THE IMPACT OF CROWDFUNDING ON JOURNALISM:
a case study of Hromadske.tv, a publicly funded Ukrainian internet TV channel
Master’s Thesis
Yulia Bodnar Student ID: 10583661
Supervisor: Sanne Kruikemeier 26.06.2014
Erasmus Mundus Master’s ‘Journalism, Media and Globalisation’ Master's program in Communication Science
Graduate School of Communication
Table of contents - Abstract ………3 - Introduction ………..4 - Theoretical Background ………...…6 - Methods ………...…………14 - Results ……….18
- Conclusion & Discussion ………29
Abstract
This study examines the relationship between journalists and audience that exists in a
crowdfunded medium – the medium that is funded by donations of audiences. This article is based on a case study of crowdfunded Ukrainian Internet TV channel Hromadske.tv. Drawing on data from 16 interviews with Hromadske.tv journalists and donors, this thesis concludes that crowdfunded
journalism requires more interaction with audience from the journalists and therefore increases their feelings of personal and professional responsibility. In turn, viewers are ready to contribute with their comments and recommendations, however, being able to influence the journalistic process, they still prefer professionals to do their job. The audience’s primary motivation to donate is to contribute to the common good. Moreover, there is a difference in expectations of viewers and media workers regarding their interaction, which creates a communication distance between them.
Introduction
During the last decades, new media became increasingly interested in crowdfunding model that provides an alternative revenue source in the time of the decay of traditional business models in journalism (Downie & Schudson, 2009). At the same time, more and more media choose to actively interact with the audience, making them to participate voluntarily in the journalistic process (Toffler, 1980). When asking for financial support, the crowdfunded media also try to communicate more with the audience in order to fulfill expectations of their contributors. Such financial bond together with intense communication, blur a once clear and typical for traditional media line between the
journalistic process and media consumer, creating new ways of interaction between the audience and the journalists. As a result, it becomes crucially important to understand what kind of relationship this new interaction produces, especially compared to the usual connection that exists between journalists and audiences of media. Also, it is necessary to realize what drives people to contribute to
crowdfunded projects, since those motives might imply a stronger connection to the medium, compared to a usual passive relationship that audience has with commercial or state-owned media (Loosen & Schmidt, 2012).
Due to a relative novelty of crowdfunding as a phenomenon, there are only a few studies that shed a light on topic of crowdfunded media. Some researchers have attempted to identify the
crowdfunding initiatives around the world and determine the drivers of their success (Carvajay et al., 2012), while others sought to explain how the type of organization that initiates a crowdfunding project determines its success (Lambert & Schwienbacher, 2010). Also, recent studies were dedicated to the motives that push people to support different initiatives, for example, in enterprise
crowdfunding (Muller et al., 2013) or when donating to growth companies (Vesam et al., 2013). More importantly, the people’s incentives to donate were also examined in a context of crowdfunded media and such important stimuli as the desire to collect rewards, help others and be part of a community
were revealed (Gerber & Hui, 2013). Moreover, some successful crowdfunded projects were used as a basis for academic researches by different scholars. For example, a case of Spot.us was first analyzed from a perspective of the impact that crowdfunding has on relationship between reporters and viewers that donate to the media (Aitamurto, 2011). Later, this case was used to examine the consumers’ choices when they donate to crowdfunded journalism (Jian& Usher, 2013).
All in all, those few articles on crowdfunding mainly deal with crowdfunding initiatives of companies and NGOs, while almost no studies analyze the media that base their work on the audience’s donations. To say more, little attention was given to the relationship between media workers and audience, despite the fact that it is noticeably different in a crowdfunded medium. As a result, there is a considerable gap in academic literature that needs to be filled, considering how popular and successful the crowdfunding strategy proved to be during the last couple of years (Gerber & Hui, 2013).
By using a case study (i.e., Hromadske.tv) this thesis investigates the relationship between a crowdfunded medium, journalists and donors. Based on interviews with 16 Hromadske.tv reporters and donors, it studies the motivations of viewers to donate, the perception of the audience by the reporters and the peculiarities of interaction between journalists and audience. In addition, this paper explores what audience and journalists expect from this new type of communication. The central question of this thesis is “What is the relationship between journalists and audience in a crowdfunded medium?”. The sub-research questions introduced later in the thesis help to narrow the broad
spectrum of the research.
This study has a potential to bring value into a given research area mainly because the topic of crowdfunded media and its influence on interaction between journalists and audience is greatly unexplored. Moreover, the medium this thesis analyzes (Hromadske.tv) is rather unique, due to the circumstances in which it was founded (social uprising in Ukraine) and the peculiarities of its
not been examined by other researches yet. However, this project is considered unique for the world journalism (for its novel format), and crucially important for Ukraine, as for the country that usually ranks low on press freedom indexes (127th out of 180 countries in 2014; Reporters without borders, 2014).
The paper starts with introduction of theoretical framework and central concepts, which includes an overview of previous studies on crowdfunding and related topics. Then, the methodological section is presented and the research strategy is described. The results of the thesis are reported in two parts that present crowdfunding from the perspectives of journalists and donors that support the medium. At the end, the discussion part analyses the results of the study in relation to the research questions, hypotheses and previous theory. It also acknowledges the study’s limitations and its contribution to the given research field.
Theoretical Background Audience as empowered networks
Before the proliferation of digital media, the relation between journalism and its audience remained in the classical communicator-recipient frames, maintaining the distinction between the production and reception of news (Loosen & Schmidt, 2012). Today, the variety of media channels and portability of new telecommunications technologies caused an increasing merging of journalism production and consumption – a phenomenon that became known as convergence culture (Jenkins, 2004). Convergence changes the connection between existing technologies, markets, genres and audiences and it happens on both top-down corporate-driven and bottom-up consumer-driven levels (Jenkins, 2004). While media companies try to broaden markets and reinforce viewer commitments, consumers are fighting for the right to participate more and “to bring the flow of media more fully under their control” (Jenkins 2004, p. 37). That is how ‘people formerly known as the audience’ (Rosen, 2006) became ‘prosumers’ (Toffler, 1980) - from a combination of words ‘producer’ and
‘consumer’ - people who both participate in the creation of journalism and consume information produced by the media.
Such aspirations result in a development of new participatory culture – an important component of convergence theory – which is taking shape at the intersection between three trends. First of all, new technologies enable consumers to archive and modify media content; secondly, there is an intense flow of images, ideas, and narratives across multiple media channels that require more active models of spectatorship; and thirdly, a range of subcultures promote Do-It-Yourself (DIY) media production (Jenkins, 2004). All of these trends has lowered the entry barriers for audience’s participation and resulted in the phenomenon of citizen journalism or participatory journalism (Bakker & De Vreese, 2013). By collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news, the audience is aiming to provide independent, reliable and accurate information that is a valuable indicator of democracy (Bowman & Willis, 2003). As a consequence, the lines blurred between the audience and the author, between fact and fiction, and that has led to the decline of the quality and reliability of the information we receive (Keen, 2007).
