes in dynamics of public communication.As a result, the ‘richer get richer’ effect could appear, which means that platforms automatically promote material and services, which generate a lot of activity (Merton, 1968). Critical for public service broadcasters is to examine how to transform this into a useful tool where pluralism is guaranteed. Previously there were a lot of public institutions and organizations spreading information top down, but now the users are interacting with each other bottom-up (Van Dijck, Poel & De Waal, 2016). This is in the end related to the choices regarding the infrastructure public service broadcasters will use in the public domain.
The next paragraph will examine the importance of these platforms within the field of traditional public service broadcasters.
2.3.5 The importance of platforms
The goal of public service broadcasters has always been to produce audio visual content as a form of speaking to and engaging with citizens, which came aside with the obligation to inform, educate and entertain different audiences and to involve them in public debates (Van Dijck & Poel, 2015). But as platforms function as marketplaces for the specific domains, it should be examined how public values can be created. It offers a lot of new opportunities to use technological developments and add more value for society within the digital environment. These platforms facilitate citizens, consumers, companies, governments and organizations to produce and exchange information or knowledge, as well as bring together supply and demand in many areas. Besides this, they play a mediating role and offer users new opportunities as a provider or user of information or services (Van Dijck & Poel, 2015). Despite the critical notes on these platforms regarding for instance privacy and filter bubbles, public service broadcasters need to see them as an opportunity. Not directly to earn money or reach more people with their content. This should be done by modifying the functionalities of platforms into tools to create public value for society. The next paragraph will examine the relation between the functionalities of platforms and the public values the public service broadcasters have.
2.4 Creating public value
To maintain public interests, it is important to first gain more specific insights in the relation between these important public values and the functionalities of platforms. As already described before by article 2.1 of the Mediawet (2008; 2016), independence, pluralism, quality and accessibility for society, are the starting point of legitimacy of public service broadcasters in the Netherlands (Commissie Toekomstverkenning Mediabestel, 2014). Furthermore, the WRR (2005) argues also that freedom, diversity, equality, impact, interaction and protection of privacy are fundamental values, which transcend the media policy.
2.4.1 Data
The first functionality of platforms is data, whereby it is important to determine how to deal with datafication. The use of data is strongly related to the public value protection of privacy. Prins (2004) argues in WRR (2005) that there is no longer a distinction between public and nonpublic communication because of the interaction online. WRR (2005) argues that there needs to be a balance between on the one hand freedom of communication and on the other hand privacy. In recent years, there has been a lot of criticism on ensuring privacy, which is also related to the safety of users of the platform (Andrejevic 2013). Van Dijck, Poel and De Waal (2016) argue
that it is related to transparency of data flows: where do data go, who had access to which data and who owns them. On commercial platforms, almost all personal data are used for multiple commercial purposes, but public service broadcaster platforms need to ensure public interests. As public service broadcasters need to keep in mind the protection of privacy, they should not use data of users for commercial goals. WRR (2005) argues that it is not always that clear when personal data are used for violating privacy. Part of this privacy and security is the fact that most of the time it is not visible what platforms do with gathered personal data of users. They should use these data in a functional and a responsible way. This can be done by using personal data from platforms internally to predict and interpret the preferences of audiences to inform, educate and entertain them and involve them in public debates. This is also mentioned as an important obligation of public broadcasters according to Van Dijck & Poel (2015). Additionally, transparency in what they do with data can be useful for public service broadcasters to create more value. Most preferably, it should be directly clear what the characteristics of a platform are, which data are shared and to which other platforms a platform is associated. The promise that online platforms should be open, transparent and have neutral constellations is also very critical (Van Dijck, Poel and De Waal, 2016). Commercial platforms do not meet the requirements of being open, transparent and neutral, because they are data and money driven organizations. It can be that users are in the need of open, transparent and neutral content, which can be an opportunity for public service broadcasters. It is interesting to determine what tools ensure these aspects, to create public value, and how they could use data in a responsible and effective way. Additionally, the government tries to set rules and regulations about gathering data. It can be interesting too when the government tries to act as a launching customer: by investing money in the design and development of apps with the focus on public values, the government adds economic value, while it stimulates responsible platform- and data usage (Van Dijck, Poel and De Waal, 2016).
