cross-national similarities and differences between legacy ... 8(2) - cross... ·...

Media and Communication (ISSN 2183ndash2439)2020 Volume 8 Issue 2 Pages 16ndash27

DOI 1017645macv8i22733

Article

Cross-National Similarities and Differences between Legacy andDigital-Born News Media Audiences

Alfonso Vara-Miguel

Department of Marketing and Media Management School of Communication University of Navarra 31009 PamplonaSpain E-Mail avaraunaves

Submitted 18 December 2019 | Accepted 28 January 2020 | Published 16 April 2020

AbstractThe decline of the news business model for print newspapers in manyWestern countries and the digital disruption causedby the Internet have influenced the rise of digital-born news media These new media are different from legacy brands interms of businessmodels distribution strategies corporate organisation and editorial priorities It would be expected thatthe different nature of both legacy and digital-born newsmedia has driven to two types of significantly different audiencesThis article aims to analyse whether there are significant differences between the users of these two types of media bycomparing the online audiences of five European countriesrsquo (United Kingdom Germany France Spain and Italy) legacyand digital-born media brands in 2015 and 2019 The article will focus on four aspects demographic and socioeconomicsprofiles (sex age income and level of education) interest in news payment for online news and media trust

Keywordsdigital-born media legacy brands media brands media trust paywalls

IssueThis article is part of the issue ldquoDigital Native News Media Trends and Challengesrdquo edited by Ramoacuten Salaverriacutea (Universityof Navarra Spain)

copy 2020 by the author licensee Cogitatio (Lisbon Portugal) This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribu-tion 40 International License (CC BY)

1 Introduction

The rise of the Internet as a content distributor isat the epicentre of the crisis of the media businessmodel Technological advances have reduced the en-try barriers to content creation and distribution bymaking professional-quality production tools widely ac-cessible at low price (Kuumlng 2008) The emergence ofnew news providers and technological distribution plat-forms has changed the way audiences get news (CurranFenton amp Freedman 2012 Kuumlng Picard amp Towse 2008McDowell 2011) making the general audiencersquos newslsquodietrsquo more abundant and diverse than ever Accordingto the Digital News Report (2015 and 2019) 62 of re-spondents use five or more news sources weekly (65in 2019) and 42 of them read seven or more differentsources (45 in 2019) from both online andor offlineoutlets (Newman Fletcher Kalogeropoulos amp Nielsen2019 Newman Levy amp Nielsen 2015)

Specifically this technological difference betweenonline and offline products has guided research onnews consumption trends mostly from the uses andgratifications field According to this framework usersmake a rational decision evaluating utilities featuresand rewards provided by every kind of media (LinSalwen amp Abdulla 2005) Many of these studieshave focused on analysing the displacement or com-plementary effect of print editions by digital newspa-pers (Althaus amp Tewksbury 2000 Dutta-Bergman 2004Flavian amp Gurrea 2009 Newell Pilotta amp Thomas2008 Westlund amp Faumlrdigh 2012) with mixed resultslargely due to the different methodologies applied (Chyiamp Lee 2013) Some authors suggest that the Internethas had a competitive displacement effect on tradi-tional media (Dimmick Chen amp Li 2004 Filistrucchi2005 Ha amp Fang 2012) On the contrary Westlund andFardigh (2015) find emerging patterns of complementarynews consumption

Media and Communication 2020 Volume 8 Issue 2 Pages 16ndash27 16

Probably the difficulty in reaching clear conclusionshas its roots in the fact that the majority of studies havea technological focus they tend to look at displacementand complementarity through platforms However fewstudies have focused on this issue from a media brandsperspective Given the increased competition and multi-channel media consumption it seems crucial for mediacompanies to build up and strengthen their brands

2 Theoretical Framework

Different media distributors and media formats usedto be clearly different media products with distinc-tive production marketing and consumption patterns(McDowell 2011) However the Internet has led to thefoundation of the so-called new pure players or digital-born newsmedia These newmedia outlets are differentfrom legacy brands in terms of business models distri-bution strategies corporate organisation and editorialpriorities (Nicholls Shabbir amp Nielsen 2016) They onlyoperate online and are carving out a profitable and sus-tainable business on the net using new business mod-els as the so-called niche journalism (Cook amp Sirkkunen2013) Meanwhile legacy media usually manages bothkinds of sources offline (print or broadcast) and onlineAlthough there is not a unique definition of legacy firmsthey present some common traits Their brand heritageis anchored in the quality of their customer relations aswell as in the quality of their products (McDowell 2011Tungate 2005) and their consumers value legacy brandidentities (LoweampStavitsky 2016) For legacy brands it iseconomically rational to cover news in a quality-orientedmanner By including quality as a part of their brandidentity media outlets find an audience that is readyto pay money or at least attention for this sort of cov-erage (Siegert Gerth amp Rademacher 2011) From themanagerial point of view the majority of full-time jobsfor journalists are in this shrinking legacy media sector(McChesney 2012) a sector with high costs that is vul-nerable to downturns in the economy (Organization forEconomic Co-operation and Development 2010)

It would be natural to expect two different types ofaudience as a result of the difference between legacy anddigital-born news outlets This hypothesis is based onprevious research suggesting that usersaudience per-ceive and use different types of news differently Ots(2010) asserted that media brands create value for audi-ences wanting specific content and advertisers wantingto reach specific audiences As a result brand equity cre-ates a different brand image in peoplersquos mind and so fara different response in consumers A strong brand willfoster stronger attitudes and behaviours than those fos-tered by a weak or anonymous brand (Siegert FoumlrsterChan-Olmsted amp Ots 2015) In communicating the keycharacteristics of legacy brands media managers coulddifferentiate their outlets from those of their competi-tors As a result they prevent imitation stabilise and in-crease their audience in the long term However there

is no guarantee that audience perception of the legacybrands would be in line withmediamanagersrsquo intentionsIn fact contrary to expectations legacy outlets and digi-tal born media are not getting substantially different au-diences (Arrese amp Kaufmann 2016)

The analysis of the two kinds of audiences proposedin this article seeks to show the relevance of brandsin news markets This study complements others witha more media-centric technological approach (Siegertet al 2015) following thepath of other scholars (BensonBlach-Oslashrsten Powers Willig amp Vera Zambrano 2012Humprecht amp Buumlchel 2013 Stetka amp Oumlrnebring 2013)

This article focuses on three areas of research thathave been analysed in previous studies of the differencesand similarities between legacy media and digital-bornnew media audience segmentation revenue modelsand media trust The conclusions of this study could beof interest not only from a journalistic point of view butfrom a managerial perspective