On the contrary, rather than replacing professional journalism with citizen journalists, “crowdfunded journalism gives users the role of producers without endangering content quality” (Carvajal et al., 2012, p. 645). Crowdfunding can be considered to be part of the broader concept of crowdsourcing – a phenomenon that was first described in an article published in Wired Magazine by Jeff Howe and Mark Robinson (Howe, 2006). Being one of the basic categories of crowdsourcing applications, crowdfunding may be described as “the process related to funding projects or companies using the network in order to make an open call and receive funds from the crowd” (Carvajal et al., 2012, p. 641). Belleflamme, Lambert and Schwienbacher (2011) add that the provision of financial resources is conducted by the donors “either in form of donation or in exchange for some form of reward and/or voting rights” (p. 7). Studies on crowdfunding in the area of economics and
entrepreneurship revealed that crowdfunding can be used by creators “to disseminate product
information, increase consumer awareness, and estimate consumer willingness to pay” (Belleflamme et al., 2010, p. 26).
By contributing to the project financially the viewer automatically becomes a part of it, while the journalists and editors remain those who determine the quality of media product. At the same time, some crowdfunded media allow its audience to get involved in journalistic process, like Spot.Us platform, whose community members can donate to the pitches they like and consider important (Spot.Us). Another example of crowdfunded media - Ricochet website - promises its contributors an “access to the biggest editorial room in the country” and ability to influence the coverage offered by the website (IndieGoGo, 2014). Therefore, while allowing its audience to enjoy the elements of participatory journalism, crowdfunded media maintain control over the editorial policy.
New relationship between audience and journalists
Despite availability of new communication channels that facilitate interaction with audience, today, traditional media are often criticized for their ‘in-group orientation’ (Donsbach 2008, p. 68). By prioritizing the viewpoint of other journalists and the stance of mainstream media (Loosen & Schmidt 2012), journalism “has established a position for itself in contemporary society that seems almost completely out of touch with the lived reality of its constituencies” (Deuze 2008, p. 857). Nevertheless, the dialogue between journalists and audience is still happening, as media need to produce content that will be noticed. This inevitable connection is reflected in the concept of inter-transactions (interaction between communicator and recipient), that is a part of dynamic-transactional approach of media effects developed by Fruh and Schonbach (as cited in Loosen & Schmidt, 2012). Accordingly, inter-transactions refer the reflexive relationship of more or less stable expectations and images both sides - journalists and audience - have of each other as well as to practices and patterns for producing and receiving news (Loosen & Schmidt, 2012). This defines the communication distance between journalists and audiences that expresses “the congruence or incongruence of the
audience’s communication expectations with the journalists’ communication expectations, including expectations about the audience’s expectations” (Weischenberg et al., cited in Loosen & Schmidt 2012, p. 870).
In crowdfunded media these expectations might be moderated by the financial bond between audience and journalists. As it was recently proved by other studies, crowdfunded journalistic process requires both journalists and viewers to renegotiate their roles and self-identities (Aitamurto, 2011). New journalist’s role includes ownership of the whole story process starting from the selling of the pitch, while viewers not only enjoy the role of consumers, but also practice the roles of investors and producers. These new roles and the way audience and reporters see each other inevitably alters their expectations regarding their interaction.
Thus, based on the literature mentioned above this study proposes the following sub-research questions:
- RQ1a: What do the journalists expect from the audience that funds them?
- RQ1b: What do the donors expect from the journalist when donating, compared to their expectations towards the traditional media?
- RQ1c: Is there a difference between journalists’ expectations and expectations of the audience that funds them, or are there more similarities between those expectations?
The existing literature assumes there is a gap between the expectations of the reporters concerning the audience’s participation and the reality of existing interaction with the viewers. According to the results of Aitamurto’s (2011) research, journalists hope to receive contributions in the form of leads and tips, however their audience is not particularly interested in submitting the feedback. On the contrary, for readers the mere act of participating in crowdfunding seems to be more important than the actual journalistic product. In other words, the viewers perceive the journalists as professionals or experts, therefore “they want the reporter to do the work and report the story for them” (Aitamurto, 2011, p. 441). Taking into consideration these observations, this study presents its
first hypothesis:
- H1: The journalists and audience have different expectations regarding their interaction.
Unlike traditional media, crowdfunding projects allow its audiences to participate in the production of news and quality journalism in a much broader sense (Carvajal et al., 2012).
Crowdfunding blurs the classic gap between the roles of customers and of investors: “some investors are customers and some customers are investors” (Belleflamme et al., 2011, p. 10). These changes provoke significant internal conflict between journalists and readers, as reporters have different feeling towards their viewers: when ‘traditionalists’ want to maintain a hierarchal relationship
between viewers and reporters, the ‘convergers’ feel users should be given more freedoms and a right to influence the journalistic process (Robinson, 2010).
These theoretical conclusions lead to the second sub-research question: - RQ2: How do journalists feel towards the audience that funds them?
Recent evidence suggests that by perceiving donors as investors that cannot be let down, journalists have rather strong connection with their audience, which creates a new sense of responsibility, that goes far beyond “professional responsibility" (Aitamurto, 2011, p. 434).
Based on such statement, this study proposes the following hypothesis:
- H2: Crowdfunding builds a connection from the journalist to the donor, which creates a strong sense of responsibility to the journalists.
Motivations for crowdfunding
In order to “improve the user experience and to better recruit and sustain participation” in the crowdfunded media, it is important to identify the users’ motivations to donate to the media (Kraut & Resnick, cited in Gerber & Hui, 2013, p. 34:3). But more importantly, the motivation to donate might also explain the nature of relationship between crowdfunded media and their audiences.
and motivated by needs that are defined by audience members themselves (Levy & Windahl, 1985). In simple words, people have inborn needs that can be satisfied by media and that is precisely what drives selection of certain types of media (Rubin, 2009). Numerous attempts have been made to identify and categorize gratifications that drive people to prioritize one type of media over another. Sundar and Limperos (2013) made a typology of gratifications obtained from media, based on twenty U&G studies that contained various gratification typologies from 1940 till 2011 (Sundar & Limperos, 2013). Representing a unique media format, Hromadske.tv combines in itself the elements of TV channel and social networks. Accordingly, user expect from TV channel such gratifications as escape, learning, information, arousal, relaxation, pass time, companionship, social interaction, entertainment and habit. Social network proposes its users such gratifications as social connection, escape, creating content, entertainment, gathering and sharing information and sharing identity (Sundar & Limperos, 2013).
