Janelle Dumalaon: Welcome to Survive and Thrive, your global media viability podcast.

This season looks at what it takes for independent public interest media to navigate multiple existential challenges across many countries. Free media are under pressure because of disappearing finances, because of the contest for eyeballs on digital platforms and because there's an ongoing battle for public trust. We explore how journalism can stay resilient and relevant as a conernstone of democracy. 

Today's episode focuses on social media and the challenges of turning views into real value for journalism. For many outlets, social platforms are the main way to reach audiences, but they also create new problems for media viability. Our guest today is my colleague Yasmina Al-Gannabi, META Lead and Social Media Security Officer at DW. Yasmina, welcome to the podcast. 

Yasmina Al-Gannabi: Thank you for having me. I'm really glad. Thank you for the invite. 

So, there's a lot of debate these days on the harm that social media algorithms do, not only to society, but to ourselves as individuals. Do you think public interest media should be on social media at all? 

Obviously, yes, because we have to be where our audience is. They're consuming a lot of content, regardless of its news content, or if it's fluffy content on their mobile devices. And I think that as public interest media, we have to be present where they are – regardless of if we like the platform or not and if it's Instagram, the Fediverse or X. We have to provide alternative narratives to what they're consuming. Users are currently overwhelmed by content from different content creators and broadcasters, both public interests and private. So, I think to leave them the choice to decide what they would like to consume is probably the best idea. 

Can you tell our listeners again what the Fediverse is? 

To break it down, it's an alternative to the regular platforms that we have for the time being - like YouTube, Instagram and Facebook - where the content distribution is not based on algorithms, but on what the users are interested in and are consuming. People there would only receive content from the channels that they're following. Mastodon is, for instance, currently and at least for the German-speaking audience, a popular alternative platform.

Now, you mentioned Germany, so I am going to go there as well. So, a recent study here in Germany estimated that around 12% of Google's advertising revenue is generated through searches related to journalistic content. So, in the German market alone, that could mean that Google generates about €1.3 billion a year from journalism-related searches. So, what do you think that tells us about the relationship between journalism and the platforms? 

I mean, when these platforms were created, they never really had journalistic content in mind. They always had revenue as their primary goal. It might sound like a big number for us, but I think if you talk to Google or Meta about whether this is the amount of money they’re expecting, they'll probably say no, because they can earn much more with creators. 

So, I think holding the platforms or the people who are responsible for the platforms accountable for what they're doing is one thing. But also, we as public broadcasters need to increase awareness among audiences about how they consume content. The goal should be to make journalistic content attractive to the platforms, regardless of how much revenue they can get out of it. 

And how does that awareness-building look like? 

One thing would obviously be media literacy. I think when it comes to fake news, for instance, there is not much awareness about how to differentiate between regular organic content and deep fakes that are done by AI. One recent example is the very harmless video of jumping bunnies on a trampoline, created by AI. It’s cute, but if you look further into it, you’ll see that it's super difficult for regular users, and even for us as journalists, to identify the differences. 

There are all sorts of scandals popping up every now and then, especially due to the global political situation with deep fake videos created about wars or using faces of politicians or even news anchors. But it's not really them. So, we need to increase the awareness of users to look for the source: Who put this out? What are the clues? 

I don’t like the term “educate them,” but I cannot come up with a better idea right now. We need to really make them look closely and search for truth regardless of who is publishing it. And if they’re really interested in the topic, they should be able to go deeper into where this information comes from, the background, the history, putting things into context. 

And I think for journalism, it's always very interesting to be super speedy, breaking news, which is totally legit. But at the end of the day, when it comes to really informing the users, it's probably more useful to step back a little and think about the sources and make them transparent so that the users could further investigate if they want to. 

Okay, so media literacy, clearly a very important aspect of this discussion, but I also wanted to ask a little bit about what you do. So, when you, for example, look at the social media metrics of a newsroom, what in fact are you looking at? Are you looking at views? Are you looking at subscribers or reach and why? 

It depends very much on the platform. But it’s clearly not subscribers because subscribers and followers can be bought. It's not a metric that I would consider reflects the success of the content. 