21 Audience Segmentation

As stated above one of the relevant topics in the stud-ies of online and offline media has been the differ-ences in the uses and gratifications perceived by the twotypes of audiences (Filistrucchi 2005 Newell et al 2008Westlund amp Faumlrdigh 2011) New and different types ofmedia formats should create different kinds of audiencesin relation to their needs and motivations to use mediaand producemore audience segmentation In that sensethe new digital landscape contributes to a greater het-erogeneity inmarkets (MitchelsteinampBoczkowski 2010)due to the abundance of digital media which incen-tivises the specialisation and therefore the targeting ofsmaller audiences defined bymultiple and segmented in-terests (Arrese amp Kaufmann 2016 Fortunati Deuze ampde Luca 2014) Along the same lines previous researchhas identified attitudinal variables as key factors drivingthe media selection process when compared with tradi-tional media (Chyi amp Chadha 2011 Chyi amp Lasorsa 2002de Waal Schoumlnbach amp Lauf 2005)

By contrast Webster and Ksiazek (2012) assert thatthe Internet has concentrated a vast amount of theaudience attention around the leading news organisa-tions which are quite undifferentiated and difficult tobe segmented and predictable According to Arrese andKaufmann (2016) these two apparently contradictoryviews are not necessarily incompatible and other reason-ings must be studied to understand and find answers tothe homogenisation versus segmentation debate This ar-ticle adds a new focus to this question studying whetherdifferent types of media (legacy brands or digital-born)create significantly different readership segments

22 Revenue Models

Over the last few years online news organisations allover the world have erected paywalls (Arrese 2016


Sjoslashvaag 2016) For decades legacy newspapers havebeen oriented towards protecting their current mar-kets serving existing customers and reacting to inno-vations in media markets They were more focused ondefending their flagship brand and customer base thanon being proactive (Herbert amp Thurman 2007 Holm2016) However the success of certain media firms suchas The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times(Mensing 2007) and the need to compensate for lossesin the traditional advertisingmarket (Sjoslashvaag 2016) havechanged the revenue strategies ofmedia firms from freeto pay

An increasing amount of literature has addressedthis issue from several perspectives the effect of pay-walls on the spread of quality news in society (Collins2011 Pickard amp Williams 2014) the potential predic-tors of willingness to pay for digital news like sociodemo-graphic variables (ChiouampTucker 2013 Chyiamp Lee 2013Cook amp Attari 2012 Goyanes 2014 Kammer BoeckHansen amp Hadberg 2015 Wang 2011) interest in newsand frequency of readership of digital news (Goyanes ampVara-Miguel 2017 Oh Animesh amp Pinsonneault 2016)or previous payment for print news (Chyi 2005 2012)Notwithstanding that the factors related to likelinessto pay for digital news are still unclear and multifold(Himma-Kadakas amp Kotildeuts 2015)

The study of revenue models from a brand perspec-tive provides new insight into this area of research Inthe online news market with an abundant supply ofnews available news has been perceived as a highlysubstitutable commodity and the reluctance to pay fordigital news is widespread among the public (Gundlachamp Hofmann 2017) On the other hand the success ofcertain firms is attributed to the quality and exclusive-ness of the content (Vara-Miguel Sanjurjo-San Martiacutenamp Diacuteaz-Espina 2014) and the presence of strong brands(Bleyen amp van Hove 2010 McDowell 2011 Mensing2007 Sjoslashvaag 2016) The question is whether the useof legacy media versus digital-born media turns into agreater commitment to paying for digital news

23 Media Trust

In the current media scenario with the emergence ofnewalternative channels of information somequestionshave arisen regarding the relationship between trust andmedia Although research on media trust is abundantthe literature lacks consensus not only on the notion ofmedia trust but also on the elements or dimensions thatcomprise it probably due to the variety of disciplinesand methodologies applied (Kiousis 2001 Kohring ampMatthes 2007) While early studies focus on the trustgenerated by sources with a clear persuasive aim (BerloLemert amp Mertz 1969 Hovland amp Weiss 1951) in sub-sequent years scholars focused on the credibility of chan-nels and media outlets (Johnson amp Kaye 1998 Westleyamp Severin 1964) and the relationship between trust andmedia use (Abel amp Wirth 1977 Gaziano amp McGrath

1986) Most of these studies show a modest relation be-tween media trust and media consumption and thosewho trust media the most are more likely to use tradi-tional outlets while sceptics pay more attention to alter-native sources (Ardegravevol-Abreu Hooker amp Gil de Zuacutentildeiga2018 Fletcher amp Park 2017 Kiousis 2001 Tsfati 2010Tsfati amp Cappella 2003 2005)

Finally recent worries about fake news misinforma-tion and theoften-low trust in the newshavehighlightedthe value of legacy brands as trusted media Accordingto the Digital News Report (Newman et al 2019) over aquarter (26) of the respondents have started to rely onmore reputable news sources (40 in the US) and a fur-ther quarter have stopped using sources of dubious rep-utation The analysis of media trust from this brand per-spective could help to understand whether trust is per-ceived as a significant asset of legacy media when com-pared with digital-born media

3 Research Questions and Hypothesis

As stated above the aim of this article is to investigatewhether the nature of legacy media brands or digital-born media is relevant in explaining audience differenti-ation in online news markets considering the issues dis-cussed in the previous section More specifically this ar-ticle analyses whether or not there are significant differ-ences between online users of these two types of me-dia firms by comparing the digital audiences of the mainlegacy and digital-born media brands of five Europeancountries (United Kingdom Germany France Spain andItaly) in 2015 and 2019 The specific research questionsare as follows

RQ1 Do online audiences of legacy media and digital-born media have significantly different demographicand socioeconomic profiles

RQ2 Are online audiences of legacymedia and digital-born media significantly different in their interest innews and in their frequency of news consumption

RQ3 Do online audiences of legacy media and digital-born media differ significantly in their behaviour andattitudes toward payment for online news content

RQ4 Do online audiences of legacy media and digital-born media differ significantly in their media trustperception

The general hypothesis is that significant differences ex-ist in all of the questions under research something thatseems reasonable considering the different natures ofthese two types of media firms A priori it could bestated that legacy brands have a similar audience interms of profile and behaviour to that of traditionalmedia outlets (higher age income and level of educa-tion RQ1) they declare more interest in news and con-


sequently access news more frequently (RQ2) and aremore likely to pay for digital news (RQ3) Finally legacyusers aremore inclined to trustmassmedia and aremoresceptical about social media (RQ4) in contrast to digital-born media audiences