Despite of the fair novelty of the topic, the existing literature on crowdfunding helps to
differentiate some of the incentives for the viewers’ donations. Gerber and Hui (2013) conclude that apart from the donors’ desire to collect external reward (an acknowledgement, a tangible artifact or an experience), there are less materialistic factors that drive media consumer to donate, such as a wish to feel part of a community of like-minded people. Also, the donors are sometimes motivated by a strong desire to help creators with whom they have a personal contact or by the desire to “support efforts that are consistent with their identity or the identity to which they aspire” (Gerber & Hui 2013, p. 34:16). Often supporters of online platforms express the desire to expand their network with other supporters and also participate in “exciting adventure of building a startup” (Lambert and
Schwienbacher, 2010). Moreover, “end-users feel empowered and encouraged to participate in the production and distribution of journalism”, therefore they become co-creators by donating to the media (Aitamurto 2011, p. 441).
In general, many of the existing studies conclude that the financial return seems to be of
secondary concern for donors (Belleflamme et al., 2011). The reasons for contributing to a pitch “are more altruistic than instrumental in nature: rather than getting a good story to read, the donor donates for a common societal goal which is a democratically healthy society” (Aitamurto, 2011, p. 441). Such motivations overlap with a concept of online philanthropic behavior – a “giving of financial and social capital to promote human welfare” (Gerber, Hui, 2013, p. 34:5). Researchers find that
supporters are motivated to give because of feelings of sympathy and empathy toward the cause (Rick et al., 2007), hopes of strengthening their social identity (Aaker & Akutsu, 2009) and social status (Glazer & Konrad, 1996).
Based on the literature scrutinized above, this study addresses one more sub-research question:
- RQ3: What motivates viewers to donate money to the media?
As previous researches have reported, the main motivation for donating to the crowdfunded media is to contribute to the common good and social change (Aitamurto, 2011, Gerber & Hui, 2013). Donors see the journalistic materials “as a potential route to making a change for the better in their society” and contribute to resolving of social problems (Aitamurto, 2011, p. 440). The
aforementioned assertion serves as a base for a third hypothesis in this study:
- H3: The primary motivation for donating is to contribute to the common good.
The case under study: The Hromadske.tv model
Hromadske.tv is a non-profit crowdfunded Ukrainian Internet TV channel, created in November 2013. The project started as a collaboration of famous independent Ukrainian journalists that decided to create an alternative source of objective and unbiased information that would oppose Ukrainian mainstream media, controlled by the oligarchs and the government (Dresen, 2014). Its first broadcast coincided with a massive uprising in Ukraine that began as a protest against a then-President Victor Yanukovych’s decision to abandon an association agreement with EU that was intended for forging
closer economic and political ties between Ukraine and European Union. With the protest growing larger, Hromadske.tv became one of the most reliable 24/7 livefeed of the political unrest in Ukraine, reaching up to 130,000 viewers simultaneously and 20 million of unique clicks on YouTube
(Nouraout, 2014).
What attracted an audience’s interest towards Hromadske.tv was its particular approach to news presenting that rather diverged from that in the mainstream media. The channel was always
broadcasting live, with the newsroom working 24/7 during the most intense events of Euromaidan (the name for the social uprising in Ukraine). While applying traditional ways of delivering information to the audience (e.g. video reports and interviews with guests in the studio),
Hromadske.tv journalists were also using Facebook, Skype and cellphone connection to communicate with experts, politicians and viewers on-air. Using their tablets and smartphones, the journalists were live-streaming the most important events that were analyzed and discussed live in the studio.
Moreover, there was no strict task division in the team: one person could work as an editor, a reporter and a presenter in one day, changing the journalistic roles in front of the audience.
In the absence of public broadcaster in Ukraine, Hromadske.tv positions itself as the first Ukrainian public broadcasting channel and this ambition is reflected in the medium’s name
(‘hromadske’ means ’public’ in Ukrainian). As a consequence, its funding was decided to be based mainly on viewers’ donations (75%), alongside the international donations that composed a quarter of the media’s budget in the first year of its existence. The project launched a crowdfunding campaign via Spilnokosht (a platform for crowdfunded projects) and raised 1,243,381 UAH (about 77,198 EUR) in a period of December 2013 – April 2014 (Spilnokosht, 2014). Depending on the donation sum, the viewers were offered a remuneration, which varied from a greeting e-card to a dinner with journalists. Additionally, as a part of its crowdfunding campaign, Hromadske.tv organized a painting auction where artworks of famous Ukrainian artists were sold in order to support the channel. After the term of a campaign has passed, Hromadske.tv continued raising funds through its website.
Methods Study Design
This case study is based on the analysis of the qualitative data that was collected during the semi-structured interviews with Hromadske.tv reporters and donors. A given research is intended to examine the results of T. Aitamurto’s (2011) case study of American open source project Spot.Us, using the case of another crowdfunded media project – Ukrainian crowdfunded Internet TV channel Hromadske.tv. By doing this, it will be possible to test whether the relationship between journalists and audience of Hromadske.tv channel are consistent with that described in Aitamurto’s study. Undoubtedly, two crowdfunded media differ in the way they interact with their audiences and motivate them to donate. On Spot.Us users are able to financially support the story that they want to see published, while Hromadske.tv asks its viewers to donate to enable production of the whole TV channel. Despite these differences, the core natures of two projects coincide, as for both of them the donors’ contributions are crucially necessary for the medium’s existence. Thus, the hypotheses introduced above originate from the conclusions of Spot.us case study (Aitamurto, 2011), the generalizability of which this thesis will try to test. By taking Aitamurto’s observations as a theoretical base, this paper will however not attempt to compare two different crowdfunded media cases. Rather, it will use the existing research as a starting point of producing new results and describing a particular and unique case of Hromadske.tv.
Participants
Journalists. Eight Hromadske.tv reporters and eight donors of the media were interviewed for the research in a timeframe of April-May 2014. All the interviews with journalists were conducted face-to-face in Kiev, Ukraine where Hromadske.tv office is located. The age of journalists ranged from 25 to 40 years.
areas of journalism: from online media to radio, from press to broadcasting. Additionally, all reporters used to specialize in different fields of journalism, ranging from political reporting to investigation journalism. All interviewees had an academic degree in journalism or other formal journalistic
education. The respondents were selected based on their role in the project and the tasks they perform in Hromadske.tv team: news reporting, editing, hosting or investigative reporting. Such variety of journalistic functions guarantees diversification of perspectives and experiences in interacting with audience. As a result, interviews were conducted with those aforementioned Hromadske.tv employees that worked in the office from April 9 to April 15. Some interviews were arranged on the phone in advance, while the rest of them was conducted without a prior appointment at Hromadske.tv office.