What I really think reflects the success of the content is interaction rate, watch time, swipe through rate, repetitive followers and consumers – people that really come back to the channel – shares and reposts. Also, threads for instance, you can repost something or quote it, adding your own perspective as a user. These quotes, as well, are what I consider a key metric. 

When I work with language services within DW, and they would like to optimize their storytelling, we look into whom they would like to reach out to. Is it a young audience? Is it a little bit older audience? 

Then the next step would be understanding this target audience’s habits and behaviors, routine, daily life. Let’s say we would like to reach a young audience in Taiwan, below 25, mainly female-identified consumers. I would have to look into their daily routine: Where do they consume content? Is it intentional or is it passive? Are they using public transportation or are they in their own cars? How long do they commute from their home and to work or university? And what topics are they interested in?  

I don't like the idea that is propagated that a young audience is not interested in news. They are interested in news, but it depends very much on how you package it. And I know that it's an unpopular opinion, but at the end of the day, what we do as journalists is provide a service, we provide information. So, we would have to look into how can we make our content and stand out among all the other content that's been published. 

Because our competitors are not other broadcasters. Our competitors are everyone producing content on a platform that is actually not intentionally done for journalistic content.  

And then the next step would be really looking into the numbers. Do the users really consume the video until the end? Do they share it? Do they comment? And when they comment, is it only agreeing or do they add value to it by maybe adding further information, or a different perspective? And I think that this helps very much in really identifying the content that's not only appealing to the users, but adds value to their life. 

So, at the core of it, we're not only looking at audience size but the quality of the audience, as well as how they interact with the content that we put up on the platforms. So, if a newsroom has a large following, let's say on Instagram or TikTok or any of these platforms, that means, first of all that more users spend more time on these platforms. Is that primarily a success for the media outlet producing content or for the platform itself? And what does that success mean with regard to public interest media’s social media strategy? 

Oh, this is a very philosophical question. 

This is a philosophical podcast. No, that's not true. We try to be practical and pragmatic, but of course, we do address some big questions here. 

Okay, I will be very sincere. I think it's a win-win situation. For the platform, the users are spending more time there. They're consuming the content and obviously the platforms are going to learn in the long-term more about the consumers. And for us as public interest broadcasters, I think it's a win situation because we are provided with a platform we don't have to pay money for and we can provide our users information also without them having to spend money.  

Also they don’t have to search for a platform that they're probably not very familiar with. They're very familiar with Instagram or TikTok. They know how to use them, how to search for content. And we can provide them with all the information that they need or are looking for. 

So, I think we have to use the opportunity of these platforms that we're provided with. It would be very sad if we didn’t. Let's put it the other way around: Last year, we had elections in Germany. And we saw that the right wing perspective was very popular among young audiences on TikTok. Unfortunately, other public broadcasters in Germany didn't see the chance to be present there on TikTok – due to regulations, or it took time for them to understand the importance of being there. And this is why we saw a different result in the elections than what we were expecting. 

So, we saw that the far right with the “Alternative für Deutschland” was very popular among young people who went to the polls for the first time due to the fact that they were having a free space on TikTok. There was no one providing the users with a different perspective. This is why I think it's also a win for us to be there and reach out to our audiences.

It’s the idea of not letting, say, a single narrative, take up all the space. But there is a certain kind of narratives that work better on social media which makes the job harder for public interest media. You know, it is often said that things that are countercultural, things that aren't particularly mainstream, perhaps like a more right wing perspective, even though that is becoming more and more mainstream. Is that a thing to consider as well? 

I think it needs to be considered. The platforms have faced criticism and reports by different media outlets that during certain times the right wing populistic narrative was pushed by the algorithms. But at the same time, we as users – and again, I come back to media literacy – can ‘hack’ the algorithm, by really consuming the type of content that adds value to our daily life by following public interest broadcasters, by following NGOs. Then your newsfeed will be filled with that type of content. 

But if you keep on following or interacting with content that provides you with different narratives or myths, then obviously your newsfeed will be filled up with less fact-based content.  