4 Method

41 Sample Variables and Measurement

The analysis is based on data corresponding to theUnited Kingdom Germany France Spain and Italy fromthe survey carried out for the Digital News Report 2015and 2019 in which some questions directly relatedto this article were included YouGov using an onlinequestionnaire in late Januaryndashearly February 2014 and2019 conducted the survey fieldwork commissioned bythe Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism Thedata were weighted to targets based on censusindustry-accepted data such as age gender region newspaperreadership and social grade to reflect the population ofeach country The sample is reflective of the adult pop-ulation (18+) with access to the Internet As the surveydeals with news consumption it filtered out anyonewhosaid that they had not consumed any news in the pastmonth (average around 3) in order to ensure that ir-relevant responses did not adversely affect data quality(see Table 1)

In order to get the two types of readers (legacy usersand digital-born users) a subsample was generated us-ing the responses to the question lsquoWhich if any of thefollowing have you used to access news in the last weekvia online platforms (web mobile tablet e-reader)Please select all that applyrsquo Respondents have to se-lect options from a list of each countryrsquos main legacyand digital-born outlets According to their responsestwo types of readers were obtained those who usemore legacy media than digital-born media and thosewho use more digital-born media than legacy outlets(N 2015 = 6677 658 of the total sample N 2019 = 6532649 of the total sample) Additionally those who useexactly the same number of legacy and digital-born me-dia have been excluded from the subsample in order tohave two clear-cut groups

Once the grouping variable is established we selectthose survey questions used as variables to examine the

hypotheses related to the RQs All the variables as ex-plained below should be considered as reasonablemdashnotexhaustivemdashproxy measures for the overarching charac-teristics under investigation

Demographic and socioeconomic profiles (RQ1)weremeasured through four variables gender (malefemale)age (18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55to 64 and 65 or more) household income (low in-come less than euro19999 medium income euro20000 toeuro39999 high income euro40000 or more) and educationlevel (no completed secondary schoolcompleted highschool or Bac-A levelscompleted professional qualifica-tioncompleted bachelorrsquos degreecompleted masterrsquosor doctoral degree)

Interest in news and frequency of news consumption(RQ2) were measured through the following questionslsquoHow interested if at all would you say you are in thenewsrsquo (extremely interestedvery interestedsomewhatinterestednot very interestednot at all interested) andlsquoTypically how often do you access news By news wemean national international regionallocal news andother topical events accessed via any platform (radio TVnewspaper or online)rsquo (less often than once aweekoncea week to six times a weekonce a day to five times adaysix times a day or more)

Attitudes towards payment for digital news wereused as proxy indicators of the preference for revenuemodels more dependent on free or paid content (RQ3)The exact question asked was lsquoHave you paid for onlinenews content or accessed a paid online news servicein the last year (this could be digital subscription com-bined digitalprint subscription or one-off payment foran article or app)rsquo (yesno)

Finally wemeasured themedia trust (RQ4) of the au-dience through two questions The first lsquoThinking aboutnews in general do you agree or disagree with the fol-lowing statement ldquoI think you can trust most newsmostof the timerdquorsquo focused on the credibility of the media ingeneral but the second asked about the audiencersquos trustin the specific media outlets they used lsquoThinking specif-ically about news sources that you use do you agreeor disagree with the following statement ldquoI think I cantrust most of the news that I use most of the timerdquorsquoThe possible answers to both questionswere strongly dis-agreetend to disagreeneither agree nor disagreetendto agreestrongly agree

Table 1 Sample size and internet penetration (2015 and 2019)

2015 2019

Country Sample size Internet penetration Sample size Internet penetration

United Kingdom 2149 90 2023 95Germany 1969 89 2022 96France 1991 83 2005 93Spain 2026 75 2005 93Italy 2006 59 2006 92

Source Internet World Stats (nd)


Table 2 Subsample Legacy and digital-born users (2015 and 2019)

2015 2019

Digital-born Digital-bornCountry Legacy users users Legacy users users

United Kingdom 1238 869 186 131 1294 920 112 80Germany 999 822 217 178 924 739 327 261France 783 709 321 291 786 729 292 271Spain 1170 809 276 191 1182 831 240 169Italy 1142 768 345 232 1118 813 257 187Total 5332 799 1345 201 5304 812 1228 188

42 Statistical Analysis

We decided to use the chi-squared test to analyse cate-gorical variables (gender income and payment for on-line news) and the Mann-Whitney U-test for metric vari-ables (education age interest in news frequency ofnews consumption media trust and trust in your ownmedia) The selection of non-parametric tests includingmetric variables was due to the lack of normality in thedistribution of values An examination of the standard-ised skewness coefficient and the standardised kurtosiscoefficient revealed serious departures from normalityfor all of the metric variables

5 Results

Table 2 shows the distribution and evolution of the twoaudience groups Most of the respondents used morelegacymedia than digital-bornmedia as a source of newsin all of the countries studied Five years later this trendwas stronger and the percentage of respondents get-ting news from legacy media grew in every country ex-cept Germany

In order to test if a significant difference exists be-tween the groups of readers in terms of sociodemo-graphic variables (RQ1) a chi-squared was used to anal-yse gender and income and a Mann-Whitney U-test wasapplied for age and level of education The data revealeda statistically significant difference in 2015 betweengroups in gender (X2 (1 N = 6677) = 2365 p = 0000)income (X2 (2N= 5880)= 1668 p= 0000) and educa-tion (U= 3300886 p= 0000) but not age (U= 3471020p = 0065) Table 3 shows that in 2015 male audiences(52) with high income (28) and a bachelorrsquos or post-graduate degree (38) tend to use more legacy me-dia than born-digital Five years later there were sig-nificant differences in all sociodemographic variablesgender (X2 (1 N = 6531) = 2624 p = 0000) in-come (X2 (2 N = 5651) = 1190 p = 0003) educa-tion (U = 3202889 p = 0000) and age (U = 3082176p = 0000)

Table 4 shows the same trend in 2019 Thosewho usemore legacy media than born-digital media tend to bemale with higher levels of income and education than

those who read more digital-born outlets Surprisinglyrespondents under 44 years read more legacy brands(45) than born-digital media (33) while those over45 years use more native media (66) than legacy me-dia (54)

By countries the data shows that Spain and espe-cially France differ from the general trend as there are nosociodemographic differences between the two groupsin these countries either in 2015 or in 2019