2.4.2 Curation of content
Curation of content is the second functionality, which has to do with algorithms (instructions for input data to transform it in the favourable output). On basis of what is content actually transformed into favourable output? This is linked with the public values independency of content and pluralism, which is the variation of content and genres. Commissie Toekomstverkenning Mediabestel (2014) argues that original content needs to be diverse, transparent and independent for both a broad and general public, as for various age groups of different sizes and compositions in society. Actually, the public service broadcasters are responsible for the quality of content but also for interaction and education. That is why the professional quality of providing news and
specific information is also pointed out as being very important. Nevertheless, Van Dijck, Poel and De Waal (2016) argue that it still is not clear why we see or don’t see specific messages at social networks as Facebook, but on the other hand for news organizations it is still not clear why specific news items are important to users and others are not. It is very tempting to believe in general claims from high-tech companies, which don’t harm and only serve the interests of users. But ultimately these companies are not accountable to users, but only to their shareholders (Van Dijck, Poel and De Waal, 2016). Those filter bubbles do have a negative influence on pluralism. If public service broadcasters use commercial platforms (such as social media platforms), those platforms determine also norms (algorithms) regarding the display of content. The independency of content, so an objective view of news and information, can be at stake because of this algorithmic selection/filter bubbles. That is why public service broadcasters should be transparent in how algorithms are used to select, navigate and link information, to be more reliable compared with to commercial platforms (Van Dijck, Poel and De Waal, 2016). It is nearly impossible to see how biased it is and though you don’t choose to enter the bubble, it becomes harder and harder to avoid this phenomenon (Pariser, 2011). While trying to guarantee independency of content and pluralism, public service broadcasters should use algorithms in a different way. They should not use selection to create a filter bubble, but to add also external content to contribute the public value. As a result, the curation process should be fully transparent and open to users of these platforms. The curation of content is a central issue because this is not self-evident. According to WRR (2005) the independency of content is a specific social construction, which needs to be developed and maintained, because it is an important condition for self-opinion formation and social participation. Without this value, there is no reliable and insightful content that enables society to realize their view and social participation.
2.4.3 Commodification
The third functionality, commodification, is the ability of a product/service to create economic value (for example Airbnb) according to Van Dijck, Poel and De Waal (2016). To prevent that certain groups within society are excluded of new information and to be a counterweight in fragmentation, the public service broadcasters need to function as a ‘public marketplace’ of society (WWR, 2005). Digital technologies and possibilities related to commodification could make this ‘public marketplace’ possible. Where commercial platforms commodify their platforms to make money, public service broadcasters could do this to create social cohesion, as basis for social participation and deliberation (WWR, 2005). The creation of social cohesion is important because citizens can identify and understand each other's views so that they are brought together in
the social debate, which creates public opinion formation (Etzioni 2004; Putnam 2000; Calhoun 1997; Fur 2003 in WRR (2005). Additional, the public service broadcasters need to function as an accessible ‘island of trust’ and ensure a public atmosphere, according to Commissie Toekomstverkenning Mediabestel (2014). But public service broadcasters don’t have monopoly on media space, because everyone can start his own youtube-channel, to raise awareness through video productions. Though, according to Van Dijck, Poel and De Waal (2016) public interests are more an incentive because they can create economic value. This is interesting because public service broadcasters can use functionalities of these platforms to make content accessible and useful by giving them useful tools, handles and instructions. Accessibility is a very important public value, because for who is it accessible? For providers, the infrastructure and content should be accessible, but also rights to curate and diffuse content. These accessible tools can be very useful to create public value in the digital domain. In addition, accessibility for suppliers is related to technological and financial access to the platform, but also access in terms of the ability and competence. This is related to knowledge and capabilities to use the platform in the right way. Public service broadcasters can create accessible, transparent, safe and trustful media content, if they commodify from a public point of view.
