Longer, Higher Quality Videos Preferred by News Viewers

Newspaper Research Journal2015, Vol. 36(2) 212 –224© 2015 NOND of AEJMC

Reprints and permissions:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0739532915587291nrj.sagepub.com

Article

Longer, Higher Quality Videos Preferred by News Viewers

by Peter S. Chen, Nicholas Wilson, Gina Masullo Chen and Chen-Wei Chang

AbstractThis study reports people prefer longer, high-quality videos to any other type on newspaper websites and poor quality videos can harm the news brand. Editors should be much more critical of the videos they post and journalists should have multi-media training.

Keywordsonline news, video, news websites, multimedia, training, digital news content

The conventional wisdom for online news is that shorter is better. This view is fueled by evidence attention spans are dropping—particularly among the young.1 People raised in a digital age, the thinking goes, are so used to zap-

ping through ads and clicking through links they have developed a “screen-based”2 reading behavior where they browse, scan or skim content, reading only a few words to deal with the plethora of information online.3 Statistics gleaned from websites’

Chen is the print media adviser for Texas Student Media at the University of Texas at Austin. Wilson is a master’s student.

Masullo Chen is an assistant professor in the School of Journalism at the University of Texas at Austin. Chang is a doctoral candidate.

Wilson and Chang are in the School of Mass Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern Mississippi. Masullo Chen

is the corresponding author: [email protected].

587291 NRJXXX10.1177/0739532915587291Newspaper Research JournalChen, Wilson, Chen and Changresearch-article2015

Chen, Wilson, Chen and Chang 213

backend data support this view. Data suggest people leave a site without visiting a second page, dubbed “bouncing”4 in online jargon, if they are not immediately engaged5 or if a video lags too long.6 However, most of this research has focused on text-based content,7 and little has focused on the interplay between quality and length.

This current research aimed to fill this gap by using a mixed-design experiment to examine whether shorter is truly better even when quality is poor. Drawing on the behav-ioral model of information seeking on the web,8 this study explored news consumers’ preference for videos in regard to both quality and length. This study also examined how these preferences influence people’s perception of a news organization’s value. For this study, quality was defined as the news consumers’ subjective experience 9 of how informa-tive, enjoyable, good and suitable to recommend to friends the videos were.10 This notion incorporated viewers’ perception of how newsworthy11 and well done the videos were.12 Therefore, high-quality videos scored high on these assessments, while low-quality vid-eos lacked these attributes. Length was how long a video lasted with long videos averag-ing 2.08 minutes and short videos averaging 24 seconds. Videos from a real newspaper website were used in an effort to create the most realistic experience of quality and length as possible in a controlled experiment.

Literature ReviewRelevance of Study

Before delving into the literature and theory that supports this study, it makes sense to examine why this research is relevant to both scholars and practitioners of journal-ism. News industry officials hope revenues generated from online content will be part of the salvation for an industry that has seen its former business model of print adver-tising and classified ads implode.13 Newspaper executives hope that the same can hap-pen with a news video as has happened with user-generated videos of kids or pets posted on YouTube that have attracted more than half a billion hits.14 As a result, newspapers are increasingly adding multimedia or rich media—especially videos—to their online news, particularly in larger markets.15 In that effort, many newspapers require their reporting and photography staffs to produce videos,16 with the goal that these videos be short, rather than long. Yet, training to do this specialized work may be lacking. For example, a survey of 391 photojournalists and photo editors17 found that newspapers were providing little multimedia training to photojournalists, but those who received training had greater morale and trust in their employers.

This topic is even more important today, as reporters with little or no visual training are increasingly taking over the roles formerly reserved for photographers18 to fill the need for digital skills.19 For example, the Chicago Sun-Times recently fired its entire photography staff and is having its reporters and free-lancers produce all its visual content.20 Similarly, the Southern Community Newspapers chain in Georgia closed the photography depart-ment for its five dailies and two weeklies, with its CEO Michael Gebhart arguing that one journalist should be able to cover an event in “words, pictures, and video.”21 Gebhart’s quote illustrates a notion many long-time editors may have that multimedia is easy to tack onto a reporter’s existing duties without quality suffering. Given this climate in the news

214 Newspaper Research Journal 36(2)

industry, it becomes increasingly important to understand whether news consumers prefer shorter videos, regardless of quality, and how video quality influences how these consum-ers view the overall value of the news organization.

