The impact of communicating digital technologies: How information and communication technology journalists conceptualize their influence on the audience and the industry

Abstract

Information technology is ever-changing. Information and communication technology (ICT) journalists play a significant part in diffusing, explaining and interpreting these new technologies and in forging the societal understanding of future trends, influencing both their audience and the developers they cover. They are important gatekeepers and their coverage is – most likely – decisive for the success or failure of new products. To explore this function of ICT journalism, an online survey of 102 ICT journalists in Germany was conducted, including 32 journalists in managing roles. This study focuses on two research questions: (a) how do ICT journalists perceive their relationship to and their effects on the audience; (b) how do journalists perceive their relationship with and their effects on ICT manufacturers? Our findings suggest that ICT journalists picture themselves in a key role as clandestine deciders who shape the audience’s consuming behaviour, as well as developers’ strategies for designing products.

Keywords

Audience orientation information and communication technology perceived effects special interest journalism survey of journalists

Introduction

Information technology is ever-changing – and as its applications become more sophisticated, they become more complicated for users as well. In this dynamic and perplexing field (as portrayed, for example, by Faiola et al., 2010), several trends such as growing digitalization, interconnectedness and convergence are often discussed among experts and laymen. ICT (information and communication technology) journalists play a significant part in diffusing, explaining and interpreting these new technologies and in forging our understanding of future trends, influencing both their audience and the developers they cover (for a case study of the microcomputer, see Kelly, 2009). On the one hand, they have expertise to judge current products and future trends, and they may suggest ideas to developers and manufacturers. On the other hand, their judgement can meaningfully contribute to success or failure of new technologies and to how people make sense of technology and innovation. Media users turn to ICT publications for advice and often consider their ratings and reviews when making purchase decisions. Therefore, developers most likely would carefully listen to suggestions or criticisms by ICT journalists – through their publications or in interpersonal interaction.

This article treats the question of how ICT journalists perceive the effects of their coverage on the behaviour of both the general audience and the developers they cover. Furthermore, it treats the question of whether the strength of effects they attribute to their work and their coverage can be explained via their conceptualization of their audience, their ICT outlet and their interactions with sources.

After clarifying our understanding of ICT journalism and its role in society, we will focus on literature on journalists’ perceptions of effects on their audience and on their sources. We will highlight the (presumed) particularities of ICT journalism and derive hypotheses from these remarks. We expect that ICT journalists perceive their role in terms of disseminating innovations to and provide guidance to the (potential) users. Furthermore, we expect that they perceive substantial effects of their coverage on both their audience and the ICT industry. We assume that the degree of perceived effects is mediated by their beliefs about their audience, their ties to the ICT industry, and the quality they attribute to their respective outlets. Then, we will present the methodology of and findings from an online survey of professional ICT journalists in Germany to answer our research questions and test the hypotheses.

Communicating information and communication technology

Information society and the information age

Several authors have suggested that in the recent decades we have witnessed the waning of the industrial age and have entered the information age (e.g. Castells, 1997–1999; Slack, 1987). Consequently, these authors figure out that ICTs have fundamentally changed the ways people live, the way organizations work and the way societies function. They have labelled that kind of society ‘information society’ (Katz, 1988; Salvaggio, 1989). Even authors with a more critical perspective towards the phenomena subsumed under these catchwords (e.g. Lyon, 1988; Traber, 1988) accept that information technologies have shifted (rather than overthrown) our ways of thinking and living. With the rise and diffusion of the computer and the Internet, their positions and predictions have proven valid – at least partially.

ICT is currently one of the most dynamic branches of technology (Latzer, 2009). Granted patents are an indicator of the social importance and the dynamics of a branch of technology: ICT patents make up about one third of the total count of granted patents (filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty) in Germany, with a positive gradient for the long-term trend (OECD, 2012). BITKOM, the umbrella organization for ICT business in Germany, finds that ICT companies spend a high share of their revenues on ‘innovation and development’, compared to other industries (Centre for European Economic Research, 2010: 14–15). ICT companies in Germany make €55.4 billion of revenues with new products, that is, products that were launched 3 years ago or at a later date. This is more than a quarter (26.1%) of their total revenue (Centre for European Economic Research, 2010: 21). Unlike other technologies, ICT trends are global trends not well contained by country borders (Gabrielsson et al., 2006), further reinforcing the high pressure for innovation.

Need for orientation in the ICT market

Audience’s need for orientation

Innovations in technology alone are not sufficient to re-shape a society in the long run. Innovations have to be communicated and diffused (Nam and Barnett, 2010; Rogers, 2003). This applies more or less to all kinds of innovations. However, ICT markets are characterized by short product life-cycles (Bayus, 1998; Goldman, 1982), comparatively high prices for products and a high share of experience goods. Therefore, consumers typically turn to neutral disseminators of information about product innovations, product features and product qualities.

Consumers’ high need for orientation has spawned a high number of media covering ICTs, particularly monthly magazines and news web sites. When planning our study, we identified a total of 97 publications (editorial teams) in Germany covering the ICT sector – often operating a printed magazine and a web site. The printed ICT magazines have a cumulated circulation of 3,529,384; ICT news sites (which have negatively affected print circulations) get a cumulative 127,099,854 visits per month (IVW, 2011; the data refer to June 2011). These media cover technologies are progressively evolving. Notebooks, mobile phones or broadband Internet connections have become affordable for a wide audience in recent years. Recently, product innovations such as Smartphones and Tablet PCs have been launched. Many consumers continuously need information to keep up with current developments, first and foremost to be capable of making informed purchase decisions – and ICT companies start enormous marketing efforts (Goldman, 1982; Meldrum, 1995).