2.4.4 Network effects
The last and fourth functionality is related to network effects on platforms. Regarding the direct and indirect effect of networks (TNO, 2015), the public service broadcasters should create content or add content providers to become more attractive to users. Services delivered by platforms are constantly assessed and public figures and settings are continuously commented. This interaction between users can strengthen, but also undermine the communication goals of platforms. Lips, Van der Hoff, Prins & Schudelaro (2005) argue that the platforms determine the way people interact with each other and how citizens are informed about social themes. As marketeers, the public service broadcasters can determine the conditions under which user interaction is established and influence the way in which for example education and journalism is organized. To create value, public service broadcasters must connect different parties with each other according to Van Dijck, Poel & De Waal (2016). For commercial platforms such as Google and Apple, the connection of millions of users with advertisers is very profitable. As public service broadcasters are non-profit, they should use their ability to link different parties with each other not to make profit for financial gain, but to create new and interesting content and interaction driven by data, which has a positive impact on public value. The values such as the prevention of discrimination, sustainability or direct access to information are not always directly served by platforms, but are
the pursuit of an interest struggle to come up with a new balance into that social environment. As a result, it is important for public service broadcasters to realize that everything they do from privacy to direct access, it is all related to the way public value can be created. Furthermore, the public service broadcasters must be aware that within the online platform infrastructure, no specific public space is created. According to Van Dijck, Poel and De Waal (2016) everybody uses the same commercially controlled ‘road network’. By using the accessible tools to generate attention for specific activities, events, subjects or goals, citizens, public and cultural institutions increase commodification as an ongoing pattern (Van Dijck, Poel and De Waal, 2016). As network effects are related to the infrastructure and interaction, public service broadcasters need to make a choice in the type of content they want to create and build an infrastructure maintaining public values. Most platforms are part of a commercial infrastructure, which stresses the importance of determining goals from a public point of view. By interacting with users on commercial platforms, these platforms could end up as marketing instruments which makes it hard to distinguish public, commercial and private space but also the boundary between consumers and producers (Van Dijck, Poel and De Waal, 2016). To deal with this, it is critical to be as transparent as possible and take responsibility for the way to ensure public interests. The ability to combine and curate information is very important for public service broadcasters in the future. It is therefore essential to gain insight in ‘externalities’ of the implementation of public interests by various parties (WRR, 2012).
2.5 Conclusion
As said in the beginning of this literature review, the complex situation of public service broadcasters in adapting to the digital domain is complex. According to Scientific Council for Government Policy (2015) the most important issue is that policymaking of today is lagging behind new developments and definitely not anticipating the future. There needs to be a change, because the Dutch public service broadcasters lost their dominant position due to the technological developments. Platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and Youtube affect both the social practice and the cultural form of broadcasters in general, while they are also disrupting the conventional production and distribution logistics (Williams, 1974). Despite the fact that the ecosystem of connective media leaves little space for non-profit or public platforms, online participation was considered as key-strategy for public broadcasters in an attempt to regain their position (Enli, 2008). Some argue that the public service broadcasters need to involve and activate citizens, while making sure that the core public values of deliberation, reciprocity as well as free and universal access are realized (Coleman 2004; Lowe and Bardoel 2007; Murdock 2005). The use of data, curation of content and commodification open up for new ideas and
opportunities, but in some cases a lack of strategy hinders exploration and exploitation of the generative capacities of a certain platform because the actors themselves must create the paths for innovation. It is important for public service broadcasters to keep up the role as facilitator and promoter of cross-media content supported by key public values. From public service broadcaster to public media service, from public space to public value and from content production to content selection and distribution (Van Dijck and Poell, 2015), functionalities of platforms can guide as useful tools for creating public value in the digital domain.
Figure 1.1 below is the guideline for further research on how online platform functionalities can be used to create public value. This conceptual framework gives insights in the different functionalities of online platforms and different aspects of these functionalities related to public values as described earlier in this section. The next chapter will examine insights in the research methodology and data collection.
3. DATA AND METHOD
In this section, the research methodology is presented. First of all, the chosen research design is explained. Second, the sample and data collection process is described. Third, the operationalization will be discussed. Fourth, the quality of this research is addressed by discussing to what extent credibility, transferability, dependability and conformability are met and ensured. The last part of this section will describe the data analysis methodology.
