International workshop on Media interactivity: economic and managerial issues

Neuchatel, Switzerland, 30-31 October, 2009

Interactive media and new customer roles among magazine and newspaper industries

Miia Kosonen (miia.kosonen@lut.fi)Hanna-Kaisa Ellonen (hanna-kaisa.ellonen@lut.fi)

Lappeenranta University of TechnologySchool of Business

P.O.Box 20, 53851 Lappeenranta, Finland

1 INTRODUCTION

Immediate and on-going communication is a new quality in the relationship betweenpublishers and their audiences (Chung, 2007, 2008). Interactivity is a constitutive featureof the Internet. It is particularly human (i.e. interpersonal) interactivity that new mediaenriches by providing applications such weblogs, discussion forums and commentingspaces. However, it also challenges traditional media as it provides users more options andallows them to participate in producing content.

Despite the growing enthusiasm about the potential of interactivity to revolutionizepublishing, there is a lack of studies concerning how and why news publishers applyinteractive features (Chung, 2007). It is particularly the content of online publications thathas been in the focus of empirical research, but the background factors that lead or do notlead to certain instances of interactivity have not gained much attention. Thus we believethe current study will advance understanding within this field.

In previous research, two distinctive streams regarding interactions within online mediacan be identified. The first examines and classifies the provided interactive features ormodes, and motivations for their use (e.g. Chung, 2008, Kenney et al., 2000, Strube et al.,2009). The second focuses on how journalists perceive the role of online media or, evenmore generally, how the Internet affects journalism (e.g. Singer, 2003; Ruggiero, 2004;Chung, 2007, O’Sullivan and Heinonen, 2008; Thurman, 2008; Fortunati et al., 2009). Forinstance, Chung (2007) identified three categories regarding online news producers’perceptions on interactive features of the Internet: innovators, cautious traditionalists, andpurists. What is lacking from the above work are investigations and categorizations of thenew roles of customers in this context.

The new roles of customers are inevitably linked to the roles of media professionals. Ifcustomers are to partake e.g. in producing content, how does that affect the traditional rolesof journalists, for example? We suppose that given the complexity and novelty of the issue,a variety of possibly conflicting views will exist in media organizations. Indeed,Achtenhagen & Raviola (2007, 2009) have already noted the Internet has brought newtensions to newspaper companies. In terms of establishing interactive media services andbenefiting from them business-wise, we believe it is first essential to unravel the differentunderlying tensions and concerns regarding customer interaction. Hence, our study focuseson the challenges related to the adaptation of interactive services among print publishingcompanies, both within newspapers and magazines. We ask how publishing companiesperceive the new roles of customers, and which kind of tensions does customerinteraction through Internet-based channels provoke.

We conducted an empirical qualitative study among Finnish newspaper and magazinepublishers, being leading-edge companies in Finland in terms of establishing innovativesolutions to their websites and thus allowing us to investigate how interactive media andnew roles of customers are perceived within publishing companies. Two newspapers andthree magazines were incorporated in the study.

This paper is organized as follows. We first discuss the theoretical background oninteractive media and customer roles. Thereafter, we introduce our empirical setting,methods and data. Then the results of the empirical study are presented. Finally, we will

discuss our findings, followed by concluding remarks and potential future researchdirections.

2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Interactivity is seen as a defining feature and key advantage characterizing new media(Morris and Ogan, 1996). In previous studies regarding the interactive features of onlinenews services (Chung, 2007, 2008), interactivity has been approached from twoperspectives: human, i.e. user-to-user, and medium, i.e. user-to-medium (Massey and Levy,1999, Stromer-Galley, 2000). Human interactivity in particular remains a key issue whenstudying the implications of new media, characterized by emergent online groups,communities and networks where social relationships are mediated by communicationtechnology (e.g. Wellman and Gulia, 1999).

Human interactivity here refers to communication between two or more users relying ononline communication channels on both sides, for instance, when sending and receivinge-mail, exchanging opinions in discussion boards, or commenting weblog entries. Hence, itis interpersonal in nature. Medium interactivity, in turn, is interactive communicationbetween users and technology. It is based on what the technology allows users to do, forinstance, to navigate on newspapers’ website using hyperlinks. (Chung, 2007)

Through interactivity, the online environment allows customers to participate in a numberof activities, such as generating ideas, designing and testing products (Füller et al., 2006),giving feedback (Williams & Cothrel, 2000), and helping and supporting other customerswithin communities (Nambisan, 2002). Prior research on customer roles on the Internet hasmainly focused on customer participation in new-product development (e.g. Thompke andvon Hippel, 2002; Dahan and Hauser, 2002; Jeppesen and Molin, 2004; Fuller et al., 2006;Sawhney et al., 2005). Nambisan (2002) introduced a typology of four customer roles invirtual environments:

• Buyers of the product. • Users, contributing into product testing, and providing product support to peer

users. • Resources, providing information to companies and supporting innovation

processes. • Co-creators, contributing into the design and development of new products.

While this classification is able to differentiate between the different levels of involvement(buyer being the most passive, and the co-producer the most active role of participation)regarding customer roles, it may not be ideal for the exploration of customer roles in themedia context. First of all, very often the online offerings of media companies do notrequire subscription or any form of purchase. Therefore, not all customers are buyers of theproduct in the traditional sense. Second, the typology focuses on new-productdevelopment, where Nambisan (2002) admits the customers have eventually played arather limited role. We argue that current research fails to acknowledge the potential ofcustomers to support the development of continuous creation products, such as newspapersand magazines and their websites (e.g., Picard, 2005).

In the media context, Ellonen & Kosonen (2010) noted how customer participated in avariety of tasks in publishing companies’ websites ranging from providing ideas for new

articles to exchanging information about their values and needs and enticing newcustomers. In virtual customer communities, customers may simultaneously act in a varietyof roles; buyers, users, resources, and co-creators (Kosonen & Ellonen, 2007).