With regard to the amount of interest in news andthe level of news consumption (RQ2) the data shows sig-nificant differences between the two groups in 2015mdashinterest in news (U= 3051343 p= 0000) and frequencyof news use (U = 3185492 p = 0000)mdashand in 2019mdashinterest in news (U= 2922834 p= 0000) and frequencyof news use (U = 3012158 p = 0000)

In 2015 (see Table 5) those who use more legacy me-dia were more interested in news (34 are extremely in-terested versus 24of native users) and read newsmorefrequently (61 of legacy users access six times a day ormore versus 50 of born-digital users) Five years later(see Table 6) the data shows similar differences betweenthe two groups 30 of legacy users are extremely inter-ested in news versus 21 of native users and the 27of them access 6 times a day or more to news versus the17 of born-digital users The differences between thetwo groups of users occur in all the countries analysedexcept France in 2015 where there are no significant dif-ferences in both variables interest in news (U = 120539p = 0257) and frequency of news use (U = 124422p = 0770) However in 2019 significant differences ap-pear between the two groups of French users

The results on attitudes toward payment for onlinenews content (RQ3) show also significant differences be-tween the two groups in 2015 (X2 (1 N= 6557)= 2023p= 0000) and 2019 (X2 (1N= 6333)= 3020p= 0000)In 2015 (see Table 5) thosewho readmore legacy brandsthan born-digital media were more likely to pay for on-line news (12) than those who use native media (8)In 2019 the percentages were 13 and 7 respectively(see Table 6) Significant differences occur in all countriesexcept France (X2 (1 N = 1078) = 317 p = 0075) andSpain (X2 (1 N = 1426) = 279 p = 0094) in 2015 andItaly in 2019 (X2 (1 N = 1310) = 163 p = 0201)


Table 3 Frequency distributions for sociodemographic variables 2015 ()

Legacy users Born-digital users

Total UK GER FR SP IT Total UK GER FR SP IT

Sociodemographic

GenderMale 524 523 556 515 526 501 450 366 470 477 453 455Female 476 477 444 485 474 499 550 634 530 523 547 545

Age18 to 24 95 113 104 64 102 81 83 140 23 47 80 12525 to 34 159 133 166 124 199 165 153 118 97 140 199 18335 to 44 191 163 197 166 226 196 190 97 184 196 225 20945 to 54 185 204 184 176 182 173 184 215 230 187 152 15955 to 64 239 220 196 295 232 267 245 226 240 252 275 22665 or more 131 166 152 175 59 116 146 204 226 178 69 99

Household incomeLow 222 229 226 185 250 205 238 367 294 130 277 203Medium 491 453 498 563 453 515 534 456 485 627 482 563High 287 318 275 252 297 279 228 177 222 243 241 233

EducationNo completed Sec school 100 91 91 152 72 111 123 124 97 140 62 171Completed High school 312 305 240 286 239 474 335 328 235 312 214 522Prof Qualification 209 160 364 249 234 71 230 242 452 234 275 43Bachelorrsquos 233 307 153 188 370 113 209 247 124 199 380 113MasterrsquosDoctoral 147 137 151 125 85 231 103 59 92 115 69 151




Sociodemographic






Table 5 Frequency distributions for media use payment and media trust variables 2015 ()



Media use and payment

Frequency news useLess often once a week 24 22 24 38 22 17 38 43 18 37 36 49Once a week to 6 times a week 65 66 73 79 64 48 83 118 78 47 87 99Once a day to 5 times a day 301 252 239 314 403 296 377 382 341 374 449 3426 times a day or more 610 660 664 568 510 639 502 457 562 542 428 510

Interest in newsExtremely interested 346 316 375 259 356 402 245 194 267 231 299 235Very interested 457 462 454 414 542 399 458 419 484 417 551 426Somewhat interested 183 207 162 289 98 189 271 339 235 302 156 319Not very interested 13 14 07 38 03 10 23 43 05 43 00 20Not at all interested 01 02 02 00 01 00 04 05 09 05 04 00

Pay for digital newsYes 125 85 111 135 140 156 80 43 56 96 102 84No 875 915 889 865 860 844 920 957 944 904 898 916

Media trust

I can trust mediaStrongly disagree 46 39 50 49 56 38 55 70 18 59 69 55Tend to disagree 208 208 122 195 276 223 210 215 83 234 275 214Neither agree nor disagree 299 235 233 344 331 363 325 306 230 330 315 397Tend to agree 404 481 493 388 314 346 373 392 576 343 319 307Strongly agree 43 38 101 24 23 30 36 16 92 34 22 26

I can trust my own mediaStrongly disagree 29 27 26 28 38 25 26 22 09 31 43 20Tend to disagree 152 122 74 137 244 171 155 172 60 171 192 162Neither agree nor disagree 248 186 220 294 270 288 286 242 230 318 257 336Tend to agree 507 589 539 501 421 481 481 516 571 436 471 455Strongly agree 64 77 141 41 26 35 52 48 129 44 36 26

Finally the analysis of the groupsrsquomedia trust percep-tion (RQ4) does not provide a clear conclusion Althoughboth types of readers show significant differences in2015 (U = 3453343 p = 0027) and 2019 (U = 3341165p = 0039) and those who use more legacy brands thandigital-born media show higher media trust (44 oflegacy respondents usually trust on news versus 40 ofnative users in 2015 40 and 37 in 2019 respectivelysee Tables 5 and 6) there are some differences in thefive countries analysed In 2015 the data show no signif-icant differences between the two types of users in Spain(U = 159969 p = 0803) Italy (U = 188917 p = 0223)and France (U= 119280p= 0161) However the similar-ity in the Spanish and Italian audience is around the dis-trust onmedia while in France is around trust As Table 5shows only a third of Spanish and Italian respondentsusually trust the news in contrast with 41of the Frenchusers That is distrust is widespread in Spain and Italyin 2015 regardless of the type of media outlet while inFrance trust is the common ground for both groups

Five years later (see Table 6) there are no differencesbetween the two types of readers in France (U= 125871p = 0966) Germany (U = 140053 p = 0063) and Italy(U = 137063 p = 0181) In this case French users coin-cide in their media distrust regardless of the kind of out-let (only a quarter of French respondents usually trustmedia) while in Germany and Italy it is the opposite