I think that comes back to media literacy to increase the awareness that we as users can do it differently. Something else all the platforms actually allow you is to switch to a chronological newsfeed. So, let's be honest, at the end of the day, we're all human beings, we're all a little bit lazy. We don't want to step out of our comfort zone, which is totally legit. But I think that many users out there are not aware of these opportunities, and they're not switching it on. 

And I think we need to increase the awareness for that and also look into platform alternatives. My recommendation for public interest media is not to focus only on one platform. Obviously, if you have limited human resources in your company or your department, you have to pick your battles, right? But nevertheless try to find alternatives. For example, YouTube is mainly consumed intentionally, whereas TikTok and Instagram are probably used more passively, the doom scrolling thing, right? 

I can probably guess that this would also be a related answer to this next question that I have for you around algorithms. As we know, they can be very untransparent. And the big social media companies change them regularly. How can newsrooms deal with the fact that the rules of the game are that volatile? 

Get yourself an audience development team! In this current situation, I think it's very difficult for regular journalists to keep up with the game to really understand the many changes happening – and also, there’s not one algorithm. It keeps on changing, keeps on being adapted to circumstances and habits. 

It's not Adam Mosseri sitting in the background, pushing a button and then everything changes its way. And instead of going to the right, it's going to go to the left. No, how users consume content also informs their choices. For instance, currently my newsfeed is filled with content on influencers living in Dubai and how they're reporting on the situation or what the perspective is on the current situation in the region. That’s because I have taught my algorithm that I'm interested in that. 

Last week, my newsfeed was filled with content on endometriosis. Because I was interested in the topic. I wanted to get informed by that. And the week prior, it was fluffy content that I was consuming. So many puppy videos and carousels. It’s also up to me as a user. 

But coming back to your question, I think that every news outlet really needs a team specialized in looking into what's happening, into what competitors are doing, into numbers and metrics and then to bring that knowledge into the newsrooms and see together how this could help optimize the content, or even user behavior. 

It’s not only about understanding algorithms, but also user behavior and what makes them consume that same thing. Interest sometimes suddenly pops up out of nowhere and no one can explain this phenomenon. It’s not stable. It's not stiff. We need to understand that. We need to reinvent ourselves and keep on moving. 

You've said that journalists need to connect their platform metrics to the newsroom mission. This is a topic that you've written about a lot. So, what exactly does that look like? You’ve said a lot of things already about staying flexible, about really understanding your audience. And there is this core newsroom mission of keeping audiences informed in the service of democracy. So, what does that bridge look like? 

It depends very much on the users. Whom would I like to reach out to? Is it more a boomer generation, millennial generation, Gen X, Gen Z, or even Gen Alpha?  

Let's take Gen Alpha, for instance. They're very young and super digital. They are very much into gaming, so why not provide them information in a gamification way on Roblox, for instance?  

I know of all the critiques – and I'm also very critical towards Roblox because there are no real regulations in terms of keeping young audiences safe from outside dangers. But again, if the children are present on Roblox, provide them with information that they are very interested in. They have a lot of curiosity. Why not create specific formats for Roblox and be present there? If I would like to reach out to a boomer generation, they're obviously more present on traditional media like TV, radio, printed news, but they're also very much present on Facebook. So as a media outlet, I have to be present on Facebook and not ignore them. I think it’s a question of evaluation: Where do I want to be? Where can I really provide content and add value for my audiences?  

And then you see different phenomena: Either you have a news outlet or newsroom that would like to be present everywhere, but they don't have enough human power and capacities to really understand and learn how to optimize the content. And this is why you see their numbers dropping and then relying very much on sponsored postings, which is not very sustainable. And then you have the other one where newsrooms are super cautious about where to be present and what to do and how to do it. I don't want to say they censor themselves, but they are not brave enough to present the content that they would like to because they're scared. To them, I would say just test it. Test it for 6 to 8 weeks. Do you see an added value? Do you receive qualitative feedback from your users? Do they really consume it? Do they comment? Do they call, send emails, DM you? Then you can understand that you're satisfying a user need. 

So, you know that you have added value depending on the feedback that you get. 