As mentioned earlier, the new customer roles are likely to have an impact on the roles ofmedia professionals, and are likely to provoke tensions between opposing views in mediaorganizations. Tensions are defined as “two phenomena in a dynamic relationship thatinvolve both competition and complementarity” (English, 2001, 59). Therefore, tensionsare closely related to paradoxes (e.g. Lewis, 2000; Poole & van den Ven, 1989) byrepresenting seemingly opposite but simultaneously occurring demands (Achtenhagen &Raviola, 2007). In practice, they are the perspectives, feelings and practices that “signifythe two sides of the same coin” (Lewis, 2000, 761).

A classic example would be Leonard-Barton’s (1992) paradox between focusing on corecompetences at the risk of their turning into core rigidities. Slotergraaf & Dickson’s (2004)study gives and empirical illustration how one type of capability can simultaneously beconsidered as a core competence supporting company performance and as a core rigidityand lessening performance. Other typical organizational tensions are e.g.autonomy/dependency and global/local.

When tensions arise in the organization, they are like to go through reinforcing cycles(Lewis, 2000). That is, when people try to resolve the tensions, they get trapped inexacerbating the tension. Thus, while tensions might trigger the change, they might alsoinhibit change. Therefore, managing tensions requires capturing the potential of the tensionto enable dramatic change.

In the media organizations, marketing and journalism have represented two opposing corevalues and cultures in newspaper organizations (Gade, 2004). Achtenhagen & Raviola’s(2007, 2009) studies illustrated how some journalists perceive new technologies asheralding the end of good journalism, while print circulations are falling and audiences areshifting to online channels. Gilbert's (2005) study noted the tensions in how newspaperprofessionals perceive their online operations - both as a threat and as an opportunity at thesame time.

In this study, our objective is to understand how media professionals perceive the newcustomer roles on the newspaper and magazine websites, as enabled by interactivity, and toexplore what kind of tensions these new customer roles provoke in media organizations.

3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In order to identify the new customer roles and the tensions related to new customer roles,we decided to collect data using methods that enabled the representatives of the publishingindustry to express their viewpoints and concerns. Hence, we employed a qualitative studydrawing on semi-structured interviews within newspaper and magazine publishers.

When selecting the publishing companies, we paid special attention to their effort insystematic and long-term development of consumer-targeted online services. Beingleading-edge companies in Finland in terms of establishing innovative solutions to theirwebsites, we could suppose the selected companies would allow us to investigate how

interactive media and new roles of customers are perceived within publishing companies.Two newspapers and three magazines, the latter focusing on a special area(s) of interest,were incorporated in the study.

Our informants represented four organizational groups: management, chief editors, editors,and online service developers. Altogether, we made 31 interviews in May-August 2009.Table 1 illustrates the position of informants. The participating magazines had limitedresources and therefore no separate resource for online service development, but theeditors and chief editors acted in both roles simultaneously. Newspapers, in turn, hadseparate resources for these roles.

Table 1. Interviews conducted in publishing companiesOrganizational group Newspapers (2) Magazines (3) Number of intervieweesManagers 4 3 7Chief editors 4 2

56

Editors 4 9Online service developers 9 9Total 21 10 31

The interview questions covered issues such as the current online offerings for customers,the recent development of online offerings, customer groups, and forms of customercommunication. The wording and order of the questions varied because we wanted tofollow the lead of the interviewees. The interviews were purposefully informal andconversational in nature, as it has been suggested that media managers tend to respondmore positively to a conversational style (Hollifield & Coffey, 2006).

We analyzed the data using the Atlas-TI software. We conducted an inductive analysis,representing an exploratory approach, in order to provide a data-grounded understanding ofthe phenomenon; identifying the roles of customers as users of interactive media andclassifying the related tensions.

Three rounds of analysis were conducted. Firstly, we coded the data thematically usingcustomer roles and the related tensions as a point of departure. Hence, the objective of thisanalysis round was to find the relevant parts of the data for further analysis. Secondly, weidentified recurrent themes, grouped them and established upper-level categories. Finally,on the third round we focused on making comparisons between groups of informantswithin each identified category.

Reliability and validity are traditional concepts used for evaluating the quality of research,but are most often associated with quantitative studies. The quality of qualitative researchis not thereby unambiguously evaluated, however (e.g., Denzin & Lincoln 2000, Kirk &Miller, 1986). Reliability in qualitative research refers to accuracy in efforts and methods(Shank 2006). Therefore, in order to maximize the reliability of this study, our aim was toprovide detailed enough information regarding the research process that would enable thereader to follow the researchers’ reasoning (cf. Eskola & Suoranta 1998, Yin 2003).Validity, on the other hand, refers to the degree to which the findings are interpreted in acorrect way in qualitative research (Kirk & Miller (1986, 20). In this study, we aimed atbuilding a chain of evidence (see Yin, 2003) with the use of Atlas-ti program. Also, thethree rounds of analysis and the interpretation of the results was double-checked by bothauthors.

4 RESULTS

We could claim that traditionally, newspaper and magazine publishers have seen theirconsumer audience in three roles: as readers and subscribers, and also as users ofapplications incorporated in websites. In other words, the focus has been on informationbroadcasting and medium interactivity. In our understanding, it is particularly humaninteractivity that is manifested in the new roles of customers. Based on our inductiveanalysis, we identified six new customer roles in relation to interactivity.

First, in addition to reading newspapers and magazines, customers give feedback abouttheir content or e.g. editorial policy definitions. In principle, this is not a new role: readers’opinions and wishes have long represented a source of information for editorials. Yet,novelty here refers to the depth and variety of feedback. Our informants from allorganizational groups outlined how the Internet has enabled a revolutionary change interms of establishing contact between customers and publishing companies: it has loweredthe barrier for readers to contact editors and also given rise to a wider variety of feedbackchannels such as discussions forums and news comments. It is also a new role in a senseeditors now have channels to hear thoughts of customers on an on-going basis in contrastto coincidental responses and comments.