Developers’ need for orientation

At the same time, the progressive markets outlined above also pose threats for ICT businesses. Among other strategies, interacting with ICT journalists and monitoring their evaluations of products (personally or via publications) can be informative for developers, as ICT journalists at least try to take the audience’s (and hence the consumer’s) perspective. Flaws in handling, usability and comprehensibility, for example, are often easily detected by outsiders but not by those who have spent months in developing a highly complicated product under extensive division of labour.

Journalists’ role conceptions

The pivotal role of mass media in diffusing and framing technologies and innovations is commonly acknowledged (Kelly, 2009; Rogers, 2003; Rössler, 2001). Their coverage triggers awareness. The way they frame technologies shapes cultural beliefs (Cogan, 2005). Disseminating innovations, simplifying complicated topics, providing service/guidance and delivering entertaining content for the audience are important tasks in all segments of special interest magazine journalism (Dernbach, 2010). However, ICT media face an even more dynamic market and a particularly abstract and complicated subject matter. ICT journalists face particular expectations and special challenges compared to other journalists. Therefore, we hypothesize that ICT journalists’ conceptions of their professional role will deviate from those of other journalists in particular ways (H1). In particular, we believe that (compared to other journalists) they are more inclined to conceive their role in terms of (1) detecting and diffusing innovations, (2) explaining complicated matters, particular technical issues, (3) providing guidance for the audience and (4) providing opportunities for entertainment and recreation. On the other hand, as special interest journalists, they will be less inclined to define their role in general societal functions, such as performing a watchdog role or conveying positive ideals. While Tsfati and Livio (2008) have focused on the effects of role conceptions on perceptions of media effects, we focus on the interplay between perceptions of effects and journalists’ conceptions of their media’s power, reputation and expertise, as well as their relations with their audience and their sources of information.

Journalists, audiences and sources

There are several conceptions of the interplay between journalists and audiences (DeWerth-Pallmeyer, 1997; McQuail, 1997), as well as journalists and sources (Gandy, 1982; Hachigian and Hallahan, 2003). This article primarily deals with the economic and social-psychological aspects of this relationship permeating everyday work routines and role conceptions of journalists (DeWerth-Pallmeyer, 1997). It is the basic requirement of private media to sustain themselves economically. Their organizational structure and routines reflect this basic need (Napoli, 2003). To achieve economic sustainability, ICT media need valid working hypotheses or images of the preferences and expectations of their sources and their target audience.

The audience expects ICT media to provide them with up-to-date information on the most current products and applications in the rapidly changing ICT market. Furthermore, they want reliable judgements of ICT journalists as neutral experts on whether new products or applications are actually worth their while and money. Also, they demand information and judgements in a style and language they can comprehend (Glashüttner, 2009). While they cannot fully live up to these expectations, the audiences’ expectations serve as a yardstick against which ICT journalists measure their performance. However, ICT journalists do not readily have direct access to knowledge of up-to-date issues, products and applications. The actors ‘in a structural position to know’ (Fishman, 1980: 51) are the developers, manufacturers and publishers of ICT products and applications. In exchange for providing ICT journalists with necessary information, they might expect that journalists will serve as supposedly neutral and therefore credible communicators of their marketing messages. Interacting with and being responsive to ICT media has side-benefits for ICT developers: by providing them with an outside view on their product, ICT journalists can suggest improvements developers were constantly overlooking from the inside perspective. Their role as information broker between ICT consumers and ICT companies provides ICT journalists with opportunities to change (1) consumer behaviour and (2) product policies of ICT companies.

Perceived impact on the audience

To date there are no empirical findings with regard to specialized journalistic segments such as the ICT journalists. ICT journalists are expected to offer ratings and advice with a probable impact on their audience and on the market success of new products and technologies (Glashüttner, 2009). Media effects of ICT media are regarded as desirable and are a feature of high-quality journalism in the ICT sector (as they are preconditions for disseminating innovations and providing guidance). Therefore, we hypothesize that a majority of ICT journalists will attribute a high impact to their published articles on their audience’s purchase decision-making (H2).

The perception of effects will depend on the characteristics ICT journalists attribute to their ICT outlet and the audience they address. On the one hand, journalists usually do not consciously reflect about the composition of the audience (Donsbach, 1981). However, work routines and news selection patterns reflect the need to address the audience (DeWerth-Pallmeyer, 1997; Napoli, 2003). When forming an impression of their audience, they frequently use instruments that are prone to various biases, such as letters to the editor and conversations with recipients (Hohlfeld, 2003: 257). We hypothesize that ICT journalists who believe their outlet (1) is more powerful, (2) is more competitive, (3) has closer and more positive ties to its audience and (4) provides more valid coverage will attribute to their coverage a higher impact on the audience’s behaviour (H3). In that context, we look at ICT journalists’ perceptions of audience size, audience expertise, audience evaluation, audience directedness, audience diversity and competitiveness of the ICT outlet. These variables are proxies for the power of the ICT media outlet, its relations with its audience, or the expertness, validity and quality of its coverage.

