For instance, the Chicago Tribune alone pushed out an alert about a Chicago nonprofit housing 66 migrant kids who had been taken from their parents.
Regional and national outlets face starkly different, but equally tricky, dilemmas when deciding which aspects of a story of this kind warrant a push alert.Some apps pushed as many as seven border-related alerts in a single day, while others pushed only one over the entire period of study. The extent to which each one covered this fast-moving, extended story as it developed over two weeks varied wildly. Outlets in this year’s study pushed a total of 284 alerts about President Trump’s family separation policy and border controversy during our period of analysis.Just seven outlets used emoji in alerts this time around, four of which were among the six found to be using them last year (Quartz, BuzzFeed, BuzzFeed News, and HuffPost). Rich notifications containing images and video continue to remain rare, as does the use of emoji.Among select outlets, alert length increased by over 30 percent. The average length of alerts across the two studies, as evaluated by number of characters, has also grown since last year.Of apps that alerted during both our 20 periods of study, seven sent fewer mobile pushes this year. There were, however, a sample of news apps that reduced their use of alerts from last year to this one.The Wall Street Journal claimed this year’s spot as the most prolific alerter, averaging 71.5 alerts per week and more than quadrupling its average from 2017 with the introduction of opt-in, segmented alert channels.The weekly average across all outlets jumped up 16 percent from 22.4 per app, per week in 2017, to 26 per app, per week in 2018. Among the 30 news outlets in our study, most averaged more push alerts per week this year than last.Key findings from the quantitative analysis: The second part of this report includes a case study detailing how President Trump’s family separation policy-a story that one interviewee described as “both unique and representative of our time”-played out at the height of its controversy through mobile push alerts. The first, quantitative in nature, relies on a two-week content analysis of push notifications sent by the 30 news outlets we also monitored in 2017. Timing for the 2018 data collection, between June 18 and July 1, coincided with the one-year anniversary of last year’s collection period, which involved monitoring alerts for three weeks between June 19 and J. To bear witness to what this shift in thinking means in practice, this study is presented in two parts.
It deserves to have all of the intention and critical thinking that the front page does, that the home page does.”
One person from the Chicago Tribune whom we interviewed for this follow-up study emphasized that her outlet’s “approach to push alerts has changed drastically.” Another from The New York Times said it was “a big moment for us as a newsroom to say: push is its own platform. But a year is a long time in the world of push alerts-and, of course, mobile phones.Īs the year anniversary of our study approached this past June, we decided to conduct another round of data collection to see what, if anything, had changed. What we found is that while the basic form and appearance of push notifications may not have evolved dramatically in the intervening 12 months, it’s the strategic thinking around newsroom usage that has. In 2017, we did a deep dive into mobile push alerts, publishing a report in collaboration with the Guardian Mobile Innovation Lab that looked at newsrooms’ push notification usage and strategy.
0 kommentar(er)