Additionally we found no evidence of the third per-son effect (Davison 1983 Perloff 2009) in the researchThe differences between groups in all countries (exceptSpain) are identical in 2015 (U = 3463762 p = 0037)and 2019 (U = 3315316 p = 0011) when users wereasked about the trust they have in the news that theyusually read

6 Conclusion

The data confirms that although the online news mar-ket continues to be dominated by legacy brands (Brunoamp Nielsen 2012) and the most popular sites are those







Interest in newsExtremely interested 307 328 346 208 309 317 217 196 268 124 243 243Very interested 430 413 437 411 509 375 400 321 415 357 540 333Somewhat interested 235 237 188 324 161 285 331 375 258 474 209 353Not very interested 24 19 20 45 18 23 43 89 49 38 08 55Not at all interested 05 02 10 12 03 01 09 18 09 07 16


Media trust



of major news organisations (McDowell 2011) digital-bornmedia have become part of themedia ecosystem inall the countries analysed This article confirms the diver-gence between legacy media users and native users Byand large legacy users tend to be male and with higherincome and education levels than native users (RQ1)However cross-national data are not homogeneous inall countries

It is interesting to note that the two groups of usersdiffermorewhen journalistic variables are analysed (RQ2and RQ3) In all countries (except France in both years)legacy brands audiences show greater interest morenews consumption and more willingness to pay for digi-tal news than the digital-born users

In relation to media trust data about the existence(or not) of differences between the two groups are lessclear (RQ4) Global data shows significant differences in2015 and 2019 and those who use more legacy brandthan digital-born outlets aremore likely to trust the newsIn that sense media scepticism is more widespreadamong native users

Finally the longitudinal analysis shows that in 2019the percentage of very interested and heavy users de-creased in both groups from 2015 although more in-tensely among native users Additionally trust in newsalso declined in 2019 in both types of users espe-cially among digital-born outlet readers (from 409to 376)

This data could demonstrate the strength of legacybrands and its ability to get and keep loyal customersAs a whole all the indicators analysed (interest readingfrequency payment for news and trust) are more posi-tive to legacy media And when they decreased in 2019they did with less intensity than the native ones widen-ing the gap between the two groups From a manage-rial viewpoint legacy brands have three strong competi-tive advantages over digital-born media Firstly they en-joy a better differentiation in relation to competitors notonly in sociodemographic terms Secondly legacy mediausers show a higher engagement and tendency to loy-alty to their brands Thirdly this engagement drives to ahigher desire to continue buying the same brand at least


in a higher percentage than native users (Chan-Olmsted2011) Any global news branding strategy should bebased on these ideas as brand recognition constitute thebaseline from which to get and keep loyal customers Byfar this conclusion does not underestimate the role thatdigital-born outlets could play in the media landscapeEven if legacy media organisations succeed in movingreaders towards paywalls free alternatives are likely toremain in news markets (Sjoslashvaag 2016)

Although a complete review of the factors contribut-ing to media trust is beyond the scope of this studya deeper look at this variable is necessary Taken as awhole the data shows the existence of significant dif-ferences among legacy users and native users in bothyears as the former aremore likely to rely more on newsthan the latter This is not surprising as native mediawere born in many cases as an alternative to legacy op-tions perceived as unreliable mostly by younger peopleas confirmed in previous studies (Tsfati 2010 Tsfati ampCappella 2003 2005) Brand reputation could be a cru-cial factor in the trust transfer process from traditionalmedia outlets to digital ones Those who read morelegacy media trust more in news no matter the channel(traditional or digital) used This is an additional compet-itive advantage for legacy brands and any media brandextension strategy should be based on this idea

However the analysis by countries suggests a needfor deeper research on other factors (like national mediasystems or institutional media trust) that could explainbetter why France and Italy there are no significant dif-ferences between the two groups in 2015 and 2019 whynative users in Germany show greater confidence in thenews than legacy users in both years or why when insti-tutional trust in media is widespread (such as in Francein 2015 or Germany in 2019) there are no differencesbetween legacy and native users The relevance of thesestudies could improve the strategies for the media to fol-low in order to avoid the dilution of the differential valueof legacy brands

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry ofScience Innovation and Universities (Research ProjectDIGINATIVEMEDIA Reference No RTI2018ndash093346-B-C31)

Conflict of Interests

The author declares no conflict of interests

References

Abel J D amp Wirth M O (1977) Newspaper vs TVcredibility for local news JournalismQuarterly 54(2)371ndash375 httpsdoiorg101177107769907705400223

Althaus S L amp Tewksbury D (2000) Patterns of inter-

net and traditional news media use in a networkedcommunity Political Communication 17(1) 21ndash45

Ardegravevol-Abreu A Hooker C M amp Gil de Zuacutentildeiga H(2018) Online news creation trust in the mediaand political participation Direct and moderating ef-fects over time Journalism 19(5) 611ndash631 httpsdoiorg1011771464884917700447

Arrese Aacute (2016) From gratis to paywalls JournalismStudies 17(8) 1051ndash1067 httpsdoiorg1010801461670X20151027788

Arrese Aacute amp Kaufmann J (2016) Legacy and nativenews brands online Do they show different newsconsumption patterns International Journal on Me-dia Management 18(2) 75ndash97 httpsdoiorg1010801424127720161200581

Benson R Blach-Oslashrsten M Powers M Willig I ampVera Zambrano S (2012) Media systems online andoff Comparing the form of news in the United StatesDenmark and France Journal of Communication62(1) 21ndash38 httpsdoiorg101111j1460-2466201101625x

Berlo D K Lemert J B amp Mertz R J (1969) Di-mensions for evaluating the acceptability of messagesources Public Opinion Quarterly 33(4) 563ndash576httpsdoiorg101086267745

Bleyen V-A amp van Hove L (2010) To bundle or not tobundle How Western European newspapers pack-age their online content Journal ofMedia Economics23(3) 117ndash142 httpsdoiorg101080089977642010502511

Bruno N ampNielsen R K (2012) Survival is success Jour-nalistic online start-ups in Western Europe OxfordReuters Institute for the Study of Journalism

Chan-Olmsted S (2011) Media branding in a chang-ing world Challenges and opportunities 20 Interna-tional Journal on Media Management 13(1) 3ndash19httpsdoiorg101080142412772011568305

Chiou L amp Tucker C (2013) Paywalls and the de-mand for news Information Economics and Policy25(2) 61ndash69 httpsdoiorg101016jinfoecopol201303001

Chyi H I (2005) Willingness to pay for online news Anempirical study on the viability of the subscriptionmodel Journal of Media Economics 18(2) 131ndash142httpsdoiorg101207s15327736me1802_4