Perceived impact on manufacturers

Developers, manufacturers and publishers continuously create new products or improve established ones. External pressures and uncertainties will most likely lead them to continuously assess their competitiveness and adopt innovations of competitors. ICT journalists are by definition up-to-date regarding their niche of ICT products and provide a bird’s eye perspective on the ICT market. Their inputs and (comparative) judgements about the quality of a product are valuable for manufacturers. This applies to reviews of products that have already been released. However, journalists’ feedback can be even more helpful when previewing products currently under development. ICT journalists may suggest improvements and point out flaws or drawbacks – and can compare the product with the competition. So, contacts with journalists and publications of ICT media can meaningfully contribute to product development. As this influence is intended and is viewed as desirable, ICT journalists will attempt to exert that influence, will more or less frequently succeed and will be willing to report it in an interview. We hypothesize that a majority of ICT journalists will attribute high impact to their coverage on developers after product release (H4) and that a majority of ICT journalists will attribute high impact to their interactions with developers prior to product release (H5). The degree of impact they attribute to their coverage will depend on the ICT outlet’s reputation and their relevance for the decision-making of consumers. As ICT companies will turn to the input of ICT media who have high expertise and/or who are capable of shaping consumer decisions, we hypothesize that ICT journalists working for more renowned and powerful ICT outlets will attribute to their coverage a higher impact on product development (H6). In that context, we look at ICT journalists’ perceptions of audience size, audience expertise, number of sources, perceived quality of interactions with sources and perceived competitiveness of the ICT outlet. These variables are proxies for the power of the ICT media outlet, its connections to ICT enterprises, or the expertness, validity and quality of its coverage.

Research design

Design and population

To test our hypotheses about perceived media effects on the audience and ICT manufacturers, we designed a survey study of ICT journalists. ICT journalists are defined as persons who work in a full-time or main employment at publications addressing an audience interested in technologies usually included in the ICT categories. ICT journalists are under-researched, as we are aware of only one other study with a similar target population (Hachigian and Hallahan, 2003). As there is no register or directory of these media (or even of this population of journalists) available, we had to estimate the size of the population and find contact information in a multi-step procedure: Firstly, we identified the relevant set of ICT media from (a) a directory of media listing each outlet’s reach for advertisers, and (b) the media available in the most popular channels to purchase special interest media. For each outlet potentially addressing ICT topics, the web site was accessed or the magazine was retrieved to check whether it actually covers ICT topics (as at least one of its main topics). The 10 most popular outlets are (ranked according to circulation; topics and circulation in brackets): Computer Bild (hardware/software, directed towards inexperienced users; 897,957), CHIP (hardware/software; 472,473), PC-Welt (hardware/software; 427,103), Computer Bild Spiele (PC and console games, directed towards inexperienced users; 419,216), c’t (hardware/software; 418,615), com! (hardware/software; 346,101), PCGo (hardware/software; 233,674), PC Games (games/hardware; 217,322), GameStar (games/hardware; 200,409), PC Magazin (hardware/software; 191,833). Long-established magazines traditionally focusing on personal computers (hardware, software, games) are dominating the market.

Secondly, we asked these media to provide us with email addresses for their full-time employees or to forward an invitation email to those employees if they did not want to give away the addresses. As a backup, we retrieved all openly available email addresses of ICT journalists from the magazines and web pages. To estimate the population, we asked the media to count the number of employees (main employment) such that we could estimate the size of the population of ICT journalists. We assume that the population consists of 382 ICT journalists.

Fieldwork

We conducted an online survey as all ICT journalists were assumed to have access to and frequently use email and the Internet. The fieldwork started on 28 September 2010, and ended on 28 February 2011. The long field period was necessary to increase the response rate. We sent five reminders (every four or five weeks), leading to a response rate of 26.7% and 102 completed questionnaires. Our sample contains 32 journalists in managing roles, out of which 11 were editors-in-chief. The major technologies the respondents regularly covered were hardware (69%), the Internet (54%), games (51%), other kinds of software (50%) and mobile communication (46%).

Measures

Role conceptions

As it is necessary to compare role conceptions of ICT journalists with journalists in general, the items and scales for measuring role conceptions were adopted from the most current representative survey of journalists in Germany available (Weischenberg et al., 2006). Some items were dropped as they were hardly applicable to the ICT media. Eleven descriptions of role conceptions were presented and respondents were asked to rate how adequately each item describes their profession (five-point scales).

Audience perception

Audience size

Respondents were asked to categorize the outlets they work for regarding commonly used indicators of audience size, that is, circulation for magazines and site visits per month for online sites. The highest and lowest categories were constructed such that they fit the market structure, with the market leader scoring an ‘8’ and the worst performer scoring a ‘1’.

Audience image

Respondents were asked to rate their audience on six dimensions in a semantic differential (five-point scales): educated–uneducated, influential–uninfluential, information-oriented–non-information-oriented, rich–poor (adopted from Weischenberg et al., 2006). With a value of Cronbach’s α = .660, we constructed an averaged index ranging from 1 to 5 (continuous), where ‘1’ indicates a negative image of the audience and ‘5’ indicates a positive image.

Audience diversity

Journalists rated which strata of expertness they address as their target audience: professionals, advanced users, normal users and/or beginners. Audience diversity was rated as highest if ICT journalists addressed all four strata, and lowest if they addressed only one. Scores range from 1 to 4 (discrete).

Audience-directedness

Journalists were asked to rate how much they had to pay heed to the audience’s demands when covering ICT topics (five-point scale).

Audience expertness

The most expert stratum in their target audience (beginners = 1, normal users = 2, advanced users = 3, professionals = 4) was used as an indicator of audience expertness.

Outlet and source perception

Topical diversity

Respondents were asked which out of 11 topics they cover regularly. The more of these topics a respondent named, the broader was his topical diversity.

Competitiveness

We asked respondents to rate their own media outlet on six dimensions: observation of competitors, contacts to developers, contacts to audience, sense for innovations, resistance to hypes, and frequency of errors/mistakes (five-point scales). Later in the survey, they rated an average competitor on the same dimensions. The more positively respondents evaluated their own news outlet compared to the competition, the more competitive do they view their own outlet.

Number of different sources

Respondents were asked to rate how important different kinds of sources were in their regular work (five-point scale). Items included ‘my colleagues’, ‘archive of my outlet’, ‘coverage of other ICT media’, ‘events, conventions’, ‘general news agencies’, ‘special interest news services’, ‘personal contact to ICT businesses’, ‘press conferences of ICT businesses’, ‘neutral experts (e.g. professors)’, ‘interest groups’ and ‘officials/bureaus’. The number of sources rated as ‘important’ (4) or ‘very important’ (5) was used as an indicator of the diversity of sources a journalist uses.