Donors. The Hromadkse.TV donors represented different geographical areas of Ukraine, as well as different professional backgrounds (from students to entrepreneurs). The age of donors varied from 22 to 35 years. Their education level though was comparatively of the same level, as all interviewees obtained university degree. The donors were chosen for the interview using snowball sampling or a non-probability sample. Thus, after a contact with first interviewees was established via social media, the researcher asked the interviewees for recommendations in order to get in touch with other donors (Bryman, 2012). Seven donors were interviewed via Skype, since they all lived in different Ukrainian cities, which made it impossible to meet them in person. Only one donor – a resident of Amsterdam of Ukrainian origin – was interviewed face to face. All in all, conducting interviews via Skype helped to maintain a geographical diversity of respondents. It also made it possible to observe interviewees’ body language via web camera, while making them feeling less stressed about their answers, as the interviewer was not physically present (Bryman, 2012).
Procedure
Interviews were semi-structured, meaning that although the researcher used an interview guide with a list of relatively specific questions, the interviewees could be rather flexible in their replies
(Bryman, 2012). The questions were open-ended, allowing respondents to provide longer and more complex answers. All conversations were recorded and all interviewees informed about the recording procedure. Interestingly enough, some of the most intriguing answers came after the end of a formal talk. Because of this, interviewees were asked whether they don’t mind their post-interview notes to be included in the transcript.
The average length of an interview with Hromadske.tv journalists constitutes 25 minutes. The longest interview lasted for one hour, while the shortest one continued for approximately 15 minutes. Such difference in timing can be explained by the fact that all interviews were conducted in
Hromadske.tv office during the working hours. As a result, the length of a conversation depended on a particular work schedule of each journalist, many of whom were rather occupied during the
interview days. While half of the interviewees agreed to talk to the researcher in their spare time (during the lunch break, before or after their shifts), the other half used time between different journalistic assignments. This, however, did not affect the quality of a discussion, since, for the sake of their comfort, all journalists were asked to appoint the time of an interview according to their preferences. It also should be noted that, due to the peculiarities of their profession, most of the journalists were able to articulate their thoughts in exceptionally concise and explicit manner, which resulted in a short timing of some interviews. On the contrary, the longest interviews included reflections of some journalists on the current situation in Ukraine, which was irrelevant for the study but nevertheless important for the flow of a conversation.
The average length of an interview with Hromadske.tv donors is 20 minutes. Most of the interviews do not significantly differ in time, as they were conducted via Skype outside the interviewees’ working hours.
Data Analysis
that was adjusted to the peculiarities of this research. This framework consists of the following four central themes:
1. Interaction. An analysis of interaction between Hromadske.tv journalists and viewers. The impact of crowdfunding on the journalistic process and product.
2. Expectations. The expectations of donors towards Hromadske.tv journalists. The
expectations of Hromadske.tv journalists towards the participation and engagement of the audience in their project.
3. Responsibility. The impact of the crowdfunded journalistic process on the way journalists feel towards their audience.
4. Motivation. The viewers’ motivations to donate to Hromadske.tv.
The principal framework used in the research of T. Aitamurto included categories “Identity” and “Transparency”, which in this study were replaced with “Expectations” and “Responsibility” themes. Such framework adjustment can be explained by the differences in crowdfunding models of two media and by the focus of the given research, that, for example, does not include the “Identity” dimension.
The framework of key topics is intended to facilitate answering the research questions and rejecting or proving the hypotheses. Thus, the “Interaction” theme will outline the ways of communication between journalists and audience and therefore provide the base for all research questions and hypotheses. The “Expectations” theme is connected to RQ1a, RQ1b, RQ1c and H1, the “Responsibility” corresponds to RQ2 and H2, while “Motivation” correlates with RQ3 and H3.
After the data was pre-analyzed with a framework of four key topics, the interviews were reviewed using inductive coding strategy. Through open coding, the raw material (transcribed interviews) was analyzed and the necessary notes and headings were made in the text. Then, the second reading of the interviews was made, after what the notes and comments were converted into a
coding sheet. Later, the data was grouped into separate categories, the number of which was at the end reduced by combining similar headings into broader categories. The results of the research were put together based on the formulated categories from the coding list.
Results Interaction: “100% Involvement of the Audience”
For all journalists of Hromadske.tv an active interaction with their audience is as usual part of their daily work as news reporting. From the very beginning of the medium’s existence, the journalists decided to use social media as the easiest way of maintaining connection with the
audience, so they announced their viewers can contact them via multiple channels: Facebook, Skype, e-mail, phone and by commenting under the YouTube stream.
Unsurprisingly, Facebook became one of the main communication tools for the journalists, who receive an immense amount of online messages daily. The content of the messages varied from
complimentary remarks to the questions that viewers wanted to address to the guests in the studio. For many journalists Facebook become an alternative source of information along with traditional news websites:
“During the most intense protest days, my colleague was reading literally everything people were sending him on Facebook, even when he did not know who those people were. Sometimes he was even going too far and I, as an editor, had to argue with him. But that was his decision to have 100% involvement of the audience on air.” (Journalist and editor, 28 years old)
Of no less importance were Skype chats with audience – a practice that was implemented by Hromadske.tv in order to engage people into discussions on-air. The editors randomly chose viewers that were given a chance to ask a question to whoever was in the studio – activists, experts or
“The citizens called the studio from different cities of Ukraine or even from different continents. The questions they were asking the politicians from the former government… I don’t know if such direct questions could have been asked at any other TV channel in Ukraine.” (Reporter, 36 years old)
Skype calls from the audience went beyond simple viewer-to-guest interaction – sometimes the journalists themselves were eager to chat or even argue with their audience:
“There is en epic YouTube video of me talking to a man from Sevastopol. He was complaining that Euromaidan protests were paid by the government and so on. For about 15 minutes I was trying to explain him what was actually happening in Kiev. This video was reposted multiple times and there were plenty of such cases.” (Reporter, 37 years old)
Pursuing a goal “to talk about people in their own language” (editor-in-chief, 32 years old), Hromadske.tv introduced another communication practice – inviting ordinary people to their studio. The reporters agreed that in times of the most extreme protest, Hromadske.tv transformed itself into the open studio where demonstrators and activists could share their stories and experiences about the revolution. Often, people with interesting stories contacted journalists and, after being invited to the studio, travelled to Kiev from distant parts of Ukraine. Apart from communication on social media and in Hromadske.tv studio, journalists experience face-to-face interaction with viewers on the streets of Kiev and other big Ukrainian cities, especially when reporting from there. It is impossible not to collect the audience’s feedback, said the journalists, when many times they are approached by people that want to either express their gratitude or to simple chat with reporters. It turned out to be
considerably difficult for journalists to moderate communication with the audience on the streets while reporting, compared to more predictable and controlled communication in studio. The former requires more concentration, patience and attention, while in the studio the journalists can more or less avoid the tension and stress.