3.1 Research design
The availability of literature about public service broadcasters is enormous, as well as literature about their need to innovate. Moreover, the rise of social media platforms gained attention in literature because of all valuable aspects of these platforms. In recent years, authors increasingly examined the negative aspects of these social media platforms as well. All these topics are well covered in literature, but less is written about how the functionalities of these social media platforms could be used for the public domain. Thus, the aim of this research is to gain more insights in how online platform functionalities can be useful for public service broadcasters to create public value for society.
The research design most suited for the objectives of this research, is qualitative research. This is because research on this topic is based on social constructivist perspectives and thus not suited to study with numeric data. According to Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill (2009), qualitative research is interpretive, as researchers need to make sense of the subjective and socially constructed meanings expressed about a phenomenon being studied. The research approach is inductive, because it allows the development of understanding the situation and permits the research to change while it progresses. Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill (2009) argue that by using this inductive approach, a naturalistic and emergent research design is used to develop a richer theoretical perspective than already exists in literature. This is exactly what needs to be done, because researching current literature on public service broadcasters, their need to innovate and literature about social media platforms can contribute to how public service broadcasters can create public value in the digital domain.
Because little is known on this specific topic and little prior research and specific information exists, the nature of this research design is very explorative. The advantage of exploratory research is that it is flexible and adaptable to change (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). The way to conduct this exploratory research is by doing expert interviews. This is because interviews are likely to be relatively unstructured and to rely on the
quality of contributions from those who participate to help guide the subsequent stage of the research (Saunders et al, 2009).
The strategy to meet the objectives of this research is by doing a case study. According to Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007), a case study strategy is relevant if you wish to gain a rich understanding of the context of the research and the processes being enacted. Additionally, Saunders et al (2009) argue that a case study is most often used in exploratory research. Following the strategy doing a case study by conducting expert interviews, the study will be cross-sectional. This means that a specific phenomenon will be studied at a particular time, as interviews are conducted over a short period of time.
3.2 Sample
For this research a non-probability sample is chosen, as the probability of each case or element being selected from total is not known and it is impossible to answer research questions or to address objectives that require you to make statistical inferences about the characteristics of all cases (Saunders et al, 2009). This suits best to the exploratory research, as the specific sample will provide an information-rich case study in which the research question and theoretical insights are explored. The sampling technique most suited for this research is the snowball sampling (Saunders et al, 2009).
The following criteria need to be met, to become part of the sample. Someone is an expert when he/she has knowledge about the innovation and development strategies regarding the digital/online domain for Dutch public service broadcasters. This person may work at a Dutch public service broadcaster or not.
By using snowball sampling, my supervisor Matthijs Leendertse, selected six experts within his network. These experts were contacted by email. Five of these persons responded positively to the request to conduct an interview with them. Besides this, fourteen other experts were emailed or contacted through LinkedIn. Seven of these experts responded positively to the request, but two had no time in short term to do the interview. Thus, the sample existed of 10 experts in total, consisting of 7 men and 3 women.
Within the sample, a distinction can be made between experts on innovation and development strategies regarding the digital/online domain working at a Dutch public service broadcaster (five persons) and experts on innovation and development strategies regarding the digital/online domain not working at a Dutch public service broadcaster (five persons). As a result, practical new insights from the public service broadcasters themselves can be gained, but also the broad view of the sector (and its future) can be obtained through information gathered from the other experts. Though the professional function/work of experts is not a criteria for the
sample, it can give insights in their expertise related to innovation and development strategies in the digital/online domain. The following experts did meet the criteria, can be seen as expert and were part of the sample:
Experts working at a public service broadcaster:
Name of the expert Professional function/work of the expert
Wilko van Iperen Head of digital at BNN-VARA Lara Ankersmit Head of digital at NOS
Sjoerd Pennekamp Senior advisor media policy at NPO
Daan Molenaar Concept developer and project leader of new media with innovation drive at EO Willem van Zeeland Chief editor internet and innovation at NTR
Experts not working at a public service broadcaster:
Name of the expert Professional function/work of the expert
Andra Leurdijk Independent researcher & consultant at forallmedia.nl
Elmer Burke Coordinating policy advisor at Ministry of Education, Culture and Science Karin van Es Coordinating policy advisor at Ministry of Education, Culture and Science
Eric Eljon Advisor/supervisor and commissioner at ‘Commissariaat voor de Media’
Huub Wijfjes Professor at broadcast history - University of Amsterdam and associate professor in journalism - University of Groningen
3.3 Data collection
Primary data are collected by doing semi-structured face-to-face interviews. In semi-structured interviews the researcher will have a list of themes and some key questions to be covered, although their use may vary from interview to interview (Saunders et al 2009). Semi-structured interviews fit best with the purpose and strategy of this research, because these kinds of interviews explore a topic openly and allow interviewees to express their opinions and ideas in their own words (Esterberg, 2002, p. 87). Additionally, semi-structured interviews provide also the opportunity to ‘probe’ answers, where interviewees should explain, or build on their responses.