Evaluation of contacts to sources

Respondents rated the quality of contact with public relations (PR) practitioners, managers and developers of ICT corporations they cover (five-point scale). The average rating was used as an indicator of the evaluation of contacts to sources. Cronbach’s α was .574; this rather low value is acceptable for short scales such as this three-item scale (Morgan et al., 2010). Still, when using this index, we checked whether the results are similar to the results obtained when using all three indicators separately to control for effects of low internal consistency. The disputable assumption that the three items are one-dimensional must be acknowledged when interpreting the results.

Perceived effects on the audience

Extent of effects

To assess how journalists rate their capability to change the behaviour of their audience, we confronted them with the situation that they write and publish a negative review on a highly anticipated product. This scenario tests whether ICT journalists believe that they can impact purchase-relevant behaviours of audience members even in the face of a positive predisposition towards the product. Respondents rated on a five-point scale how likely it was that audience members would ‘read additional reviews to learn more about the product at hand’ (information search), ‘would wait and see before deciding about whether to purchase the product at hand’ (delay of decision) or ‘would refrain from purchasing the product at hand’ (reversal of decision).

Counterforces to effects

Furthermore, we asked respondents how important they estimate different reasons why audience members may not be affected by the negative reviews they publish. We asked about the importance of ‘hypes being more influential than critique’, ‘consumers being incompetent to judge the quality of products’ and ‘consumers not being well-informed’ (five-point scale).

Perceived effects on developers

Effects of reviews on developing future products

We asked journalists to rate how likely developers were to react to negative reviews of products (five-point scales). Items read ‘developers try to fix problems with patches or updates’, ‘developers take critique into account when developing new products’, ‘will get into touch with me personally’, ‘will get into touch with the publishing house or the editorial staff’ and ‘will be less approachable e.g. at conventions or for interviews’.

Effects of suggestions during product development

We also asked respondents how developers would react to critique uttered in personal contact during the development of a product. Journalists could respond that ‘suggestions are taken seriously and are being implemented’ (4), ‘suggestions are taken seriously and are being implemented as long as costs are manageable’ (3), ‘suggestions are taken seriously but are only being implemented if they cause no additional costs’ (2) and ‘suggestions are disregarded’ (1).

Controls

As controls, we asked ICT journalists about their personal and professional status. We collected data on sex (12% female), education (college degree: 58%, college attendance: 82%), age (M = 38.16; SD = 9.19; minimum: 22 years, maximum: 60 years), academic discipline (natural sciences/engineering: 24% of all; 29% of those who went to college), job position (managerial position: 32%), job experience (M = 10.17 years; SD = 6.23; minimum: 1 year; maximum: 25 years), full-time employment (full time: 96%).

Findings

Distinctiveness of role conceptions

H1 stated that role conceptions of ICT journalists are distinct from those of other journalists in particular ways. The self-reported role conceptions of ICT journalists significantly differ from the role conceptions of German journalists in general on 8 out of 11 role descriptions. The differences were in line with the expectations formed on the premise that ICT journalists are special interest journalists and deal with a particularly fluid and complicated subject matter. Compared to journalists in general, ICT journalists define their role more explicitly in terms of (a) ‘…point[ing] out new trends and convey[ing] new ideas’ (dissemination of innovations; χ²(1) = 70.997; p < .001), (b) ‘…[providing] the audience with content suited for entertainment and relaxation’ (entertainment; χ²(1) = 21.365; p < .001), (c) ‘…provid[e][ing] services to the audience, offer guidance’ (guidance; χ²(1) = 13.930; p < .001) and (d) ‘…explain[ing] and convey[ing] complicated subject matters’ (explanation, simplification; χ²(1) = 4.762; p = .029). Again with journalists in general as a benchmark, ICT journalists are more reluctant to define their role in terms of (a) ‘…portray[ing] reality as it is’ (realism; χ²(1) = 25.389; p < .001), (b) ‘…control[ling]/monitor[ing] politics, economy, and society’ (watchdog; χ²(1) = 13.819; p < .001), (c) ‘…act[ing] as a critic of social grievances’ (watchdog; χ²(1) = 5.623; p < .001) and (d) ‘…convey[ing] positive ideals’ (educator; χ²(1) = 7.866; p < .001) (Table 1). This supports H1.

Table 1.

Role conception of ICT journalists compared to all journalists in Germany^a

	All journalists (n = 1518) (%)	ICT journalists (n = 102) (%)	Difference (% points)	p
More important for ICT journalists
‘…point out new trends and convey new ideas’	44	87	+43	<.001
‘…provide the audience with content suited for entertainment and relaxation’	37	60	+23	<.001
‘…provide services to the audience, be their advisor’	44	63	+19	<.001
‘…explain and convey complicated matters’	79	88	+9	.029
Similarly important for ICT journalists
‘…inform the audience as quickly as possible’	74	77	+3	.503
‘…inform the audience in a neutral and precise fashion’	89	89	±0	1.000
‘…present my own views to the audience’	19	18	−1	.803
Less important for ICT journalists
‘…act as a critic of social grievances’	58	46	−12	.018
‘…convey positive ideals’	40	26	−14	.005
‘…control/monitor politics, economy, and society’	24	8	−16	<.001
‘…portray reality as it is’	74	51	−23	<.001

χ² tests were run based on the percentages as the raw data from Weischenberg et al. (2006) were not available for mean comparison.

Sources: ICT journalists: our data; all journalists: Weischenberg et al. (2006): 102, 106, 111. Our translations.