“It is so much easier nowadays to contact the media, such as newspaper, there is no suchthreshold than in the earlier days. People contact us even in the least of issue, they are nolonger ashamed of expressing themselves.” (Chief editor)

We could term this role as customers being Agents, who eagerly observe theirenvironment, present their opinions to editors, and comment journalistic policies, content,online service usability or technical functionality. By listening feedback from customers,publishers get concrete ideas to improve their offerings, and also get to know theircustomers better. Many interviewees described how publishing companies have onlyrecently learnt to understand the needs of customer and to “hear their voice”:

“What we at least have learnt is that you have to listen users.” (Developer)

“We get feedback from customers and we also want to collect feedback, it is the onlymeans to keep awake.” (Manager)

Agents may also present tips for writing stories and send e.g. photos or video material tothe newspapers/magazines. Internet-based channels have enabled customers moreopportunities, reach and speed in assisting newspapers and magazines in their core task –producing journalistic content. What characterizes the role of Agents in terms ofinteraction, is the flow of information from customers to the company, the latter eventuallykeeping back the right for deciding what is published and what is not. Anothercharacteristic is that Agents interact proactively, thus giving feedback on their own bat.

Second, customers are Dialoguers. When interacting in such a role, information flows aremore two-way: customers and publishing companies engage in mutual dialogue, in contrastto Agents, where customers submit feedback and content to the company. Dialogue takesplace e.g. through on-going posting and commenting in editorial weblogs, and throughcompany initiatives where customers are asked to provide feedback and engage in

discussion with company representatives. In such a mode of interaction, direct andon-going relationship with customers is established, as the following quotations illustrate:

”We engage in dialogue with customers, and when planning major changes, we also askfor their comments. As we’re on the Net, we get constant feedback. It is practically a newthing, or a fully new dimension in our work.” (Chief editor)

”In weblogs… the relationship with the audience becomes closer, there you can establishtrue dialogue between the author and the reader.” (Editor)

Like Agents, the role of Dialoguers came out in every group of informants, yet with slightdifferences about the objectives of customer interaction. Whereas editors and chief editorsnaturally emphasized on-going dialogue about journalistic content (news, stories,columns), developers were more concerned in establishing contact with customers in orderto improve the online services, by asking feedback and ideas directly from users. Acommon denominator of every type of dialogue was that customers and publishers are nowcloser to each other than ever before.

Third, customers are Debaters who actively participate in discussions in the forums.Whereas the role of publishers is more distinct when engaging in dialogue with customers,debating refers to interaction established and maintained mainly by customers themselves.The role of the publisher is more like to set the general “rules of the game” and to provideplatforms for customer interaction. Yet debating was seen to provide various benefits topublishing companies, such as concrete ideas for improvement, ideas for new services,news tips, contacts to people, and more generally, potential trends in customers’ interestsand use of online services.

“We have created discussions, our audience engages in conversations there and they areincreasingly participating in it. The forum is highly active, and also focal to our identity.”(Chief editor)

”We have valuable conversations, good content which is nice to read but which can alsobe exploited for other purposes in our papers.” (Editor)

”It is our core task, to listen to what people talk. We enable and steer the discussion, itprovides us trends and ideas.” (Developer)

In every organizational group, discussions were seen as a focal part of the publishers’product concept. Whereas editors and chief editors emphasized the close connectionbetween news and discussions, both supporting each other, managers highlighted howinteresting discussions create loyalty among customers and provide publishers anadditional channel for feedback. Finally, developers underlined the technical issues andhow smoothly the implemented solutions support customer interaction. They alsoemphasized the benefits deriving from actively following the discussions. All in all,discussion forums were seen to allow customers an opportunity to interact directly witheach other.

Fourth, customers may take a role of Messengers who spread the content of newspapers ormagazines, link to the content on their behalf, and thus may attract new customers.Interestingly, this role only came up in the interviews with managers and developers, and

only by a very few notions. Being a constitutive feature of social media (e.g. Salmenkivi &Nyman, 2007), the idea of user-driven content sharing may thus far remain unfamiliar torepresentatives of the publishing companies. Yet it also provides them opportunities, as thefollowing quotations illustrate:

“We can harness our users to spread news and other types of content.” (Manager)

“In my understanding, it is how people want to use the Net, they want to share things withtheir friends.” (Developer)

Fifth, customers interact in a role of Testers. For instance, so-called pilot groups or onlinepanels present opinions and exchange ideas about products and services, allowing thenewspaper or magazine to further develop them. This is seen of particular importance asboth the target groups and the areas of interest become more fragmented. Again, theInternet has allowed publishers to more easily reach the intended target groups and, mostimportantly, the most active groups of customers. What differs testing from generalcustomer feedback (the role of Agents) or company-initiated collection of customerfeedback (the role of Dialoguers), is that customers now concretely engage in using andtesting a certain product or service feature, and the whole process is systematicallyorganized by the publishing company’s side.

“In magazine X’s website, we have organized a pilot group of customers for testing. Weask them opinions about the potential applications which we are planning to implement, orthe content, what do they think and what kind of features they would appreciate.”(Manager)

“We make beta-testing with different target groups, for instance, about user interface.”(Developer)

“In technical stuff…it is vital that you have independent contributors or assistants there,who know whether it works or not. We present their comments in public and they of courseappreciate that. It creates commitment.” (Developer)

Through engaging customers in testing, publishers get to know their preferences better andmay improve the online services more rapidly and flexibly. Two types of initiatives fortesting came up in the interviews: online panels can be applied for developing the wholeproduct concept, both print and online, and online pilot groups for testing and developingcertain applications. Respectively, it was particularly managers and developers whodiscussed customer interaction regarding this role.

Finally, customers may become Content-producers, who add content to online services.Whereas Agents also provide content to publishing companies e.g. by sending videos orphotos, as Content-producers customers directly add content to the online services and notonly submit material to be considered for publication. When acting as Debaters, customersalso produce content for publishers’ and other customers’ benefit, but in the role ofContent-producer the spectrum of content is broader and does not limit solely toexchanging opinions. Further, the generated content is immediately in use by othercustomers and the company. For instance, customers may assess and rate content, writesupporting notes, and add information to databases.