The supply of information to experts before the interview was minimal. The invitation for an interview contained: ‘An interview about the public service broadcasters of the future’ (in Dutch), to provoke attention and interest. In addition, information provided in the email or Linkedin message, was limited to the explanation of the research question about how public service broadcasters can use online platform functionalities to create public value.
Interviews were conducted in the period of May – June 2017. The interviews had a duration of approximately 45 minutes to one hour. First, permission was asked to record the interview. After this, terms of confidentiality were addressed. Anonymity is ensured in this study, which enhances the feeling of different experts to be able to say anything they like to say without a limitation related to their work role or function.
Interviews took place in Hilversum, Amsterdam and The Hague. In these cities, three interviews were conducted in a café and seven were conducted at the office of the respondent. All of the interviews more or less followed the same interview protocol, as they were semi-structured. The interview consisted of 25 open-ended questions that were prepared by using theory of traditional public service broadcasters and platform functionalities in general. Because of the structure, there was also room for the experts to tell their own story and add interesting aspects during the interview. Specific details will be explained in paragraph 3.4.
The interviews were audio recorded, because this allowed the interviewer to concentrate on questioning and listening, and allowed direct quotes to be used (Easterby-Smith et al, 2008 in Saunders et al, 2009). Specific details regarding the analysis of gathered data will be explained in paragraph 3.5.
3.3 Operationalization
According to Saunders, et al (2009) it is important that questions are in line with the theoretical concept. To ask the right questions during interviews, the conceptual framework as result of the literature review was a leading factor. As an introduction before starting the interview, information about the research question was provided. Additionally, contextual information was provided by explaining the drivers of this research: the functionalities of online platforms and public values.
Open questions were asked about the four main functionalities of platforms: data, curation of content, commodification and network effects. Within these categories questions were asked related to the experts view on the different public values. Moreover, probing questions were used to explore responses that were of significance to the research topic (Saunders et al, 2009. The last question provided the respondent the opportunity to discuss subjects that they thought were not covered in the remaining part of the interview.
Because the semi-structured nature of the interviews, some of the questions changed in order or were changed/added during the period of interviewing.
Operationalization:
Key concept Related concept
Questions
Data Privacy Is it important that public service broadcasters own user data? If yes, why? How are these data gathered?
What is the task of public service broadcasters regarding privacy protection online?
How can public service broadcasters take care of privacy of users in the digital domain?
Transparency/
Visibility
How can public service broadcasters deal with the availability of all these data?
How transparent are public service broadcasters in what they do with user data?
Curation of Content
Independency
Is it important that public service broadcasters are independent in offering content? If yes, why is this so important?
How is content created independently in the online domain?
How independent is the digital content of the public service broadcasters? Pluralism What is the importance of curation of digital content?
How important is the creation of digital content in relation related to the independency of content?
How do public service broadcasters facilitate online pluralism? Personalisation In what way is online content accessible for users?
Do public service broadcasters facilitate personalization online? If yes, how? Diversity How can public service broadcasters deal with the large amount of
distribution channels online?
Which influence does this amount of distribution channels have on online content of public service broadcasters?
How do public service broadcasters guarantee visibility of online content? Commodification Impact Why is it important that public service broadcasters serve different groups
regarding age and religion for instance?
Is it important that public service broadcasters create a public space online? Accessibility How accessible are public service broadcasters in the online domain?
How can public service broadcasters generate this accessibility online? Reliability How important is it that public service broadcasters serve good quality
online?
What is the importance of creating a safe and trustful environment online? Generativity How important is the accessibility for users online?
What can public service broadcasters do with the great extent of accessibility online nowadays?