ICT: information and communication technology

Reactions of the audience to negative reviews

H2 stated that ICT journalists will assume that their coverage will have a high impact on their audience and hence potential consumers of ICT products. This expectation is met and H2 is supported: all three behavioural effects of negative reviews are viewed as more ‘likely’ than ‘unlikely’ and the sample means are well above the midpoint of the scale (3.00), as indicated by the 95% confidence intervals. However, the more consequential the effect, the more reluctantly do journalists agree that such effects are ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’. Almost all ICT journalists assert that recipients will be stimulated to collect additional information about the product (92%; M = 4.46; 95% CI [4.32, 4.60]). Also, most journalists believe that recipients are likely to delay their decision about purchasing the product at hand (71%; M = 3.92; 95% CI [3.74, 4.11]). However, they judge this significantly less likely than information search reactions. A relative majority of journalists also believes that recipients would be likely to refrain from purchasing the product (45%; M = 3.48; 95% CI [3.28, 3.68]) rather than unlikely (13%). Many are undecided whether changing a consuming decision is likely or not (42%).

The condition that may most effectively undermines such persuasion is hyping of the product: 90% of journalists believe that hypes are ‘important’ or ‘very important’ obstacles to decision-relevant media effects on their audience. The incompetence or ignorance of consumers is not a likely obstacle to effects (Table 2).

Table 2.

Effects and causes for non-reactions – descriptive statistics and bivariate correlation coefficients (Pearson’s r)

	Reaction of the audience			Causes for lack of reaction
	Information search	Delay of decision	Change of decision	Hyping^d	Lack of expertise^d	Lack of information^d
Descriptives
Per cent ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’¹	92	71	45	90^d	37^d	40^d
M	4.46^a	3.92^b	3.48^c	4.25^A	3.30^B	3.25^B
95% CI	[4.32, 4.60]	[3.74, 4.11]	[3.28, 3.68]	[4.12, 4.38]	[3.14, 3.46]	[3.09, 3.42]
SD	(.69)	(.90)	(.97)	(.65)	(.72)	(.76)
Correlations
Information search	—	+.026	−.160	+.010	+.053	−.079
Delay of decision		—	+.470***	−.131	−.043	−.106
Change of decision			—	−.155	+.127	+.003
Hyping				—	+.049	−.020
Lack of expertise					—	+.656***
Lack of information						—

† p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01.

a,b,c,A,B

Mean entries that share no superscript (a, b, c for reactions of the audience; A, B for causes of lack of reaction) differ by p < .05 in pair-wise t-tests for paired samples.

For causes of non-reactions, respondents rated the importance of reasons rather than the likelihood of their occurrence, therefore the upper two points of the five-point scale are ‘rather important’ and ‘very important’.

The perceived reactions are inter-related in journalists’ cognitive maps. While searching for additional information is unrelated to delay and change of decision, ICT journalists believe that a delay and a change of decision go hand in hand: recipients taking their time to think through the purchase decision may often eventually reach the conclusion not to buy the product reviewed negatively. Similarly, causes for non-reactions are inter-related: journalists who believe that recipients do not react to their negative reviews because they lack the necessary skills or competencies also believe that those recipients lack important information. In contrast, ICT journalists conceptualize hyping as an independent counterforce.

Journalists’ perceived impact on potential consumers is quite strong and the discussion will focus on the question of how this relates to actual effects or what other significance this findings can be ascribed. To assess what factors may lead to a higher or a lower perceived degree of influence on the audience, we investigate H3. Only one of the six ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models can explain the degree of media effects (or the relevance of counterforces to media effects) journalists report with at least a marginal level of statistical significance (the model for information behaviour). There are some cross-model tendencies that explain audience reactions: journalists reaching a larger audience tend to find effects more likely, as do those who are more directed towards audience needs. Those serving an expert audience tend to find effects of decision-making more likely (Table 3). ICT journalists with full-time employment, a managerial position, and at least nine years of job experience, and those addressing a larger audience tend to report more counterforces to audience reactions. ICT journalists who regard the needs of the audience more tend to report less counterforces to audience reactions. Effects of demographics are not regarded as they were included for purposes of control only. Overall, H3 is not supported, as the effects are at best marginal.

Table 3.

Influences on perceived effects on audiences^a

Block/predictors	Dependent variables
	Audience reactions						Reasons for lack of reactions
	Information search		Delayed decision		Reversal of decision		Hyping		Lack of information		Lack of skill
	ΔR²	β	ΔR²	β	ΔR²	β	ΔR²	β	ΔR²	β	ΔR²	β
1_Demographics^b	.12 *		.00		.03		.08		.04		.03
Sex		+.09		−.02		−.03		+.09		−.01		−.08
Age		−.30†		−.00		−.29†		−.18		−.30		+.05
Education		−.04		−.03		−.02		+.12		+.11		+.08
Major		−.25*		+.03		+.18		−.06		−.16		+.00
2_Journalographics^b	.02		.03		.05		.06		.05		.06
Full time		−.05		−.15		−.01		+.14		+.25*		+.21†
Hierarchical position		−.03		+.09		+.24*		+.15		+.20		+.21†
Job experience		+.26†		−.11		+.03		+.18		+.23		+.04
3_Audience conception^c	.02		.04		.10		.04		.06		.06
Audience size		+.11		+.19		+.18		+.14		+.14		+.06
Audience image		−.08		−.04		−.01		+.13		+.12		+.04
Audience diversity		+.01		−.06		−.10		−.20		−.22		−.07
Audience expertness		−.01		+.17		+.29†		+.08		+.12		−.01
Audience directedness		+.05		+.09		+.18		−.18		−.27*		−.22†
4_Outlet characteristics^c	.08 *		.00		.02		.00		.02		.01
Competitive position		−.22*		−.03		+.13		+.09		−.01		+.04
R ²	.23 †		.08		.19		.18		.17		.16
R² (adjusted)	.10 †		.00		.00		.03		.02		.01

†

p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

Block-wise ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models. Standardized regression coefficients are drawn from the model, including all four blocks. ^bDemographics and professional profile variables were coded dichotomously: sex: 1 = female, 0 = male; age: 1 = 36 years and over, 0 = below 36 years; education: 1 = college, 0 = no college; major: 1 = science, 0 = humanities/other; working hours: 1 = full time, 0 = part time; hierarchical position: 1 = managerial position, 0 = no managerial position; job experience: 1 = 9 or more years, 0 = less than 9 years. ^cSee Research Design section for operationalization and scaling.