Sense of community was a widely applied concept when discussing content-producing. Itwas something that customers were seen to create by nature if they were givenopportunities to interact with each other. Both managers and developers were yetconcerned about how publishers’ online services eventually support this objective. One ofthe developers described how they should further develop their online services:

“User generated content and user interactivity, in some form, it should support sense ofcommunity and allow our readers more opportunities to participate in what is going onthere [in our website].” (Developer)

However, there were also online applications that were seen to support this type ofcustomer interactions conveniently. As one editor described the logic of creating sense ofcommunity on the Internet with a gaming application:

“The Net… you get around there, click and buy, then read a story, buy new players,exchange them… There is sense of community to some degree and competing with eachother to some degree, all that kind of stuff, all our content supports it.” (Editor)

Developers described how the culture towards user-generated content is slightly changingand becoming more favourable among publishing companies. In particular, they havebecome more aware of the role of dedicated, highly active customers, and knowing whatthey appreciate. Thus publishing companies now more willingly produce content togetherwith customers, instead of only targeting content for them.

”People want to do things themselves, so that others can see what they have done, we arelike a gallery for all that.” (Developer)

In some of the interviews, also the role of co-developing services with customer wasdiscussed. However, for clarity we would like to distinguish between producing content,testing products and co-developing them: whereas in the former cases customers may addcontent to the service or they are given testing opportunities, in the latter customers gain anopen interface to directly modify the product (e.g. Thomke & von Hippel, 2002, Füller etal., 2006). Such fully open mode of development does not seem valid for the newspaperand magazine publishers studied here; customers rather take an assisting role. Table 2summarizes the identified customer roles.

Table 2. New customer roles enabled by interactive mediaDirection Roles ExamplesCustomer-to-business Agents

TestersSending photos or videosTesting online service features, evaluating content

Customer-to-business and business-to-customer

Dialoguers

Content-producers

Commenting news and specifyingtheir content Adding information to databases

Customer-to-customer DebatersMessengersContent-producers

Exchanging opinionsLinking to interesting articlesAdding information to databases, sharing experiences with other customers, giving ratings

In our understanding, when playing any of these six roles, customers contribute to valuecreation processes and support the media organizations’s objectives of creating value both

for the firm and its stakeholders. However, it seems that publishing companies are not ableto harness the potential built into these new customer roles, and we suspect this has muchto do with the ambiguity of the internal changes needed.

5 DISCUSSION: TENSIONS PROVOKED BY NEW CUSTOMER ROLES

As evident from the above, different professional groups in the publishing companies putdifferent emphasis on the identified customer roles and also differed in their views aboutthe related opportunities and risks. Hence, a number of tensions related to the newcustomer roles seem to prevail in publishing companies. Let us elaborate on the tensions inthe following six sub-chapters.

5.2.1 The tension between the traditional role of editors vs. the new role as a facilitator ofcustomer interaction

A prevalent theme regarding customer interaction was the lack of editorial participation inthe discussion forums or news commenting. Many of the interviewees emphasized howthey know customers would appreciate that; they have received very positive feedbackfrom customers regarding active discussions with the representatives of the newspaper ormagazine. For instance, editors were described as “safeguards” or “big brothers” withwhom customer could share their concerns, and who have access to things and placeswhere the general public does not. Yet the idea of active participation does not seem torealize. We could suppose one reason is attitude towards open discussion with customers.Managers described the attitude of editors as follows:

”Editors seem to have reservations about engaging to the discussion by name, forinstance, about a story they have written. I think it is an issue that should be changed.”(Manager)

”If the discussion forum is the most valuable part of the service, there should be lesscontent-producing to the website and more engagement to the discussions, facilitating itand participating actively.” (Manager)

As a result of inactive participation, the credibility of online discussions was seen to suffer,as well as the perceived level of expertise. Another reason for the lack or participationcould be the traditional roles of journalists in producing content. For instance, editorsrespond to customers when they are asked, but do not take a proactive role in facilitatingdiscussions. As the editors themselves pointed out, the importance of engaging in activediscussions is widely recognized but the daily work routines prevent this. Hence, it isparticularly lack of time that seems to prohibit participation.

“In a perfect world where there would not be as much productive pressure, some of uscould go there and open the discussion, even if no one had directly asked us anything.”(Editor)

According to the developers, better understanding about the nature of interactive onlineservices would require on-going participation and presence. Yet the culture amongeditorials is different: they are used to a situation where work gets ready in one stroke,

after it has been published. Across all organizational groups, the publishing-companies’ability to understand the nature of the Internet interactions was questioned, relying toomuch on the logic of print publishing:

”Our most significant weakness is that we do not understand the nature of the newmedium, we do not operate Net-like on the Net. We should take advantage of its benefits,flexibility, speed and interactivity.” (Chief editor)

“An editor does not appreciate such work [discussing] in a similar vein because it is a lotdifferent. It is not that I write a story, then I publish it and then I will have a coffee break.You must be passionate about it, getting there to see what others have commented.”(Manager)

Thus in many instances, customer interactivity practically means discussions in the forums,nurtured by the customers themselves. Altogether, this tension has arisen from the newroles of customers as Debaters and Dialoguers. It is manifested as reactivity, resulting fromtime pressure and suspicious attitude towards engaging in public discussions withcustomers. Inactive participation by the company’s side could lead to decreasinginteractivity on the website and ultimately with the false conclusion that customers do notwish to participate in discussions. Therefore, the managerial challenge is to build a culturewhere the new role of editors is valued in the organization and ideally lead the way byshowing an example by active online participation.