Chyi H I (2012) Paying for what How much And why(not) Predictors of paying intent for multiplatformnewspapers International Journal on Media Man-agement 14(3) 227ndash250 httpsdoiorg101080142412772012657284

Chyi H I amp Chadha M (2011) News on new devicesJournalism Practice 6(4) 431ndash449 httpsdoiorg101080175127862011629125

Chyi H I amp Lasorsa D L (2002) An explorative study onthe market relation between online and print news-papers Journal of Media Economics 15(2) 91ndash106httpsdoiorg101207S15327736ME1502_2

Chyi H I amp Lee AM (2013) Online news consumption


Digital Journalism 1(2) 194ndash211 httpsdoiorg101080216708112012753299

Collins R (2011) Content online and the end of publicmedia The UK a canary in the coal mine MediaCulture amp Society 33(8) 1202ndash1219 httpsdoiorg1011770163443711422459

Cook C amp Sirkkunen E (2013) Whatrsquos in a niche Ex-ploring the businessmodel of online journalism Jour-nal of Media Business Studies 10(4) 63ndash82 httpsdoiorg10108016522354201311073576

Cook J E amp Attari S Z (2012) Paying for what was freeLessons from The New York Times paywall Cyberpsy-chology Behavior and Social Networking 15(12)682ndash687 httpsdoiorg101089cyber20120251

Curran J Fenton N amp Freedman D (2012)Misunder-standing the internet London Routledge

Davison W P (1983) The third-person effect in com-munication Public Opinion Quarterly 47(1) 1ndash15httpsdoiorg101086268763

de Waal E Schoumlnbach K amp Lauf E (2005) Onlinenewspapers A substitute or complement for printnewspapers and other information channels Com-munications 30(1) 55ndash72 httpsdoiorg101515comm200530155

Dimmick J Chen Y amp Li Z (2004) Competitionbetween the internet and traditional news mediaThe gratification-opportunities niche dimension TheJournal of Media Economics 17(1) 19ndash33 httpsdoiorg101207s15327736me1701_2

Dutta-Bergman M (2004) Complementary in con-sumption of news types across traditional newsmedia Journal of Broadcasting and ElectronicMedia 48(1) 41ndash61 httpsdoiorg101207s15506878jobem4801_3

Filistrucchi L (2005) The impact of internet on the mar-ket for daily newspapers in Italy (EUI ECO WorkingPaper 12ndash2005) Fiesole Department of EconomicsEuropean University Institute

Flavian C amp Gurrea R (2009) Digital versus tra-ditional newspapers Influences on perceived sub-stitutability International Journal of Market Re-search 51(5) 635ndash675 httpsdoiorg101177147078530905100503

Fletcher R amp Park S (2017) The impact of trust in thenewsmedia on online news consumption and partici-pationDigital Journalism 5(10) 1281ndash1299 httpsdoiorg1010802167081120171279979

Fortunati L Deuze M amp de Luca F (2014) The newabout news How print online free and mobile co-construct new audiences in Italy France Spain theUK and Germany Journal of Computer-MediatedCommunication 19(2) 121ndash140 httpsdoiorg101111jcc412017

Gaziano B C amp McGrath K (1986) Measuring theconcept of credibility Journalism and Mass Commu-nication Quarterly 63(3) 451ndash462 httpsdoiorg101177107769908606300301

Goyanes M (2014) An empirical study of factors that

influence the willingness to pay for online newsJournalism Practice 8(6) 742ndash757 httpsdoiorg101080175127862014882056

Goyanes M amp Vara-Miguel A (2017) Probabilidad depagar por noticias digitales en Espantildea [Probabilityof paying for digital news in Spain] El Profesionalde la Informacioacuten 26(3) 488ndash496 httpsdoiorg103145epi2017may15

Gundlach H amp Hofmann J (2017) Preferences andwillingness to pay for tablet news apps Journal ofMedia Business Studies 14(4) 1ndash25 httpsdoiorg1010801652235420171346948

Ha L amp Fang L (2012) Internet experience and timedisplacement of traditional newsmedia use An appli-cation of the theory of the niche Telematics and In-formatics 29(2) 177ndash186 httpsdoiorg101016jtele201106001

Herbert J amp Thurman N (2007) Paid content strate-gies for news websites Journalism Practice 1(2)208ndash226 httpsdoiorg10108017512780701275523

Himma-Kadakas M amp Kotildeuts R (2015) Who is willingto pay for online journalistic content Media andCommunication 3(4) 106ndash115 httpdxdoiorg1017645macv3i4345

Holm A B (2016) Could freemium models work forlegacy newspapers Nordicom Information 38(1)83ndash87 Retrieved from httpswwwnordicomgusesitesdefaultfileskapitel-pdfnordicom-information_38_2016_1_83-87pdf

Hovland C I amp Weiss W (1951) The influence ofsource credibility on communication effectivenessThe Public Opinion Quarterly 15(4) 635ndash650 Re-trieved from httpwwwjstororgstable2745952

Humprecht E amp Buumlchel F (2013) More of the sameor marketplace of opinions A crossnational compar-ison of diversity in online news reporting The In-ternational Journal of PressPolitics 18(4) 436ndash461httpsdoiorg1011771940161213497595

Internet World Stats (nd) Internet world stats In-ternet World Stats Retrieved from httpswwwinternetworldstatscom

Johnson T J amp Kaye B K (1998) Cruising is believingComparing internet and traditional sources on me-dia credibility measures Journalism ampMass Commu-nication Quarterly 75(2) 325ndash340 httpsdoiorg101177107769909807500208

Kammer A Boeck M Hansen J V amp Hadberg LJ (2015) The free-to-fee transition Audiencesrsquo atti-tudes toward paying for online news Journal of Me-dia Business Studies 12(2) 107ndash120 httpsdoiorg1010801652235420151053345

Kiousis S (2001) Public trust ormistrust Perceptions ofmedia credibility in the information age Mass Com-municationamp Society 4(4) 381ndash403 httpsdoiorg101207S15327825MCS0404_4

Kohring M amp Matthes J (2007) Trust in news mediaDevelopment and validation of a multidimensional


scale Communication Research 34(2) 231ndash252httpsdoiorg1011770093650206298071

Kuumlng L (2008) Strategic management in the mediaFrom theory to practice Los Angeles CA Sage

Kuumlng L Picard R G amp Towse R (2008) The internetand the mass media London Sage