Reactions of developers to negative reviews and suggestions

H4 stated that a majority of ICT journalists would attribute strong effects of negative reviews on developers. In the analysis, we distinguish between substantial effects – that is, impact on the development of products – and communicative effects, which affect communication between ICT journalists and ICT developers. A majority of journalists attests that developers will substantially react to criticism in reviews, that is, they find it ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’ that developers will implement new features in updates or patches (58%; M = 3.77; 95% CI [3.60, 3.93]) or in future products (55%; M = 3.60; 95% CI [3.43, 3.76]), which supports H4, at least for substantial reactions of developers. In the same vein, a majority believes that suggestions during product development are usually implemented, at least if they are not too costly to implement (60%), as predicted by H5. However, the mean is not significantly above the midpoint of the four-point scale (2.50) (M = 2.53; 95% CI [2.38, 2.68]). Evidence on H5 is mixed, but at least an impact of interactions prior to product release cannot be excluded. ICT journalists are unsure about the magnitude of its impact though.

There are other reactions to negative reviews by developers that are not related to product development but to developer–journalist interactions: 49% of the surveyed ICT journalists state that on occasion of negative reviews developers contact them personally to talk about the publication (M = 3.43; 95% CI [3.21, 3.66]). Forty-six per cent report that developers are likely to get into touch with the editorial staff or the publishing house to talk about the publication (M = 3.40; 95% CI [3.20, 3.61]). Although we did not ask what the typical subjects of such conversations are, one can assume that some developers would complain about the negative review, would ask journalists to justify their claims, may request changes in the article, or may ask for consequences for the responsible journalist. Some developers may want to clarify the points of criticism and suggestions for improvement. Another consequence would be that developers would be reluctant to cooperate with the journalist who criticized a product. However, only 28% of journalists think this is a likely consequence of negative review articles (M = 2.95; 95% CI [2.75, 3.15]) (Table 4).

Table 4.

Relations between different effects on manufacturers – bivariate correlation coefficients (Pearson’s r)

	Effect on manufacturers
	Effects of reviews					Effects of previews
	Substantial		Contact
	Consider criticism for updates	Consider criticism for future projects	Personal contact	Contact with editorial staff	Lower accessibility at events	Impact during development^d
Descriptives
Per cent ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’	58	55	49	46	28	60^d
M	3.77^a	3.60^b	3.43^b	3.40^b	2.95^c	2.53^d
95% CI	[3.60, 3.93]	[3.43, 3.76]	[3.21, 3.66]	[3.20, 3.61]	[2.75, 3.15]	[2.38, 2.68]^d
SD	(.82)	(.84)	(1.14)	(1.03)	(.98)	(.72)^d
Correlations
Updates
Future projects		+.542***	+.031	+.071	−.133	+.042
Personal contact			+.092	+.105	−.038	+.141
Contact with editor				+.573***	+.030	−.062
Lower accessibility					+.300***	−.269**
Impact during development						−.370***

† … p<.10 * … p<.05 ** … p<.01

a,b,c

Mean entries that share no superscript differ by p<.05 in pair-wise t-tests for paired samples; impact during development was not tested as a different scale was used.

for the impact during development, a four-point scale was used, of which the two upper points were regarded as ‘impact during development’: (1) ‘suggestions are disregarded’, (2) ‘suggestions are only implemented if no additional costs result’, (3) ‘suggestions are implemented, as long as costs are manageable’, and (4) ‘suggestions are implemented, regardless of costs’.

Journalists perceive connections between different kinds of effects on developers: those who believe that it is more likely that developers will incorporate suggestions and regard criticism in upcoming patches or updates also tend to believe that such changes will be implemented in future projects. In the same vein, those journalists who assert that developers will get in touch with the editorial staff or the publishing house tend to observe that developers also try to contact them personally. At the same time, those journalists who observe that developers try to contact superiors also tend to ascertain that developers are less accessible and open-minded when they ask for interviews or meet at conventions. Journalists who feel avoided by developers as a consequence of publishing negative reviews (i.e. those who spot that developers contact superiors and feel that they are avoided at conventions or disregarded when asking for an interview) also tend to judge that developers are less responsive to suggestions during product development.

These findings point out that the ICT journalists we surveyed attribute considerable impact to their coverage on developers’ actions. To look closer at the variables that may influence this perception of impact, we will test H6. Our regression models indicate that neither audience nor outlet perceptions meaningfully and consistently predict the perceived degree of substantial effects on product development (Table 5). Only audience expertness and number of sources may play a role: the beta values are rather high and their non-significance may stem from the small sample size and the high number of predictors. Overall, H6 is rejected.

Table 5.