5.2.2 The tension between existing organizational structures vs. demand for newstructures, responsibilities, processes, and technology

Secondly, we identified a tension related to creating internal structures and modes ofoperation that would support customer interaction. Even when customers are highly activein producing content or engaging in discussions for their part, the company eventuallylacks ability to integrate the related knowledge and ideas into its processes. As a result, theadvantages of interactive media remain under-utilized from the publishers’ side.

”What we should do better are the readers who in principle are very active and high inexpertise… we could do much more to benefit from them, hear their experiences andideas.” (Manager)

All organizational groups were rather unanimous in their perceptions about the challengesregarding internal structures. For instance, many of our interviewees described a situationwhere interactive services “live their own life” and the company’s attention is elsewhere.In other words, services supporting customer interactivity are implemented – often becauseother newspapers or magazines seem to have them, as one of the developers pointed out –but the company lacks concrete plans how to benefit from the services and how to developthem further.

“The most difficult part is the further development and elaboration of the service. Andeditors are not the most long-span people in the world, on the contrary.” (Editor)

In some cases, the interviewees outlined ideas how customer interactions could befacilitated in order to support the content-creation process and online service development,but thus far they remain rather speculative.

“These are only my thoughts, I haven’t spoken with the management, but… I find it veryinteresting, harnessing the social Net, taking the online audience along from the verybeginning of making a story, and throughout the process. I mean, like crowdsouwcing.”(Editor)

“The best companies have on-going beta versions, their users actively engage indeveloping the online services. And I hope we will be able to do that in the future.”(Manager)

This tension is also related to the wealth of information that customer interaction on theInternet enables. The key issue is no longer how to receive enough feedback, but what todo about it, how to systematically evaluate its content and how to identify the most integralparts:

“But the issue is how we manage to harness feedback to actual development of ourservices. You should be able to filter it, you should be able to assess its relevance…”(Manager)

In summary, this tension is manifested as lack of attention towards interactive services,rigidity in establishing new services and developing them further, and lack of systematicprocesses to manage customer feedback. This is pervasive in a sense all organizationalgroups were aware of them. In addition, all the identified new customer roles (Agents,Dialoguers, Debaters, Messengers, Testers and Content-Producers) seem to fuel thistension: practically every type of customer interactivity that carries a promise of having anon-going relationship with customers online challenges the print-product oriented type oforganization. The managerial challenge here is to put more effort and resources intobuilding the necessary structures, while not cannibalizing the organizational structures thatare optimized for the print product.

5.2.3 The tension between being closed vs. being open to the voice of customers

This tension refers to losing control over customers due to increased use of interactivemedia and, in particular, social media. Newspapers and magazines no longer “hold theagenda”, as it is increasingly defined also by customers themselves. This long tradition ofbeing safe from the opinions of the general public also came up in the interviews,manifesting attitude towards customer interaction in publishing companies:

”It is not easy for all people here to stand if someone from the audience dresses down onyour work, in public. I think it is a part of this work, if you are in public position, then youshould be able to accept both compliment and praise.” (Developer)

“If we ask readers’ opinions… Of course we would truly need to be willing to change, evenif we completely disagree with readers… We just have to listen to what they say and actaccordingly, I think it will be kind of a difficult thing for us.” (Developer)

Another instance of this tension was the tendency to downplay online services and content,even when they remain more popular than stories in print newspapers or magazines. Whilemany of the interviewees considered such attitude to characterize the older generation ofeditors, others saw it the other way round: in some instances they were actually the mosteager to publish online and get feedback from customers. The following quotation alsoillustrates the attitudinal side:

“It was like ’let them be, it’s just the Net and nothing more’. But there are more peoplethere than our print products attract, so they should also be noted somehow.” (Developer)

Across different organizational groups, newspapers and magazines saw themselves ratheruncourageous in allowing customers more power in terms of what is publishable, andaccepting the self-emerging nature of online interactions. Yet this tension was most salientin the interviews with developers, as they have a “box seat” in establishing interactiveonline services and understanding the demands they set for publishing companies.

Further, this tension is eventually related to the difficulty of finding a balance betweenwhose voice publishers are to listen and whose not. In other words, when publishers moreopenly receive feedback from their audience, they have to decide when customers’comments lead to action and when they do not need to do so. The tension is not only aboutpreserving the traditional roles of journalists, but also the openness of communication. Forinstance, as one of the developers described, if ideas are openly discussed with customerson the Internet, there is a danger that competing newspaper gets all the benefit as it hasmore flexible organization to implement the novel solution.

In summary, this tension is manifested as trivializing the content and nature of onlineinteractions, withdrawing from open dialogue with customers, and unwillingness to reactto customer feedback. Indeed, we see this tension to arise from all the identified customerroles, as they call for acknowledging the role of having active customers instead of passivereceivers of information filtered by publishers. Again, the managerial challenge related tothe fear of losing control and sense of ownership is to feed an organizational culture andrelated practices that position journalists closer and more equal with their readers withoutbelittling the prestige of journalistic work.

5.2.4 The tension between active vs. inactive customers

Further, lack of participation from customers’ side also raises tensions regarding customerinteractions. Many interactive services only attract a small number of active people and thepublishers feel they are incapable in fostering customer commitment. As noted earlier,newspapers and magazines do not fully use the knowledge and ideas of their audience,even when the applied online channels would in principle allow that. According to theinterviewees, one reason is that the amount of actual interactions remains minor and thecompany lacks vision on how to mobilize customers to participate and produce content.

This tension appeared most salient in the group of online service developers, whose roleand position calls for detailed understanding how customer behave online, and respectivelythe means how to foster customer interactions. One of the developers described how theterm ”user-generated content” makes the content-creation process sound easy from the

company’s part – users do it on their behalf – but yet the actual workload is far from suchideal:

”Even if we think that user-generated content is ’made by users’ and made on your behalf,well yes, but it also requires a whole lot of effort to activate people there.” (Developer)

Further, higher levels of customer interaction would require appropriate means to motivatethem to participate, such as awarding active contributors. Even if there were successfulcases regarding e.g. beta-testing of an online service with customers, the key concernswere that the company is lacking general understanding how to facilitate and motivatedifferent types of customer interaction, and recognizing the fact that customers actuallyneed to be concretely esteemed.