According to reporters, with the diversity of communication channels and the number of viewers willing to express their opinion to Hromadske.tv, the medium would need at least 10 more employees
to operate such powerful flow of information. That, along with the high number of spam-bots, was the reason why the comment function under the YouTube stream of the channel was decided to be
limited.
While admitting that such intense interaction can sometimes cause complications, the reporters also acknowledge the countless benefits of it. First of all, the audience can be a reliable source of firsthand information. People post some information on Facebook or write directly to the journalists who then contact them back quickly and check the reliability of the source. As reporters explain, such information exchange is determined by the format of Hromadkse.tv channel:
“When I work as a host, I sometimes addres our viewers with some requests. For example, we have a photo of an attacker, help us to find him. And it happened many times that in half an hour our viewers found information that we had no time to look for.” (Journalist and editor, 28 years old)
Secondly, viewer’s remarks, observations or life stories serve as a guidance for journalists when they prepare to interview the guests in the studio. The hosts usually announce the speakers of the day in advance, so viewers can send their questions either before or during the interview:
“During the air I always have my Facebook page open. For example, I had a guest in the studio – a Ukrainian minister of health. The viewers wrote me on Facebook “ask him about the illegal income that hospitals receive from agreements with certain pharmacies and companies”. It is normal that I may not notice something and that some viewers may be more professional in certain topics than me.” (Journalist and web-editor, 25 years old)
Before Hromadske.tv disabled the comment function under the YouTube stream of the channel, the viewers pointed at some technical defects of the stream (no signal, no sound, bad video quality) which helped the channel to improve its practical side of the production. More comments were sent to the journalists regarding the news they reported: the viewers asked to confirm certain information or provide more details about it. In general, constructive criticism from the audience is perceived rather positively by the journalist, given the fact they usually acknowledge those remarks on-air.
All interviewed journalists worked for different print or audio/visual media in the past, therefore many of them admitted that on Hromadske.tv they feel a stronger contact with an audience compared to any other traditional media:
“I have worked in press and on TV, but I have never felt such full contact with an audience.” (Investigative reporter, 27 years old)
The viewers’ preferences remain prioritized when it comes to the selection of topics and people for the interviews. If traditional media can banish a certain theme because it does not align with their editorial policy, Hromadske.tv will focus on the topic, if it is important for the audience. As one of the interviewed editors said, this is what makes the relationship with the audience honest and not faked.
“Obviously, when Ukrainian journalists work on the TV channel that has one investor, they have this self-censorship that automatically switches on in their heads. You would not produce
investigative reports on Kuchma (former Ukrainian president) on TV channels that belong to Pinchuk (his son-in-law). Nothing like this would happen on Hromadske.tv. It is hard to imagine someone would ban talking about certain person on this channel.” (Reporter, 36 years old)
Absence of censorship and a will to hear the voice of the audience constitutes the main difference between Hromadske.tv and traditional media. The reporters emphasized that the approach to news presenting and communication with viewers is actually “journalism as it should be”, the events as they are:
“Traditional media care a lot about timing, they have advertisements and they will take into account the audience’s opinion the least. I am not thinking that I have to stop the discussion for the sake of commercial. We have no commercials.” (Founder and editor-in-chief, 41 years old)
Nevertheless, with all this dynamic interaction the viewers are not able to influence the editorial policy and journalistic decisions. Their donations serve as a reminder that people care about the product Hromadkse.tv makes, but having numerous investors enables the journalists to determine the editorial policy without interference of any other decision makers.
In a nutshell, this short overview of interaction between journalists and audience of Hromadske.tv provides us with a base for further discussion and answering the sub-research questions.
Crowdfunding from the Journalists’ Perspective Expectations: “I Do Need this Connection”
The research question RQ1a is intended to reveal what the journalists of a crowdfunded project expect from the audience that funds them. According to interviewees, regardless of how
time-consuming the constant interaction with the viewers might be, this is precisely how such relationship should develop. Apart from financial support (which was described as crucially important by all journalists), Hromadske.tv reporters expect their audience to watch the channel, share their comments regarding the quality of the journalistic product and guide the journalists towards the topics people consider significant. While some of the journalists assured they do not ask for compliments and flattering remarks, many others admitted that the words of support from the viewers have rather inspiring effect. For most of the reporters the financial bond turned out to be a prerequisite for a strong, productive and thus necessary connection with the audience:
“I do need this connection, so the viewers could control their money. This is a normal process.” (Investigative reporter, 27 years old)
Indeed, a need for the audience’s support becomes a decisive factor for the media’s existence in Ukraine. With media workers facing serious threats to their safety (Knezevic, 2014) and media holdings being purchased by pro-government oligarhs (Miller, 2014), the independent channels seek for public’s support and Hromadske.tv is not an exception:
“The only power we have now is public opinion. This is the only power that can put pressure on politicians. The only thing we need from our audience is to support us, when we will have problems. No single media can capitalize itself in the audience, because everyone capitalize themselves in money or ratings. We can say: well, it's not about the money and we do not need ratings. We need an
audience. We know that people who support us is the most active audience. And I know that if something happens to us, we will have their support.” (Editor-in-chief, 32 years old)
Furthermore, some interviewees mentioned they expect their audience to understand that journalists cannot be guided by the will of people only, as they also need to meet professional stadards. The viewers might want to see sensational and spectacular things, however journalists should do what they think is the right thing to do, no matter who finances them: the state, the businessmen or the public. For instance, the journalist that specializes in foreign affairs reporting mentioned that when the viewers send her some information on Facebook, most of the times she does not use it, since her professional experience tells her that info is not reliable and relevant enough. In the same vein, talking about people who “did not donate a penny and start annoying us” with unnecessary comments, the journalists come back to the statement that the audience does not understand the peculiarities of relationship between journalists and audience in a crowdfunded project:
“Not all people understand that they don’t give us money so we would say what they like and invite the people they want to see. People should trust us and think of us as of profesional journalists that do what is needed. Otherwise, that would look like a form of collective cencorship.” (Host and web-editor, 25 years old)
Responsibility : the “Unreal Challenge”
Indisputably, the increased journalist-audience interaction affects the way media workers perceive their viewers, especially in a crowdfunded project. The research question RQ2 aims to discover how journalists feel towards the audience that funds them. All interviewed reporters had rather dissimilar feelings towards the audience: while most of the journalists admitted they perceive their donors as investors who “own the project and hire us as managers” (reporter, 27 years old), some of them had quite different opinion:
“It is like a relationship between good acquantainces. When people give advice to each other, criticize each other. And if the audience is more or less adequate, that criticism is appropriate indeed.” (Journalist and editor, 28 years old)
What all interviewees agreed upon was the escalated feeling of responsibility, caused by the crowdfunded nature of the project. First and foremost, donations intensify a feeling of personal responsibility, especially when the viewers address the journalists directly via Facebook or e-mail:
“For me responding to the audience is an evidence that we really respect those who pay us. I don’t know whether a person who wrote me on Facebook donated to Hromadske.tv or not, but I feel a responsibility to present his or her point of view. I have a feeling that I need to reply to every message I receive.” (Investigative reporter, 27 years old)
This draws one more distinction between Hromadske.tv and traditional TV channels where journalists are not obliged to respond to their viewers and therefore do not bear immense personal responsibility. One of the Hromadske.tv journalist called such approach ‘socially irresponsible’.
“In the past viewers were sending letters to the editors and journalist but media workers were not obliged to respond. If you work for commercial media you can always leave the task of replying to your viewers to an editor or another responsible person. In Hromadske.tv’s case you cannot delegate this responsibility to your colleagues. Of course, you can ignore the audience’s messages but they will understand it as a display of your disrespect. I have never seen such personal connection before in any of the world’s media.” (Journalist, 28 years old)
A strong financial bond however implies a strong pressure from the audience. Journalists used such phrases as ‘unreal challenge’, ‘colossal strain’, ‘unbelievably difficult’ and ‘enormous
responsibility’ to describe working in conditions when every viewer has a right to demand a certain quality and productivity from the journalists. With increased workload came anxiety: journalists reported being more concerned about their mistakes and failures, when realizing they are being paid by their audience.
At the same time, being responsible to the viewers does not necessarily mean satisfying all their demands. As the editor-in-chief of Hromadske.tv put it, the responsibility to the audience is embedded in the product they make, however, the greater responsibility is the one to the quality of the
journalistic product Hromadske.tv has offered. In other words, it is necessary to take into
consideration what the audience wants, and yet the journalists must do what they think is right and try to meet certain professional standards:
“They audience will be happy if you punch any politician in the face. They are like kids. The audience needs to be educated.” (Editor-in-chief, 32 years old)
Crowdfunding from the Donors’ Perspective Motivation: “I Liked those Guys”
The research question RQ3 attempts to discover the motives that drive audience to donate to a crowdfunded medium. As Hromadske.tv donors reported, they were motivated to donate to a project because of a need of professional media that would present unbiased coverage of Euromaidan demonstrations, since at that time many of the mainstream media - both privately and state-owned - were reporting on protests in rather distorted and partial manner. In a similar vein, for donors living outside Ukraine it was equally important to have Hromadske.tv as a principal source of information about the events back home:
“In Holland I couldn’t find an adequate news source and I was really interested in the events on Euromaidan. They (Hromadske.tv) became news for me. They became all that was happening on Euromaidan. I watched them everyday, constantly, even on work.” (Donor, 29 years old)
Most of the donors admitted that the financial support of the project meant an acknowledgement of Hromadske.tv’s contribution to the revolution as well as an audience’s concern about its future existence. Some of the donors realized that without citizens’ support “the only independent and trustworthy source of Euromaidan news” might completely disappear. Thus, some of the interviewees
admitted that their motives were purely altruistic, as by donating to Hromadske.tv they sought to support the uprising in Ukraine:
“I realized that Maidan could fail without a single information resource. At that moment there was no better way to spend those money. Because nothing else had more sense than that. In terms of investing in the future of everyone you know - yourself, your loved ones, your children - it was a huge non-materialistic investment.” (Donor, 26 years old)
Many of the donors acknowledged their support of Hromadske.tv was based on the sympathy and respect towards the journalists in the project, inasmuch as their personalities and professional
reputation inspired confidence and trust of the donors. Most of the Hromadske.tv reporters enjoy large popularity among Ukrainian media consumers, and for some donors this fact was crucial when
making a decision to support the channel:
“The ‘brands of the journalist’ did matter. They had my trust. I was following this project from the very beginning. However, if Hromadske.tv was made by other journalists, I would anyway check their bios, and look at their professional reputation and previous journalistic experience.” (Donor, 26 years old)
“I knew that their team consists of good people, that would provide quality information and make interesting projects. Also, I really like the format of the project and I think such things should be paid for.” (Donor, 22 years old)
Indeed, almost all interviewees mentioned the exceptional media format of the channel and interesting journalistic practices the medium was implementing. Unlike other mainstream channels, Hromadske.tv was praised for maintaining a constant communication with the viewers and using all possible tools and technologies to interact with them. Some donors called the channel’s approach to news presenting ‘progressive’, ‘fresh’ and ‘inspiring to take part in’ and this, in their words, gave them a reason to hope other media would follow the same path.
“Compared to all other channels, they produce the news that are not directed by a certain scenario. They have no scenario at all. I have never seen such format of journalism before and that’s why I donated to them.” (Donor, 29 years old)
In a nutshell, all interviewees named at least several motives for donations, however an incentive that was named by all donors without exception was a willingness to contribute to the project, that brings benefit to Ukrainain society.
Expectations: “I Don’t Think I Have a Right to Intervene”
In order to provide an answer to research question RQ1b, the expectations of donors to the
journalist should be analyzed. What is interesting, during the interviews almost all donors took time to think about their expectations towards Hromadske.tv, as none of the interviewees gave an immediate answer to this question. The most common expectation expressed by the donors was to have the same free and easy access to the channel’s content, since many of them called Hromadske.tv one of their major daily information sources.
Moreover, many donors concluded they definitely expect Hromadske.tv to produce the content of the same high quality and objectivity, since this is the main reason they watch the channel. Besides, some of the donors practiced information exchange with the journalists in the past by sending them information from other Ukrainian cities via Facebook. Therefore, according to the donors, they want to be sure the journalists or editors will take into account their contribution and “at least react to it”, even if it might not be published in the end.
“I know that if I have some important news, Hromadske.tv will most likely use it. I want to be sure that exclusive information will be in the right hands, therefore I would send it to Hromadkse.tv.” (Donor, 26 years old)
However, the ability to express the viewers’ opinion or criticism to the medium was not listed among the major donors’ expectation. On the contrary, some interviewees concluded they expect almost nothing from the journalist, as they already have a strong foundation of trust to them and
simply want Hromadske.tv to be around and do its job. The mere fact of existence of such
communication channels as Facebook, Skype and e-mail is enough for the audience to feel satisfied, however it does not imply those channels will be often used by the viewers. In addition, as some donors said, they do not feel they have a right to dictate the journalists how they should work, as they do not posses the same level of educational and professional journalistic experience:
“Good journalism implies neutrality and impartiality. I understand these basic principles and don’t think I have a right to intervene into their job which, in my opinion, they are doing very good. I am not a professional journalist and I do not have a competence to advice them something. I trust them absolutely.” (Donor, 26 years old)
In the same vein, other donors justified their unwillingness to actively interact with Hromadske.tv with having no habit of communication via social networks. Thus, having no innate need to share and comment the journalistic product, these donors prefer to maintain their role as observers and go no further in communication with Hromadske.tv:
“I am not a person who would get into a dispute on social media or share information online. I am more like an observer. I have worked on TV myself and I know how it feels to screw up. So I wouldn’t want someone to call me with complaints. I am just a person who wouldn’t do that.” (Donor, 29 years old)
Importantly enough, some donors expressed their concerns about the format of the channel, which for them seems to be too attached to the revolution events and hence not adjusted to peaceful time. The viewers thus expect the medium to change its orientation and make its content more diverse and suitable for a broader audience.
“I watched Hromadkse.tv daily only during the evolution time. Now, when the situation is more or less peaceful, I don’t have a need to go on their website so often. I guess if they don’t change the format, they will transform into a ‘revolution medium’ with a limited audience.” (Donor, 35 years old)
To sum it up, the given analysis of donors’ expectations and the examination of journalists’ expectations scrutinized earlier in research, help us to answer research question RQ1c that aims to find out whether there is a difference between journalists’ expectations and expectations of the
audience that funds them. The answer to this question, together with analysis of H1, will be presented in the conclusion part.
Conclusion & Discussion
The present study was designed to examine the relationship between journalists and audience that exists in a crowdfunded media. As mentioned in the literature review, journalists in traditional media build images and expectations about the audience “relying on indirect and filtered exposure, most often mediated either through market research or audience measurement” (Loosen & Schmidt, 2012, p. 871). On the contrary, in a crowdfunded media journalists enjoy direct interactions and experiences with their audience, which was proved by the analysis of Hromadske.tv case.
The first hypothesis assumed that journalists and audience have different expectations regarding their interaction and this hypothesis was fully supported by empirical results of this study.
Undoubtedly, the opinions of journalist and viewers do match when it comes to the indirect
interaction: viewers expect journalists to produce content of the same quality, while journalists expect viewers to consume this content. However, the expectations of journalist concerning the audience’s participation in the journalistic process do not coincide with those of the donors’, as for the viewers commenting, sharing and criticizing the content do not seem crucially important. Despite of popular claims that in an era of digital media and convergence culture, consumers are fighting for their right to participate more in the media process (Jenkins, 2004), this study proves that the donors do not necessarily want to enjoy their ability to practice participatory journalism (Bakker & De Vreese, 2013). Rather, they treat journalists as professionals, whose journalistic decisions can be trusted. Surprisingly, such attitude contradicts the statement of journalists, who believe their audience does
not see them as experts and professionals and therefore lacks understanding of the journalistic process. A possible explanation for this miscommunication might be a small research sample that includes donors with fairly similar educational and professional level. Thus, being fully supported, the first hypothesis goes in line with Aitamurto’s conclusions that suggest a disagreement between
reporters’ and donors’ expectations (Aitamurto, 2011). Additionally, it links with a concept of communication distance between journalists and audience that expresses the incongruence of the audience’s communication expectations with the journalists’ communication expectations (Weischenberg et al., cited in Loosen & Schmidt, 2012).
The second hypothesis in this study suggested that crowdfunding builds a connection from the journalist to the donor and it was fully supported by empirical data. The journalists mentioned that crowdfunded nature of the medium indeed creates a strong sense of responsibility – not only a
“professional responsibility” (Aitamurto, 2011, p. 434), but also a personal one, which is triggered by a constant connection to the viewer via social media. Consequently, these conclusions overlap with that of Aitamurto’s (2011) research, that revealed that reporters always feel accountable for their assignments, however “the feeling of responsibility is just different on a crowdfunded process” (Aitamurto, 2011, p. 434).
The third hypothesis assumed that the primary motivation for viewers’ donations is to contribute to the common good. This study found evidence of the audience donating to Hromadkse.tv mainly because of the altruistic reasons, instead of expecting a reward from donations. Indisputably, the viewers realize that the medium cannot exist without their financial support, so they basically donate to keep it alive. First of all, these findings strongly link to the concept of online philanthropic
behavior (Gerber & Hui, 2013). At the same time, all interviewees underlined how important
Hromadske.tv was for them in a context of revolution and that by supporting the medium, they were supporting social change in Ukraine. These results are consistent with those of other studies that also
suggest that financial return seems to be of secondary concern for donors (Belleflamme et al., 2011), as they aspire to “support efforts that are consistent with their identity or the identity to which they aspire” (Gerber & Hui 2013, p. 34:16). Therefore, Hromadske.tv donors see the work of reporters “as essential to the democratic health of a society”, similarly to how Spot.Us donors described their motivation to donate in Aitamurto’s research (Aitamurto, 2011, p. 439).
In general, empirical evidence presented in this research serves as a quite solid base for
answering the central research question. The relationship that exist between journalists and audience in a crowdfunded media is first of all highly influenced by the financial bond that makes journalists experience an increased feeling of responsibility. In order to be accountable to their audience, the journalists are obliged to be involved in a constant interaction with their viewers via numerous communication channels (Facebook, email, Skype, live interaction). The viewers, in their turn, contribute to the project by submitting their comments, compliments and criticism, even though they generally prefer to rely on the journalists on whom they look as on professionals. Sometimes, the viewers are willing to share some first-hand information with media workers, which highly appreciate such contribution. According to journalists, recommendations from the audience often serve as a perfect guidance in the journalistic process, but the most expected input from the viewers is their support in case the medium faces difficulties or political pressure. Meanwhile, the journalists believe that viewers have no necessary understanding of the journalistic routine and therefore the medium cannot always fulfill all their demands. Importantly enough, the audience believes it donates not only to secure the medium’s existence, but also to support a socially important case that can bring changes to society.
All in all, this study produced results which corroborate the findings of a great deal of the work of T. Aitamurto (2011), that explored a similar topic based on the case study of online platform for crowdfunded journalism Spot.Us. As it was stated before, all three hypotheses in this thesis were
mainly based on Aitamurto’s research, the generalizability of which this study aimed to test. As a result, all three hypotheses were fully supported by empirical evidence in this thesis. In spite of two cases of crowdfunded journalism (Spot.Us and Hromadkse.tv) being rather different in their
journalistic formats and crowdfunding models (to say nothing of the differences in media
environments, cultures and countries where the media emerged), the relationship these media have with their audiences proved to be quite the same. This may lead to a conclusion that the financial bond, that creates special relationship between journalists and audience, is consistent and universal throughout media systems, countries and journalistic formats. Undoubtedly, more research is required to test this statement.