Lin C Salwen M amp Abdulla R (2005) Uses and gratifi-cations of online andoffline newsNewwine in an oldbottle In M B Salwen B Garrison amp P D Driscoll(Eds) Online news and the public (pp 221ndash236)Mahwah NJ Lawrence Erlbaum

Lowe G F amp Stavitsky A G (2016) Ensuring publicservice news provision in the era of networkedcommunications International CommunicationGazette 78(4) 311ndash329 httpsdoiorg1011771748048516632163

McChesney R W (2012) Farewell to journalism Jour-nalism Practice 6(56) 614ndash626 httpsdoiorg101080175127862012683273

McDowell W S (2011) The brand management crisisfacing the business of journalism International Jour-nal on Media Management 13(1) 37ndash51 httpsdoiorg101080142412772010545364

Mensing D (2007) Online revenue business modelhas changed little since 1996 Newspaper ResearchJournal 28(2) 22ndash37 httpsdoiorg1011772F073953290702800202

Mitchelstein E amp Boczkowski P (2010) Online newsconsumption research An assessment of pastwork and an agenda for the future New Mediaamp Society 12(7) 1085ndash1102 httpsdoi1011771461444809350193

Newell J Pilotta J J amp Thomas J C (2008) Massmedia displacing and saturation International Jour-nal on Media Management 10(4) 131ndash138 httpsdoiorg10108014241270802426600

Newman N Fletcher R Kalogeropoulos A amp NielsenR (2019) Reuters Institute digital news report 2019Oxford Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism

Newman N Levy D A amp Nielsen R K (2015) ReutersInstitute digital news report 2015 Tracking the futureof news Oxford Reuters Institute for the Study ofJournalism

Nicholls T Shabbir N amp Nielsen R K (2016) Digital-born newsmedia in Europe Oxford Reuters Institutefor the Study of Journalism

Oh H Animesh A amp Pinsonneault A (2016) Free ver-sus for-a-fee The impact of a paywallMIS Quarterly40(1) 31ndash56

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Develop-ment (2010) The evolution of news and the internet(DSTIICCPIE [2009] 14FINAL) Paris Organiza-tion for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentRetrieved from httpwwwoecdorginternetieconomy45559596pdf

Ots M (2010) Understanding value formation (Unpub-lish Doctoral dissertation) Joumlnkoumlping InternationalBusiness School Joumlnkoumlping Sweden

Perloff R M (2009) Mass media social perception andthe third-person effect In J Bryant amp M B Oliver(Eds) Media effects (pp 268ndash284) New York NYRoutledge

Pickard V amp Williams A T (2014) Salvation or follyThe promises and perils of digital paywalls DigitalJournalism 2(2) 195ndash213 httpsdoiorg101080216708112013865967

Siegert G Foumlrster K Chan-Olmsted S M amp OtsM (2015) Handbook of media branding ChamSpringer

Siegert G Gerth M A amp Rademacher P (2011)Brand identity-driven decision making by journal-ists and media managers The MBAC model asa theoretical framework International Journal onMedia Management 13(1) 53ndash70 httpsdoiorg101080142412772010545363

Sjoslashvaag H (2016) Introducing the paywall JournalismPractice 10(3) 304ndash322 httpsdoiorg1010801751278620151017595

Stetka V amp Oumlrnebring H (2013) Investigative journal-ism in Central and Eastern Europe Autonomy busi-ness models and democratic roles The InternationalJournal of PressPolitics 18(4) 413ndash435 httpsdoiorg1011771940161213495921

Tsfati Y (2010) Online news exposure and trust in themainstream media Exploring possible associationsAmerican Behavioral Scientist 54(1) 22ndash42 httpsdoiorg1011770002764210376309

Tsfati Y amp Cappella J N (2003) Do people watchwhat they do not trust Exploring the association be-tween newsmedia skepticism and exposure Commu-nication Research 30(5) 504ndash529 httpsdoiorg1011770093650203253371

Tsfati Y amp Cappella J N (2005) Why do peo-ple watch news they do not trust The need forcognition as a moderator in the association be-tween news media skepticism and exposure MediaPsychology 7(3) 251ndash271 httpsdoiorg101207S1532785XMEP0703_2

Tungate M (2005) Media monoliths How great mediabrands thrive and survive London Kogan Page

Vara-Miguel A Sanjurjo-San Martiacuten S S amp Diacuteaz-Espina C (2014) Paid news vs free news Evolu-tion of the WSJcom business model from a contentperspective (2010ndash2012) Communication amp Society27(2) 147ndash167 httpsdoiorg1015581003272147-167

Wang Y (2011) Making online pay The prospect of thepaywall in a digital and networked economy Journalof Digital Research and Publishing 1 14ndash21

Webster J G amp Ksiazek T B (2012) The dynam-ics of audience fragmentation Public attention inan age of digital media Journal of Communication62(1) 39ndash56 httpsdoiorg101111j1460-2466201101616x

Westley B H amp Severin W J (1964) Some correlatesof media credibility Journalism Quarterly 41(1)


325ndash335 httpsdoiorg101177107769906404100301

Westlund O amp Faumlrdigh M A (2011) Displacing andcomplementing effects of news sites on newspa-pers 1998ndash2009 International Journal ofMediaMan-agement 13(3) 177ndash194 httpsdoiorg101080142412772011595020

Westlund O amp Faumlrdigh M A (2012) Conceptual-izing media generations The print online and

individualized generations Observatorio (OBS)6(4) 181ndash213 httpsdoiorg1015847obsOBS642012616

Westlund O amp Faumlrdigh M A (2015) Accessing thenews in an age of mobile media Tracing displac-ing and complementary effects of mobile news onnewspapers and online news Mobile Media amp Com-munication 3(1) 53ndash74 httpsdoiorg1011772050157914549039

About the Author

Alfonso Vara-Miguel is Associate Professor at the School of Communication of the University ofNavarra (Spain) where he teaches Economics Financial Journalism Media Management and PricingSince 2014 he is a research member of the Digital unav-Center for Internet Studies and Digital Life atthe University of Navarra and co-author of the design and analysis of the annual Spain Digital NewsReport in cooperation with the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (Oxford University)


Introduction

Theoretical Framework

Audience Segmentation

Revenue Models

Media Trust

Research Questions and Hypothesis

Method

Sample Variables and Measurement

Statistical Analysis

Results

Conclusion

Probably the difficulty in reaching clear conclusionshas its roots in the fact that the majority of studies havea technological focus they tend to look at displacementand complementarity through platforms However fewstudies have focused on this issue from a media brandsperspective Given the increased competition and multi-channel media consumption it seems crucial for mediacompanies to build up and strengthen their brands

2 Theoretical Framework

Different media distributors and media formats usedto be clearly different media products with distinc-tive production marketing and consumption patterns(McDowell 2011) However the Internet has led to thefoundation of the so-called new pure players or digital-born newsmedia These newmedia outlets are differentfrom legacy brands in terms of business models distri-bution strategies corporate organisation and editorialpriorities (Nicholls Shabbir amp Nielsen 2016) They onlyoperate online and are carving out a profitable and sus-tainable business on the net using new business mod-els as the so-called niche journalism (Cook amp Sirkkunen2013) Meanwhile legacy media usually manages bothkinds of sources offline (print or broadcast) and onlineAlthough there is not a unique definition of legacy firmsthey present some common traits Their brand heritageis anchored in the quality of their customer relations aswell as in the quality of their products (McDowell 2011Tungate 2005) and their consumers value legacy brandidentities (LoweampStavitsky 2016) For legacy brands it iseconomically rational to cover news in a quality-orientedmanner By including quality as a part of their brandidentity media outlets find an audience that is readyto pay money or at least attention for this sort of cov-erage (Siegert Gerth amp Rademacher 2011) From themanagerial point of view the majority of full-time jobsfor journalists are in this shrinking legacy media sector(McChesney 2012) a sector with high costs that is vul-nerable to downturns in the economy (Organization forEconomic Co-operation and Development 2010)

It would be natural to expect two different types ofaudience as a result of the difference between legacy anddigital-born news outlets This hypothesis is based onprevious research suggesting that usersaudience per-ceive and use different types of news differently Ots(2010) asserted that media brands create value for audi-ences wanting specific content and advertisers wantingto reach specific audiences As a result brand equity cre-ates a different brand image in peoplersquos mind and so fara different response in consumers A strong brand willfoster stronger attitudes and behaviours than those fos-tered by a weak or anonymous brand (Siegert FoumlrsterChan-Olmsted amp Ots 2015) In communicating the keycharacteristics of legacy brands media managers coulddifferentiate their outlets from those of their competi-tors As a result they prevent imitation stabilise and in-crease their audience in the long term However there

is no guarantee that audience perception of the legacybrands would be in line withmediamanagersrsquo intentionsIn fact contrary to expectations legacy outlets and digi-tal born media are not getting substantially different au-diences (Arrese amp Kaufmann 2016)

The analysis of the two kinds of audiences proposedin this article seeks to show the relevance of brandsin news markets This study complements others witha more media-centric technological approach (Siegertet al 2015) following thepath of other scholars (BensonBlach-Oslashrsten Powers Willig amp Vera Zambrano 2012Humprecht amp Buumlchel 2013 Stetka amp Oumlrnebring 2013)

This article focuses on three areas of research thathave been analysed in previous studies of the differencesand similarities between legacy media and digital-bornnew media audience segmentation revenue modelsand media trust The conclusions of this study could beof interest not only from a journalistic point of view butfrom a managerial perspective

21 Audience Segmentation

As stated above one of the relevant topics in the stud-ies of online and offline media has been the differ-ences in the uses and gratifications perceived by the twotypes of audiences (Filistrucchi 2005 Newell et al 2008Westlund amp Faumlrdigh 2011) New and different types ofmedia formats should create different kinds of audiencesin relation to their needs and motivations to use mediaand producemore audience segmentation In that sensethe new digital landscape contributes to a greater het-erogeneity inmarkets (MitchelsteinampBoczkowski 2010)due to the abundance of digital media which incen-tivises the specialisation and therefore the targeting ofsmaller audiences defined bymultiple and segmented in-terests (Arrese amp Kaufmann 2016 Fortunati Deuze ampde Luca 2014) Along the same lines previous researchhas identified attitudinal variables as key factors drivingthe media selection process when compared with tradi-tional media (Chyi amp Chadha 2011 Chyi amp Lasorsa 2002de Waal Schoumlnbach amp Lauf 2005)

By contrast Webster and Ksiazek (2012) assert thatthe Internet has concentrated a vast amount of theaudience attention around the leading news organisa-tions which are quite undifferentiated and difficult tobe segmented and predictable According to Arrese andKaufmann (2016) these two apparently contradictoryviews are not necessarily incompatible and other reason-ings must be studied to understand and find answers tothe homogenisation versus segmentation debate This ar-ticle adds a new focus to this question studying whetherdifferent types of media (legacy brands or digital-born)create significantly different readership segments

22 Revenue Models

Over the last few years online news organisations allover the world have erected paywalls (Arrese 2016





23 Media Trust













4 Method











2015 2019






2015 2019





5 Results













Sociodemographic








Sociodemographic













Media trust






6 Conclusion










Media trust












Acknowledgments




References





















































































About the Author



Introduction



Revenue Models

Media Trust


Method



Results

Conclusion




23 Media Trust













4 Method











2015 2019






2015 2019





5 Results













Sociodemographic








Sociodemographic













Media trust






6 Conclusion










Media trust












Acknowledgments




References





















































































About the Author



Introduction



Revenue Models

Media Trust


Method



Results

Conclusion


4 Method











2015 2019






2015 2019





5 Results













Sociodemographic








Sociodemographic













Media trust






6 Conclusion










Media trust












Acknowledgments




References





















































































About the Author



Introduction



Revenue Models

Media Trust


Method



Results

Conclusion


2015 2019





5 Results













Sociodemographic








Sociodemographic













Media trust






6 Conclusion










Media trust












Acknowledgments




References





















































































About the Author



Introduction



Revenue Models

Media Trust


Method



Results

Conclusion




Sociodemographic








Sociodemographic













Media trust






6 Conclusion










Media trust












Acknowledgments




References





















































































About the Author



Introduction



Revenue Models

Media Trust


Method



Results

Conclusion








Media trust






6 Conclusion










Media trust












Acknowledgments




References





















































































About the Author



Introduction



Revenue Models

Media Trust


Method



Results

Conclusion








Media trust












Acknowledgments




References





















































































About the Author



Introduction



Revenue Models

Media Trust


Method



Results

Conclusion




Acknowledgments




References





















































































About the Author



Introduction



Revenue Models

Media Trust


Method



Results

Conclusion



































































About the Author



Introduction



Revenue Models

Media Trust


Method



Results

Conclusion

cross-national similarities and differences between legacy ... 8(2) - cross... ·...

Documents