”It has been very difficult to understand here that if we want to get our customers toparticipate, and to promote the feeling that our services are truly valuable, we have toprovide them feedback and openly regard what they have done.” (Developer)

”You must create the feeling that others see it, there is always someone who reacts.”(Developer)

Referring to the customers’ roles as Messengers and Dialoguers, the interviewees alsodescribed concern about how the publishers do not fully use the potential of active usersand readers who would spread the content:

“You should do right things there [in social media]. All such things, how we spread thecontent and make our customers to spread it. In addition, Google and other searchengines, how visible we are there. These are the two most critical issues in this business.”(Manager)

”It is not an end in itself that you are in Twitter or Facebook, if you just pump out feedsthere, I think it is a huge mistake. The key idea in social media is being interactive.”(Developer)

All in all, this tension derives from publishing companies’ capability gaps in terms of howcustomers behave online and how they focus their attention. It is manifested as an inabilityto facilitate customer participation and to harness the full potential of customers spreadingand creating content. Respectively, the tension arises from all new customer roles but fromthe customer community-oriented roles (Debaters, Messengers, Content-producers) inparticular. In other words, the more customer-to-customer type interactions are (see Table2), the less controllable it becomes from the company’s part. This calls for subtle means toencourage and motivate customer activity.

5.2.5 The tension between the expected quality vs. the nature of customer interaction

One of the management-level interviewees crystallized the change related to the Internetaudiences as follows:

“We have seen a new tension rising, in other words our audience in social media, and howthey affect our editorial content. Nowadays, the general public may express their opinions

in the discussion forums, about our news, editors’ attitudes, or communication in general.I think social media serves as a superb channel for us: now we can have direct feedbackfrom consumers, what do they think about our product.” (Manager)

Interestingly, all informant groups expressed such a positive tone towards theInternet-enabled interactions by customers. Yet there are differences in what publishersactually expected from customers: while reasoned feedback is highly appreciated, othertypes of interaction are necessarily not, particularly among editors. Let us elaborate thisargument more in detail.

The appropriate policies for hosting online discussions raised much debate in everyorganisational group and there is no consensus about the right or wrong. One of the keyissues is registration vs. anonymous discussion. Another critical topic is moderating andhow it is executed; changes in hosting and moderating policies have caused confusionamong users. The interviewees also expressed much concern about the culture or tone ofonline discussions. For instance, it is too often stuck in certain topics, runs totally off-topic,or involves racism, insults and masses of provocative messages. The tension thus arisesfrom the fact that online discussions are highly valued by publishers, but their logic doesnot fit with journalistic ideals of good content. Companies also need to cultivate thepositive brand image and cannot publish illegal content and provocations. The followingquotations illustrate the controversies regarding online discussions.

”There has to be a system with which to follow the discussion so that it meets the qualitycriteria.” (Chief editor)

“I am so old-fashioned that I would like to see discussions with real names, but I don’tthink it’s possible anymore. Nowadays it is pseudonyms, preferably.” (Chief editor)

”It is not easy to get good discussion. It requires strict moderation… good moderation.”(Editor)

”I thought we could have more customers to participate, but there are so many thresholds,such as that they are forced to register.” (Developer)

”If we think about the discussions… It’s still haunting there: each message is readbeforehand and it is either accepted or not.” (Developer)

”I think it is a good indicator how we haven’t been able to create any discussion culturethere. Rather it is a constant war of what is accepted and what is not accepted, and ourusers celebrate if a provocative message every now and then gets published.” (Developer)

”It is totally absurd… The thing that we have three anti-editors, whose mission is to stampcontent and destroy content that users have produced.” (Developer)

Altogether, the editorial line about good content differs remarkably from developers’perception of valuable content. What is of essence here is who eventually sets the framesfor which is acceptable and how to find a balance between opposing viewpoints: too strictpolicies are seen to exaggerate the problems caused by open debate and also erode theestablishment of a conversation culture (developers’ view), while it is practically

impossible to adopt such policy where all type of content by customers would be allowedon publishers’ website (editorial’s view).

Respectively, the perceptions about how to best nurture customer relationships onlinediffered remarkably among the informant groups. Whereas online service developers wereconcerned about “getting closer to the customer’s thinking”, understanding how theyactually behave on the Internet, some editors described how they first and foremost needinformation on which topics are of interest for customers. This concern was also prevalentamong management and chief editors: the Internet was seen as a source of on-goingfeedback from customers. In other words, while the former implies a need to understandhow customers want to interact online – developers referred to “netizens” and theirbehaviour – in the latter case the key question is what the customers want to read storiesabout. The threat is that publishing companies only focus on delivering journalistic contentover online channels and while suffocating with this task, end in undervaluing thehuman-interactive nature of online media. Indeed, as one the editors described:

“The only way to get committed customers online is high-quality content. When we know itis good, we also show respect to our customers. --- I think our core strength online is thecontent. But… the problem is that it is not unique. We don’t have anything special there.”(Editor)

The tension between journalistic standards and customer-driven interaction thus leads to aparadoxical situation. By engaging in online discussions, customers create communitiesthat are unique in their tone and content, whereas the editorial content may not providesuch unique value to the service. Yet the publisher cannot tolerate any type of debate, asthey also have to take care of legality and the limits of freedom of speech. Hence, finding abalance between the two – control and freedom – remains a focal concern.

In summary, we see this tension eventually derived from the collision between journalisticideal of high-quality content and the role of customers as Debaters and Dialoguers.Newspapers in particular have faced long and heavy struggles in defining appropriatepolicies and culture regarding the discussions and their moderation. In managerial terms, itseems necessary for the media organizations to be able to set different standards andexpectations for the quality and nature of print and online content.