Influences on perceived effects on developers^a

	Dependent variables
	Effects of reviews										Effects of previews
	Substantial				Contact
	Consider criticism for updates		Consider criticism for future projects		Personal contact		Contact with editorial staff		Lower accessibility at events		Impact during development
Block/predictors	ΔR²	beta	ΔR²	beta	ΔR²	Beta	ΔR²	beta	ΔR²	beta	ΔR²	beta
1_Demographics^b	.02		.01		.01		.06		.14 **		.06
Sex		−.07		−.01		+.06		+.19†		+.32**		−.27*
Age		−.02		−.18		−.01		−.13		−.05		−.04
Education		−.09		+.00		−.08		+.03		+.13		−.01
Major		+.11		+.10		−.11		−.10		+.01		+.05
2_Journalographics^b	.02		.03		.04		.03		.01		.02
Full time		+.09		−.05		+.15		−.04		−.01		−.06
Hierarchical position		−.05		+.15		+.11		+.12		−.03		−.00
Job experience		+.03		+.12		+.01		−.07		−.05		+.15
3_Audience conception^c	.03		.03		.16***		.03		.02		.02
Audience size		+.05		−.14		+.31**		+.12		−.11		+.07
Audience expertness		+.15		+.11		+.16		+.09		+.16		−.09
4_Outlet characteristics^c	.05		.05		.04		.06		.08		.03
Competitive position		−.11		+.02		+.13		−.14		−.21†		+.06
Number of sources		+.15		+.24		−.15		+.06		+.11		−.01
Quality of contacts		+.15		−.01		−.03		−.00		−.16		+.03
R ²	.11		.12		.25*		.18		.25*		.13
R² (adjusted)	.00		.00		.13*		.04		.12*		.00

†

p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p< .001.

The perceived interpersonal reactions of developers are more readily explainable. Regression models for the estimated likelihood of developers getting in touch with the journalist directly and the likelihood of developers being less accessible in the future have at least some predictive value. Getting in touch with journalists directly is facilitated by a larger audience size: so the more powerful media receive more attention. The more favourable journalists evaluate the quality of their outlet compared to the competition, the less likely would developers cancel cooperation in the future as a response to negative reviews. Effects of demographics are not regarded, as they were included for purposes of control only.

Discussion

As expected, ICT journalists define their role in terms of disseminating innovations, guiding their readers, explaining complicated matters and providing entertaining contents. Their role conceptions facilitate an effects-oriented kind of journalism as effects are part of that role concept (diffusion, guidance, interpretation and entertainment). Our findings indicate that ICT journalists believe that negative reviews can and do significantly affect the behaviour of the general audience and of developers. Furthermore, they believe that they can actually change products during the development process when they criticize products during earlier stages of development. ICT journalists are well aware of the effects their coverage can have on the success of ICT products. Effects on the manufacturers are most likely conceived as desirable, as ICT journalists can act as a broker between the (imagined) audience and the developers. Therefore, we are dealing with an influential group that perceives itself as shaping consumers’ understanding and handling of ICTs and the success of corporations and technologies. However, all attempts to explain the magnitude of effects journalists attribute to their reporting have failed: neither conceptions of the audience nor conceptions of the ICT outlet (and its relations to the developers) were significant predictors of the magnitude of perceived effects. Therefore, the assumption that ICT coverage impacts audiences and developers seems to reflect a general tendency of ICT journalists (i.e. part of the general professional role) rather than a particular understanding of audiences, outlets or developers by individual ICT journalists. However, the non-findings may also be consequences of methodological problems.

The generalizability of our findings is limited for several methodological reasons. Firstly, we studied a small population of which one quarter participated in our survey. The small sample size disallows including more variables into regression models, as this would have detrimental effects on test power. In the regression models we computed, only very clear effects can show up as statistically significant. Secondly, sampling biases may be responsible for some of the findings and non-findings, as journalists from economically successful, ‘big’ outlets and journalists in leading roles are overrepresented in the sample. This would explain (a) that so many journalists readily attribute their coverage with strong effects on audiences and developers (as most of them work for powerful outlets in a strong market position), and (b) that the differences in target audience, outlet characteristics and ties to sources do not explain the degree of effects attributed to one’s coverage (as variance on the independent and/or dependent variables is low or biased). Thirdly, comparisons with other groups of journalists and journalists from other countries would have offered yardsticks to interpret the findings. Fourthly, many constructs were measured using only one or few indicators that were developed for this study. Except for face validity, their reliability and validity has not yet been systematically analysed, which impedes drawing definitive conclusions from our research. In addition, our questions measuring perceived effects of coverage were restricted to only some ways in which ICT coverage may impact recipients and the industry. Still, this study is the best approximation that we have as to how ICT journalists conceptualize their impact on society. In addition, the study has revealed some patterns that are clear-cut.

What does the high degree of perceived effects tell us beyond the feeling of self-efficacy on the part of the journalists? One could argue that these perceptions are mere illusions without empirical value. However, there are good reasons to reject this objection: ICT journalists directly interact with developers and actually see whether their suggestions are implemented or not. In a more limited way, ICT journalists will also receive feedback from recipients as to whether their reviews were used in decision-making. Letters to the editor are often printed in magazines (Glashüttner, 2009), also to publicly record and demonstrate the service and guidance ICT media provide for their audience. Still, there most likely is a gap between perception and reality. However, there is no reason to assume that perception and reality are unrelated or even contradictory.

On the one hand, journalists’ strong-effects assumption is a component of the conviction of ICT journalists as early adopters, opinion leaders, experts and mediators in the ICT consumer market. On the other hand, the findings indicate that the actual effects of ICT media are not restricted to effects on consumers who then influence the ICT market – they directly change product features by affecting the developers. The effects are most likely conditional (as expressed in the beliefs about counterforces to effects) and there are many other influences that affect decisions of consumers and developers. However, they are part of journalists’ roles, their daily routines and the social effects they trigger. Both on the individual and the societal level, ICT journalists powerfully influence which technologies succeed and which fail; they also influence the way technologies are culturally conceptualized, experienced, used and incorporated into everyday life. Our study illuminates some paths along which they exert this function, although other paths are still to be explored.