Yeah. Today, I had, for instance, a meeting with our dear colleagues from the Indonesian department. They’re present on Threads but they are a very small team and super cautious about what to do on Threads. Is it really a growing platform? Is it really worth it to be present there? What type of content do we want to do? But nevertheless, looking at the comments I saw that – despite not having a huge number of followers – the interactions are really very valuable. They really are in a conversation. 

It's not users agreeing to what we're sharing, but really having a conversation among themselves and reposting and adding their own. I would consider this a success – not because of millions of views, but rather a qualitative high interaction rate among the users. 

This was part of something that you had alluded to in that answer, but I just wanted to highlight it: When we're talking about the difficulty of resource management for media outlets, you know, deciding where to be present, where to dedicate resources, of course, that’s a very relevant question for every media outlet.

And as you've said, some strategically want to be everywhere and some other outlets are perhaps even cripplingly cautious when it comes to that sort of decision-making. So, at least some smaller media outlets have distributed their content almost exclusively via social media or messenger apps such as Telegram. They have a website, but sort of consider it more like a business card, a digital storefront if you like. But this trend now seems to be going in the opposite direction. 

How do you see the role of the website – which I guess we can now consider traditional media, although I am old enough to remember when it was considered new media. But like, where are websites now? 

Coming back to the point where we're speaking about diversifying where to be present, obviously the website still plays a big role. You really want to have something for the users to go back to, to understand who you are. What is your identity? What are your sources? For instance, in parts of the globe where people don't know who DW is and what we stand for, it's very valuable to have our website for them to come back to. 

When it comes to content, obviously what we're publishing on our website is different from the content that we're doing on social media. We focus very much on written articles. It’s more like the regular newspaper. So, I think having a website is valuable.  

The second thing is again: Who and where is our audience? If our audience would like to visit a website to consume content, we have to be present there as well.  

A few years ago, something that didn’t work was conversion from social media platforms to a website. So, we had a phase a couple of years ago where Facebook really kind of decreased the opportunities of growth if you would share links to your website. But now, you only have to think about how to package the content to make it appealing to the audience who is present on Facebook to redirect them from the platform to your website. 

The same thing on WhatsApp. WhatsApp also doesn't provide you with that many opportunities to understand your audience and metrics. But nevertheless, I think it's super valuable to be there because at the end of the day, our users are always on their mobile devices. Let’s say you're on a break. You would like to read a quick article on something or you were not aware of a certain situation and then you have it provided to you on your mobile device because you are a member of a WhatsApp channel. Why not? 

So, I think really having this diversification and really understanding who your audience is, where they are, what their daily routines are, helps you decide where to be present.  

And WhatsApp, let's be honest, regardless of all the criticism around it, especially for a small newsroom or media outlet, is very easy to maintain. You have the feedback from the users via emoticon replies, so you don't have to spend resources on community management. You don't have to spend resources on scheduling tools. You’re simply spreading articles from your website. Why not?

Now, we've been talking about all these platforms. You've gone a little bit into how they're different. But one key question for media outlets is always going to be about money. So, what does being on all these social platforms mean for the business models of media outlets? How do they make money from this? We've seen many examples through the years where the monetization strategy of being social first has not exactly worked or did not turn out to be sustainable. So, what are your thoughts on that? 

Oh, this is a very difficult question.  

It's also what everybody wants to know. We’re not looking for a magic formula here, of course, but I guess just your thoughts as far as you have them. 

Yeah, sure. First of all, looking at the resources, human power that you have, you really should consider what you can provide. Can I provide videos? If I can provide videos, vertical or wide or both? How often on a day can I provide them? Do I have the expertise within my team for storytelling on TikTok, storytelling on YouTube? Because these are very, very different platforms. There is more of a twinning aspect between TikTok and Instagram. 

The next thing would be: Do I need a low hanging fruit or is the sky the limit and can I really test things out on multiple platforms? Also, what is my goal as a broadcaster? Do I want to increase awareness? Do I want to provide information only? Do I want to have qualitative feedback from my users? 

The latter would mean that I also need human power for community management. By community management, I don't necessarily mean only posting strategy, but really interacting with the users, going into a conversation, maintaining dialogue. 

And then the next thing would be: Do I have resources to also have an audience development team which will hopefully support my editorial team in their decision-making about what to produce, where to be present, how to adapt to the algorithms and the user needs.  