5.2.6 The tension between customer loyalty vs. customers’ fragmented use of interactivemedia

Earlier, when discussing the tension about being closed vs. open to the voice of customers,we noted the company-internal attitudinal challenge regarding the position of newspapersand magazines: in line with the development of interactive media, they no longer holdcontrol over readers and define their agenda alone. Finally, the tension between customerloyalty vs. fragmented media use refers to customers’ attitude towards newspapers andmagazines. It derives from the general perception that customers now have a variety ofopportunities regarding media choice and channels of interaction. As a result of engagingin social-media-enabled networks and sharing content with peers, they are seen to manifestless loyalty to a single newspaper or magazine brand.

In line with the increase in the supply of interactive services and the rise of social media,customers are also seen to attach to more entertainment-type of content, and search forlighter information than before. This characteristic was associated with younger consumeraudience. Newspapers, in particular, have long been in a situation where they have enjoyeda stable and safe position on the market – a position that social media on its part haschallenged, as many of our interviewees underlined.

This tension most notably arises from the role of customers as Messengers. Ourinterviewees described a variety of situations where the newspaper or magazine “fallsthrough the net” as customers have a variety of channels to interact and share contentdirectly with each other. Overall, newspapers and magazines now compete with othermedia not only regarding customers’ time and attention, but also in terms of the contentproduced by other media and the customers themselves.

“What people do, they hang around on the Net, on Flickr, YouTube, Facebook, they wanthave a good time there… We simply don’t have any that kind of stuff to offer to ourcustomers.” (Editor)

Again, this tension was basically related to the different use culture of the Internet incomparison to consuming journalistic content:

“The Net is awfully fast, things just come and go.” (Developer)

“People may not come directly to our site, instead, they pop in here and there.”(Developer)

Another example of this tension is that while publishing companies need to ensure thatthey gain visibility through search engines – as one interviewee put it, for many customersGoogle is the internet – they may simultaneously weaken as a brand: customers areredirected to the online services by Google and may not be aware that the service is a partof newspaper or magazine.

In summary, we see this tension to derive from the increased opportunities of customers touse interactive media, produce and share content, particularly in the role of Messengers.This, for its part, is seen to contribute to the fragmentation of media use and expressingless loyalty towards newspaper or magazine brands. In managerial terms, the fragmentedmedia use calls for practices to foster customer commitment, many of which have beendiscussed in earlier sections.

Having discussed the tensions raised by new customer roles, Table 3 summarizes theidentified tensions and the respective roles of customers.

Table 3. The tensions provoked by new customer rolesTension Which new customer roles

provoke the tension1. The traditional role of editors vs. the new role as a facilitator of customer interaction

DialoguersDebaters

2. The existing organizational structures vs. demand for new structures, responsibilities, processes, and technology

Agents DialoguersDebaters MessengersTesters

Content-producers3. Being closed vs. being open to the voice of customers Agents

DialoguersDebaters MessengersTestersContent-producers

4. Active vs. inactive customers DebatersMessengersContent-producers

5. The expected quality vs. the nature of customer interaction DialoguersDebaters

6. Customer loyalty vs. customers’ fragmented use of interactive media

Messengers

Further, Figure 1 summarizes the managerial challenges raised by the tensions. As it can beseen, the new customer roles provoke managerial challenges and risks related to theamount of actual interaction, the quality of interaction and the attitude towardsinteraction both internally in media organizations and externally in relation to theircustomers.

Figure 1. Challenges related to managing tensions

6 CONCLUSIONS

This paper investigated the new customer roles enabled by interactive media, as perceivedby newspaper and magazine publishers. Secondly, it unravelled the tensions arisen by thesenew roles of customers. We identified six new customer roles – Agents, Dialoguers,Debaters, Messengers, Testers and Content-producers – and examined the related tensions,regarding editorial roles, organizational structures, degree of openness, level of customeractivity, nature of interactions, and online media use.

The theoretical contribution of this paper is twofold. Firstly, it provides a categorization ofnew customer roles within newspaper and magazine publishing industries, as enabled by

company-external (customers)

company-internal

amount of interaction

quality of interaction

attitude towards interaction

Tension 4 Inability to harness customer networks

Tension 1 Inactive participation

Tension 2 Inappropriate organizing

Tension 3 Losing control over readers

Tension 5 Inability to understand the nature of customer-driven interactions

Tension 6 Ignorance by customers

interactive media. This categorization is valuable for media researchers, as it complementsthe traditional customer roles of reader, customer and user by six other roles enabled byinteractive media. The categorization could also be applied to other online non-productdevelopment –oriented virtual environment, where Nambisan’s (2002) typology falls short.

Secondly, our study unravels and classifies the underlying tensions regarding customerinteraction and thus makes a contribution to the field of media research by investigating thebackground factors that are related to the establishment of interactive media services andfeatures. It is important for media managers to note that while new customer rolesempower them to take a more visible role in the value creation, the internal tensions withinmedia organizations may be the bottleneck for leveraging the potential. This setschallenges for media managers not only to identify the tensions, but also to use them as thecatalyst for drastic change (cf. Lewis, 2000).

Based on our study, some future research directions can also be outlined. Firstly, as ourstudy focused on the insights of the representatives of the publishing companies, it wouldbe of interest to further refine and elaborate the identified customer roles so that the actualcustomer interactions would be investigated. Secondly, the new customer roles could belinked to different types of interactive features, as identified in previous studies ofinteractive media. Finally, managing the tensions arisen by the new customer rolesprovides an interesting avenue for future research.

REFERENCES

Achtenhagen, L. & Raviola, E. (2007). Organizing internal tension: Duality managementof media companies, in L. Achtenhagen (Ed.), Organizing Media: Mastering theChallenges of Organizational Change, pp. 127-145. JIBS Research Report Series No.2007-01, Jönköping.

Achtenhagen, L. & Raviola, E. (2009). Balancing Tensions During Convergence: DualityManagement in a Newspaper Company. The International Journal of Media Management,11: 32-41.