Most pressingly, future research is needed to explore how different groups of journalists (for example, current affairs, business, ICT, fashion, etc.) and journalists in different countries conceptualize the effects of their coverage and their implicit theories about media effects. Also, analysing the content of ICT media would provide insights about how ICT journalists characterize products and trends. Thirdly, communication researchers should test the actual impact of such media content on audiences and ICT corporations. Fourthly, surveys should not only explore the self-perception of journalists’ impact, but also the ethical dilemmas that go hand in hand with that power.

Footnotes

Funding

This research was financially supported by the Research Unit ‘Media Convergence’ at the University of Mainz.

Author biographies

Stefan Geiß is a research associate and doctoral candidate at the Department of Communication at the University of Mainz. His research focuses on agenda building, agenda setting and audience–journalist relations.

Nikolaus Jackob is an assistant professor at the same department. His areas of interest include persuasion, trust in the media and special interest journalism.

Oliver Quiring is a professor at the same department. His research focuses on political communication, economic reporting, media convergence and new media, with special emphasis on interactivity.

References

Bayus

(1998) An analysis of product lifetimes in a technologically dynamic industry. Management Science 44(6): 763–775.

Castells

(1997–1999) The Information Age. Vols. 1–3. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Centre for European Economic Research (2010) ITK als Wegbereiter von Innovationen [ICT as trailblazer for innovations]. Available at: http://www.bitkom.org/60376.aspx?url=BITKOM-ZEW-Studie_ITK_als_Wegbegleiter_von_Innovationen.pdf.

Cogan

(2005) ‘Framing usefulness’: an examination of journalistic coverage of the personal computer from 1982–1984. Southern Communication Journal 70(3): 248–265.

Dernbach

(2010) Die Vielfalt des Fachjournalismus. Eine systematische Einführung [The Richness of Special Interest Journalism. A Systematic Introduction]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

DeWerth-Pallmeyer

(1997) The Audience in the News. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Donsbach

(1981) Journalisten zwischen Publikum und Kollegen [Journalists between audience and colleagues]. Rundfunk und Fernsehen 29(2–3): 168–184.

Faiola

Boyd Davis

Edwards

(2010) Extending knowledge domains for new media education: integrating interaction design theory and methods. New Media & Society 12(5): 691–709.

Fishman

(1980) Manufacturing the News. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

10.

Gabrielsson

Darling

. (2006) Globalizing internationals: product strategies of ICT manufacturers. International Marketing Review 23(6): 650–671.

11.

Gandy

(1982) Beyond Agenda Setting: Information Subsidies and Public Policy. Norwood, MA: Ablex.

12.

Glashüttner

(2009) Computerspiele-Journalismus. Formale, strukturelle und ideologische Entwicklungen [Computer games journalism. Formal, structural, and ideological developments]. In: Günzel

Liebe

Mersch

(eds) DIGAREC Lectures 2008/09. Potsdam: University Press, pp. 128–146.

13.

Goldman

(1982) Short product life cycles: implications for the marketing activities of small high-technology companies. R & D Management 12(2): 81–89.

14.

Hachigian

Hallahan

(2003) Perceptions of public relations web sites by computer industry journalists. Public Relations Review 29(1): 43–62.

15.

Hohlfeld

(2003) Journalismus und Medienforschung. Theorie, Empirie, Transfer [Journalism and Media Research: Theory, Empirical Research, and Practical Application]. Konstanz: UVK.

16.

IVW (2011) IVW Online-Nutzungsdaten [IVW online use data]. Available at: http://ausweisung.ivw-online.de.

17.

Katz

(1988) The Information Society: An International Perspective. New York: Praeger.

18.

Kelly

(2009) Not so revolutionary after all: the role of reinforcing frames in US magazine discourse about microcomputers. New Media & Society 11(1–2): 31–52.

19.

Latzer

(2009) Information and communication technology innovations: radical and disruptive? New Media & Society 11(4): 599–619.

20.

Lyon

(1988) The Information Society: Issues and Illusions. Cambridge: Polity Press.

21.

McQuail

(1997) Audience Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

22.

Meldrum

(1995) Marketing high-tech products: the emerging themes. European Journal of Marketing 29(10): 45–58.

23.

Morgan

Leech

Gloeckner

. (2010) IBM SPSS for Introductory Statistics: Use and Interpretation. 4th ed. New York: Routledge.

24.

Nam

Barnett

(2010) Communication media diffusion and substitutions: longitudinal trends from 1980 to 2005 in Korea. New Media & Society 12(7): 1137–1155.

25.

Napoli

(2003) Audience Economics: Media Institutions and the Audience Marketplace. New York: Columbia University Press.

26.

OECD (2012) Patents by Regions (PCT). Available at: http://stats.oecd.org.

27.

Rogers

(2003) Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: The Free Press.

28.

Rössler

(2001) Between online heaven and cyberhell: the framing of ‘The Internet’ by traditional media coverage in Germany. New Media & Society 3(1): 49–66.

29.

Salvaggio

(ed.) (1989) The Information Society: Economic, Social, and Structural Issues. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

30.

Slack

(ed.) (1987) The Ideology of the Information Age. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

31.

Traber

(ed.) (1988) The Myth of the Information Revolution: Social and Ethical Implications of Communications Technology. London: SAGE.

32.

Tsfati

Livio

(2008) Exploring journalists’ perceptions of media impact. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 85(1): 113–130.

33.

Weischenberg

Malik

Scholl

(2006) Die Souffleure der Mediengesellschaft. Report über die Journalisten in Deutschland [Prompters of Media Society: A Report about Journalists in Germany]. Konstanz: UVK.