Finally, a number of important limitations need to be considered. The major limitation of this study is a broad research question that is rather difficult to answer, since the concept of relationship between media workers and audience might include more elements than expectations, motivations to donate and journalists’ perception of the audience. Secondly, as it has been already indicated,
although this thesis was not a comparison of two cases, it used the case study of T. Aitamurto as a base for its hypotheses. So, it can be argued that two cases are to different to base the hypothesis of one study on the results of the previous one. Nevertheless, this decision was justified earlier in the text and the results from two studies proved to be compatible. Also, with a small sample size, caution must be applied, as the findings might not be generalizable; consequently, this shortcoming decreases the external validity of the research (Bryman, 2012). Additionally, because the data was analyzed only by one coder, that might raise the question of intra-coder reliability (Given, 2008). One more limitation of this study lies in the fact that the author is not a professional translator and yet the translation of interviews from Ukrainian to English was made for this thesis.
Undoubtedly, more research is needed to better understand the relationship of audience and journalists in a crowdfunded media, as the given thesis cannot provide the whole overview of all
aspects of that relationship. Further work needs to be done and bigger sample must be involved in order to test the generalizability of the findings presented in this study.
References
Aaker, J., & Akutsu, S. (2009). Why do people give? The role of identity in giving. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 19, 267–270.
Aitamurto, T. (2011). The impact of crowdfunding on journalism: case study of Spot.Us, a platform for community-funded reporting. Journalism Practice, 5(4), 429-445.
Bakker, T. P., & De Vreese, C. H. (2011). Good news for the future? Young people, Internet use and political participation. Communication Research, 38(4), 451-470.
Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T., & Schwienbacher, A. (2010). Crowdfunding: An industrial organization perspective. In Proceedings of the Workshop Digital Business Models:
Understanding Strategies, 25–26.
Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T., & Schwienbacher, A. (2011). Crowdfunding: tapping the right crowd.
Journal of Business Venturing. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/science/article/pii/S0883902613000694 Bowman, S., & Willis, C. (2003). We Media: How audiences are shaping the future of news and
information. The Media Center at the American Press Institute. Retrieved from http://www.hypergene.net/wemedia/download/we_media.pdf
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carvajal, M., J., & González, J. (2012). Crowdfunding and non-profit media: the emergence of new models for public interest journalism. Journalism Practice, 2012, 1-10.
Census data revisited. (n.d.). Retrieved from IndieGoGo website,
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/ricochet-le-journal-nouveau-genre-a-new-take-on-independent-media
Census data revisited. (n.d.). Retrieved from Reporters Without Borders website,
http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php
Census data revisited. (n.d.). Retrieved from Spot.Us website, http://spot.us/
Deuze, M. (2008). The changing context of news work: liquid journalism and monitorial citizenship.
International Journal of Communication, 2, 848-865.
Donsbach, W. (2008). Factors behind journalists’ professional behavior: a psychological approach to journalism research. Global Journalism Research, 65-78.
Journalism Review. Retrieved from
http://www.cjr.org/reconstruction/the_reconstruction_of_american.php
Dresen, F.J. (2014). Media in Ukraine: a domain of the state, the oligarchs, or the public? Wilson
Center. Retrieved from http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/media-ukraine-domain-the-state-the-oligarchs-or-the-public
Gerber, E. M., & Hui, J. (2013). Crowdfunding: motivations and deterrents for participation. ACM
Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 20(6), 1-32.
Given, L.M. (2008). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, SAGE Publications,
Inc.
Glazer, A., & Konrad, K. (1996). A signaling explanation for charity. American Economic Review, 86, 1019–1028.
Howe, J. (2006). The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired Magazine, 14.06.
Jenkins, H. (2004). The cultural logic of media convergence. International Journal of Cultural
Studies, 7(1), 33-43.
Jian, L., & Usher, N. (2014). Crowd-funded journalism. Journal of Computer‐Mediated
Communication, 19(2), 155-170.
Keen, A. (2007). The cult of the amateur: how today's internet is killing our culture. New York:
Doubleday/Currency.
Knezevic, M. (2014, May 23). Three things we know about Ukraine’s media freedom crisis. Index on
Censorship. Retrieved from
http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2014/05/three-things-know-ukrainee-media-freedom-crisis/
Lambert, T., & Schwienbacher, A. (2010). An Empirical Analysis of Crowdfunding.
CrowdSoucing.Org. Retrieved from
http://www.crowdsourcing.org/document/an-empirical-analysis-of-crowdfunding-/2458.
Lambert, T., & Schwienbacher, A. (2010). An Empirical Analysis of Crowdfunding.
CrowdSourcing.Org. Retrieved from
http://www.crowdsourcing.org/document/an-empirical-analysis-of-crowdfunding-/2458.
Levy, M., & Windahl, S. (1985). The concept of audience activity, Media gratifications research: Current perspectives. Sage Publications, Inc.
Loosen, W., & Schmidt, J.-H. (2012). (Re-)Discovering the Audience. Information, Communication
& Society, 15 (6), 867-888.
Miller, C.J. (2013, June 27). Media Grab. Kyiv Post. Retrieved from http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/media-grab-326233.html
Muller, M., Soule, T., Daniel, S., Geyer, W., & Cheng, L.-T. (2013). Crowdfunding inside the enterprise: Employee-initiatives for innovation and collaboration. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Nouraout, L. (2014, February 2014). ‘Hromadske’, the web TV of the Ukrainian revolution. Global
Editors Network. Retrieved from
http://www.globaleditorsnetwork.org/news/2014/02/hromadske,-the-web-tv-of-the-ukrainian-revolution/
Rick, S., Cryder, C., & Loewenstein, G. (2007). Tightwads and spendthifts. Journal of Consumer
Research, 34, 767–782.
Robinson, S. (2010). Traditionalists vs. Convergers: Textual Privilege, Boundary Work, and the Journalist-Audience Relationship in the Commenting Policies of Online News Sites Convergence. The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 16(1), 125-143.
Rosen, J. (2006, June 27). The People Formerly Known as the Audience. PressThink. Retrieved from http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/06/27/ppl_frmr.html
Spilnokosht. (2014). BigIdea. Retrieved March 26, 2014, from http://biggggidea.com/project/392/ Sundar, S.S., & Limperos, A.M. (2013). Uses and Grats 2.0: New Gratifications for New Media.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(4), 504-525.
Toffler, A. (1980). The Third Wave. The classic study of tomorrow. New York: Bantam Books. Vesam, A., Hampus, O., Ramsin, Y., & Gustavsson P. (2013). Crowdfunding – A swedish context: A
study of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors effect on swedish individuals willingness to financially support growthcompanies through crowdfunding. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen
för ekonomisk och industriell utveckling ; Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.