Chung DS. (2007). Profits and perils: Online News Producers’ Perceptions of Interactivityand Uses of Interactive Features, Convergence: The International Journal of Research IntoNew Media Technologies, 13(1): 43-61.

Chung DS. (2008). Interactive Features of Online Newspapers: Identifying Patterns andPredicting Use of Engaged Readers, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13:658-679.

Dahan, E. & Hauser, J. (2002). The virtual customer. The Journal of Product InnovationManagement, 19: 332-353.

Denzin, NK. & Lincoln, YS. (2000). Introduction. The discipline and practice ofqualitative research. In Denzin, NK. & Lincoln, YS. (Eds.), Handbook of QualitativeResearch. 2nd edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp. 1-28.

Ellonen, HK. & Kosonen, M. (2010). Treat your customers as equals! Fostering customercollaboration through social media, forthcoming in International Journal of ElectronicMarketing and Retailing.

English, T. (2001). Tension analysis in international organizations: a tool for breakingdown communication barriers, The International Journal of Organizational Analysis 9(1):58-83.

Eskola, J. & Suoranta, J. (1998). Johdatus Laadulliseen Tutkimukseen [Introduction toQualitative Research]. Osuuskunta Vastapaino, Tampere.

Fortunati, L., Sarrica, M., O’Sullivan, J., Balcytiene, A, Harro-Loit, H., Macgregor, P.,Roussou, N., Salaverria, R. and de Luca, F. (2009). The Influence of the Internet onEuropean Journalism, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14: 928-963.

Füller, J., Bartl, M., Ernst, H. & Mühlbacher, H. (2006). Community based innovation:How to integrate members of virtual communities into new product development.Electronic Commerce Research, 6: 57-73.

Gade, P. (2004). Newspapers and organizational development: Management and journalistperceptions of newsroom cultural change, Journalism and Communication Monographs,6(1): 3-55.

Hollifield, C. A. & Coffey, A. J. (2006). Qualitative research in media management andeconomics. In Albarran, A. B., Chan-Olmsted, S. M. & Wirth, M. O. (Eds) Handbook ofMedia Management and Economics, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,pp.573-600.

Jeppesen, L. & Molin, M. (2004). Consumers as co-developers: Learning and innovationoutside the firm, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 15(3): 363-383.

Kenney, K., Goreli, A. & Mwangi, S. (2000). Interactive Features of Online Newspapers.First Monday, 5(1). Retrieved 28 September, 2009 fromhttp://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/720/629

Kirk, J. & Miller, ML. (1986). Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. SagePublications, Newbury Park.

Kosonen, M. & Ellonen, HK. (2007). Virtual customer communities: An innovative casefrom the media industry. In L. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh, P. Novais & C. Analide(Eds.), Establishing the Foundation of Collaborative Networks, pp. 391-398. SpringerPublishers.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managingnew product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 111-125.

Gilbert, C. (2005). Unbundling the structure of inertia: resource versus routine rigidity.Academy of Management Journal, 48(5): 741-763.

Lewis, MW. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide, Academyof Management Review 25(4): 760-776.

Massey, B. & Levy, M. (1999). Interactivity, Online Journalism, and English-LanguageWeb Newspapers in Asia, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76(1): 138-151.

Morris, M. & Ogan, C. (1996). The Internet as Mass Medium, Journal of Communication,46(1): 39-50.

Nambisan, S. (2002). Designing virtual customer environments for new productdevelopment: toward a theory. Academy of Management Review, 27(3): 392-413.

O’Sullivan, J. & Heinonen, A. (2008) Old values, new media. Journalism role perceptionin a changing world, Journalism Practice, 2(3): 357-371.

Picard, R.G. (2005). Unique characteristics and business dynamics of media products,Journal of Media Business Studies 2(2):61-69.

Poole, MS. & van den Ven, AH. (1989). Using paradox to build management andorganization theories, Academy of Management Review 14(4): 562-578.

Ruggiero, TR. (2004). Paradigm repair and changing journalistic perceptions of theInternet as an objective news source. Convergence: The Journal of Research Into NewTechnologies, 10(4): 92-104.

Salmenkivi, S. & Nyman, N. (2007). Yhteisöllinen media ja muuttuvat markkinointi 2.0.[Collaborative media and changing marketing 2.0], Talentum, Helsinki.

Sawhney, M., Verona, G. & Prandelli, E. (2005). Collaborating to create: the Internet as aplatform for customer engagement in product innovation. Journal of Interactive Marketing,19(4): 4-17.

Shank, GD. (2006). Qualitative Research. A Personal Skills Approach, 2nd edition.Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

Singer, JB. (2003). Who are these guys? The online challenge to the notion of journalisticprofessionalism, Journalism, 4(2): 139-163.

Slotegraaf, RJ. & Dickson, PR. (2004). The paradox of a marketing planning capability,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32(4): 371-385.

Stromer-Galley, J. (2000). On-line Interaction and Why Candidates Avoid It, Journal ofCommunication, 50(4): 111-132.

Strube, M., Knuth, I. & Wellbrock, C. (2009). User motivation on generating content. Acritical review of recent research and an analysis of motivation for different UGC types. Apaper presented in the annual conference of European Media Management Association(EMMA), Paris, France, 13-14 February, 2009.

Thompke, S. & von Hippel, E. (2002). Customers as innovators: a new way to createvalue. Harvard Business Review, April 2002, 74-81.

Thurman, N. (2008). Forums for citizen journalists? Adoption of use generated contentinitiatives by online news media, New Media & Society, 10(1): 139-157.

Yin, R. (2003). Case Study Research. Design and Methods, 3rd Edition. Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks.

Wellman, B. & Gulia, M. (1999) Virtual communities as communities: Net surfers don’tride alone. In M Smith and P Kollock (Eds), Communities in Cyberspace, pp. 167-194.Routledge, London.

Williams, R. & Cothrel, J. (2000). Four smart ways to run online communities. SloanManagement Review, 41(4): 81-91.