But in most cases, I can actually have that in a very low budget way. Looking at other public interest broadcasters within Europe – I'm also one of the members of the social media group of the European Broadcasting Union, EBU – for example, our colleagues from Latvia are a very small team. Also at the Welsh and the Irish public broadcasters, they’re very small teams and still they manage to do that. But their strategy looks different because obviously they have to look into where to invest their resources. 

This is one aspect. The next aspect is, if I expect to gain money from my content, then I have different opportunities. If it's on my own website, I can monetize it or sell monthly updates to my users with specific news via a newsletter or paid subscriptions. If I have a team for wide videos, I can be present on YouTube and maybe make some money from ad breaks. 

It's very – I don't want to say difficult – but it's challenging if you don't have a clear vision. I think it helps to map it out: Do I have the resources for this or for that? Okay. Then I go this way. Do I have the resources for this or not? And then go that way. Once you have put all that in front of you on a mind map, this helps you make the decision. 

One other aspect, of course, is this idea of standards. How can editors and media managers support their teams in adapting to this environment without compromising journalistic standards? Because obviously public media has a very specific role. It’s public interest media, right? It's this idea that you don't always have to cover the sexiest, buzziest things, but the things that are most important for society. And that might not always be the trending thing at the time. So, how do you balance these things together? 

I don't think that it's only tied to trends. If I would like to reach out to a Gen Z and Gen Alpha, I can sometimes do the trend myself. The best case is the Welsh public broadcaster. I have to admit, I didn't know too much about the Welsh traditions and language and what is currently happening in the country. But what the public broadcaster is trying right now to do is to increase awareness for reviving the Welsh language. So, they do a lot of campaigns and really try to do shows for young audiences. One of the things they did is work with a participant on “The X Factor”. 

The singing contest. 

Yes, the singing contest. The person who won was an elderly man who sang old traditional Welsh songs, and they made him sing the national anthem in Welsh, and they simply shared it on YouTube and created a trend because users would take it with the stitch feature on TikTok and on Instagram. They would sing along and add their singing experiences. And they did this without relying on an influencer or following a certain trend. They created the trend. 

And I think that even with limited resources, human power and money, you as a public interest media can also create that. So, you don't always have to follow the latest trend. You simply need to identify what is currently state-of-the-art in terms of storytelling, and feed into that and provide the users with that type of content and create the trend yourself. 

You know, we could keep talking about this for hours. There is just so much to get into, but unfortunately, our time is limited. So, Yasmina, do you have any last thoughts on successful social media strategies? Taking it from views to creating real value and real impact for audiences just in the way that you've been describing? 

I think that really creating a map with all your ideas helps to create a clear vision of where the journey is going for you. And based on that, you build your strategy by not putting your expectations too high and the boundaries too high, but really understanding what your intention is – increasing awareness, having a discussion, whatever. 

You don’t have to publish 15 videos a day or ten carousels a day. Don't always believe what you see within creators, where they share experiences on how to be more successful on social media. It sometimes is more valuable to publish less content, as long as you really can spend more time understanding your audience, talking to your audience, having a dialogue. And I think maintaining the mental health awareness is key, what your team needs, and what your users need as well. 

Don’t jump on trends or rush into something because you see that this is a super shiny object. No. Try to really think about what impact it makes. And even with that, you will be more successful. Stay authentic. Don't jump from one trend to another, because that’s not sustainable. People will follow you for the content and not because you are jumping on trends.

Wise words bringing us to the end of this episode. So, we explored how newsrooms can rethink social media metrics, not just as a scoreboard, but as a strategic tool for strengthening journalism. So, I'd like at this point to give a big thank you to my colleague Yasmina Al-Ganabi for sharing her insights. And thank you, dear listeners, for following us today. 

Thank you for having me. It was a pleasure.

This transcript of "Survive and Thrive" has been lightly edited for clarity. 

Get in touch    

For questions and suggestions write to dw-akademie.surviveandthrive@dw.com.

Or find us on LinkedIn and Youtube.    

This podcast is produced by DW Akademie and is supported by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ).