Search results

This paper aims to shed light on the impact of personalized news media on the shared issue agenda that provides democracies with a set of topics that structure the public debate. The advent of personalized news media that use smart algorithms to tailor the news offer to the user challenges the established way of setting the agenda of such a common core of issues.

This paper tests the effects of personalized news use on perceived importance of these issues in the common core. In particular, the authors study whether personalized news use leads to a concentration at the top of the issue agenda or to a more diverse issue agenda with a long tail of topics.

Based on a cross-sectional survey of a representative population sample (n = 1,556), we find that personalized news use does not lead to a small common core in which few topics are discussed extensively, yet there is a relationship between personalized news use and a preference for less discussed topics. This is a result of a specific user profile of personalized news users: younger, more educated news users are more interested in topics at the fringes of the common core and also make more use of personalized news offers.

The results are discussed in the light of media diversity and recent advances in public sphere research.

This paper contributes to the ongoing debate about algorithmic news dissemination. While, currently, much attention is reserved for the role of platforms as information gatekeepers in relationship to the news media, maybe their ability to enable or hinder the audience in discovering and distributing news content is part of what really characterizes their influence on the market place of ideas.

The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into personalisation from a practitioner’s perspective to bridge the practitioner-academia gap and steer the research agenda. A wide scope of research has investigated personalisation from a consumer perspective. The current study aims at bridging the consumer and practitioner perspective by entering into a dialogue about the practical application of personalisation. It takes the personalisation process model by Vesanen and Raulas (2006) as the starting point.

Lead by the exploratory character of the study, semi-structured expert interviews were conducted with marketers, market researchers and online privacy specialists.

The results showcase how practitioners view the issues present in consumer research. First, they are overly positive about personalisation. Second, they are aware of constraining factors; findings showcase best practices to mitigate them. Finally, practitioners are aware of controversies surrounding personalisation and thus engage in ethical discussions on personalisation.

This study shows that practitioners have somewhat different believes about the utility and appreciation of personalised marketing practices than consumers. It also shows awareness of some of the key concerns of consumers, and that such awareness translates into organisational and technological solutions that can even go beyond what is currently mandated by law. Six insights into personalised marketing as well as expectations for the future of the phenomenon are discussed to steer the research agenda.

Insights into the practice of personalisation contribute to a shared understanding of this phenomenon between involved actors, such as marketers, advertisers, and consumer representatives. In addition, implications for lawmakers are discussed, suggesting that the implementation of privacy laws needs more clarity and that actions aiming at improving consumer knowledge are needed.

The paper contributes to the literature first, by drafting a descriptive map of personalisation from a practitioners’ perspective and contrasting it with the perspective stemming from consumer research and, second, by offering insights into the current developments and direct implications for practice and future research.

The purpose of this paper is to make suggestions of how to improve the legal standing of consumers of digital content products.

The analysis in this paper is based on desk research and comparative legal research, among others in the context of research performed in the context of a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) and, in parts, on a study performed for the European Commission by Loos et al.

This paper demonstrates that the legal and technical complexities of digital content products and the resulting lack of a clear notion of which product characteristics are still reasonable and normal can result in uncertainty for consumers and businesses, or even a lower level of protection for digital content consumers, as compared to consumers of more conventional products. In order to improve the protection of digital content consumers, defaults for the main functionalities and characteristics of digital content products may be needed. The article describes possible routes to create such defaults and concludes with suggestions for the way forward.

The article suggests a new approach to improving the legal standing of digital consumers, one that takes into account the situation of digital consumers as well as the need for flexibility and room for innovation for digital content businesses. It is based on extensive legal and comparative research into the present legal framework and develops a new approach of conceptualizing the legal obstacles that digital consumers can be confronted with.

This article seeks to deal with the fundamental conceptual differences between consumer law and copyright law that render the application of consumer law to copyright‐law related conflicts difficult.

Following a normative approach to copyright and consumer law based on an analysis of the relevant literature and case law, the article examines in which situations consumers encounter obstacles when trying to rely on consumer law to invoke “privileges” granted to them under copyright law, such as the private copying exception.

Research shows that most difficulties lie in the fundamental conceptual differences between consumer law and copyright law regarding the objectives and beneficiaries of each regime, as well as diverging conceptions of “property”, “user rights” and “internal market”. Such discrepancies undeniably follow from the fact that each regime traditionally never had to deal with each other's concerns: consumers never played a role in copyright law, whereas copyright protected works were not seen as consumer goods.

By identifying the main conceptual differences between the two legal regimes, the article contributes in an inter‐disciplinary manner to the discussion on the place of the digital consumer under European law.

The purposes of this paper are to deal with the questions: because search engines, social networks and app-stores are often referred to as gatekeepers to diverse information access, what is the evidence to substantiate these gatekeeper concerns, and to what extent are existing regulatory solutions to control gatekeeper control suitable at all to address new diversity concerns? It will also map the different gatekeeper concerns about media diversity as evidenced in existing research before the background of network gatekeeping theory critically analyses some of the currently discussed regulatory approaches and develops the contours of a more user-centric approach towards approaching gatekeeper control and media diversity.

This is a conceptual research work based on desk research into the relevant and communications science, economic and legal academic literature and the relevant laws and public policy documents. Based on the existing evidence as well as on applying the insights from network gatekeeping theory, this paper then critically reviews the existing legal/policy discourse and identifies elements for an alternative approach.

This paper finds that when looking at search engines, social networks and app stores, many concerns about the influence of the new information intermediaries on media diversity have not so much their source in the control over critical resources or access to information, as the traditional gatekeepers do. Instead, the real bottleneck is access to the user, and the way the relationship between social network, search engine or app platforms and users is given form. Based on this observation, the paper concludes that regulatory initiatives in this area would need to pay more attention to the dynamic relationship between gatekeeper and gated.

Because this is a conceptual piece based on desk-research, meaning that our assumptions and conclusions have not been validated by own empirical research. Also, although the authors have conducted to their best knowledge the literature review as broad and as concise as possible, seeing the breadth of the issue and the diversity of research outlets, it cannot be excluded that we have overlooked one or the other publication.

This paper makes a number of very concrete suggestions of how to approach potential challenges from the new information intermediaries to media diversity.

The societal implications of search engines, social networks and app stores for media diversity cannot be overestimated. And yet, it is the position of users, and their exposure to diverse information that is often neglected in the current dialogue. By drawing attention to the dynamic relationship between gatekeeper and gated, this paper highlights the importance of this relationship for diverse exposure to information.

While there is currently much discussion about the possible challenges from search engines, social networks and app-stores for media diversity, a comprehensive overview in the scholarly literature on the evidence that actually exists is still lacking. And while most of the regulatory solutions still depart from a more pre-networked, static understanding of “gatekeeper”, we develop our analysis on the basis for a more dynamic approach that takes into account the fluid and interactive relationship between the roles of “gatekeepers” and “gated”. Seen from this perspective, the regulatory solutions discussed so far appear in a very different light.