Information SeekingThis study is rooted in the behavioral model of information seeking,22 which pro-

poses that browsing is a fundamental part of how people consume Web content. Wilson’s23 original model proposed that people’s need for information leads to infor-mation-seeking behaviors that begin undirected and eventually become more directed, if people notice items they find interesting. He theorized that a variety of needs, including cognitive ones, drive information seeking. Later theorists24 applied these ideas to the Internet, proposing that when people are online they scan broadly for information at first and then become more discriminating as they find topics of inter-est. This behavior, called “browsing,”25 is a means for people to quickly sort through the large amount of information online with an aim toward evaluating what meets their needs.26 Part of the reason people browse and skim online is because information is so plentiful27 that they use this technique to sort through the noise to find what suits them, rather than be overwhelmed by so much content. This information abundance can lead people to feel saturated by information,28 so news organizations may expect that con-sumers would prefer only short videos because longer ones might overwhelm them.

As people browse, they seek information that satisfies a variety of their needs, wants or expectations.29 For example, channel changing was one of the earlier tools that allowed people to tailor their media experience to their own needs because they could grab the clicker when they lost interest in a television show or to avoid content in the show.30 Similarly, for decades people have avoided advertisements in maga-zines, newspapers, radio and television if they found the ads boring, excessive in num-ber or annoying.31 According to the information-seeking model, once people find information that meets their needs, they select and use the information, so the informa-tion use becomes much less passive.32

An aim of this current research was to apply this model to online news videos, where it has not been tested before. If this model holds true for news videos, people would be expected to browse as they sort through the large amount of online media information, including videos. This browsing activity suggests people would gravitate initially to short items because they are easier to assess quickly. But once an item was found to satisfy a need, the satisfaction of the need would outweigh a desire to assess information quickly. Given this logic, people should prefer long, high-quality videos, to any other type of videos, including short, high-quality videos because the quality in the content satisfies a need and stops the browsing activity.

News Quality and LengthAs a concept, quality has received a great deal of study,33 but little of it has specifi-

cally examined the relatively new form of media that was the focus of this study—news videos on a newspaper website. However, studies of other types of news suggest


that quality news videos would be content that people would seek out. For example, Meijer34 argues persuasively that quality is the key standard for judging journalism, and journalists should take into account news consumers’ subjective experience of quality in shaping content. Another study35 found that broadcast news departments owned by small media groups produced higher-quality news because they were more locally based than larger, chain-based broadcast groups. Similarly, Cummins and Chambers36 found that viewers could detect differences in production values in news videos, and viewers perceived these videos as higher in quality. Therefore, prior research supports the contention of this current study that news consumers have a subjective view of quality, which consists of content that meets their information needs, and that they would seek out information that they view as high quality. In the model of information seeking, this literature would support the premise that browsing would cease once an information need is met by quality content, so people would pre-fer high- to low-quality videos, regardless of length.

The literature on video length preferences is more scant. However, both the model of information seeking and the literature on attention spans suggest that people gravi-tate online to information that is short. Studies have found that people’s attention spans are limited online and getting shorter as people are exposed to more and more quickly moving information.37 Journalists may pick up on this idea, suggesting news consum-ers prefer shorter content. For example, in a study of multimedia storytelling at a British news website, Thurman and Lupton38 quoted Sky News’ Steve Bennedik as saying people prefer 40-second stories to two-minute ones. Similarly, Slate.com39 reported that people would not read a long story to its end because of short attention spans. Therefore, the model, the literature and media reports suggest people would prefer short videos initially as they browse. However, if quality meets an information need, they would prefer longer, high-quality videos to any other type, including short high-quality videos.

Opinion of News OrganizationA second goal of this study was to examine the impact of low-quality news videos

on people’s opinion of the news organization that produced the videos. The concept was defined as whether viewers thought well of the news organization and saw its work as professional and worth visiting again, based on the quality of the news videos viewed. The study proposed that news consumers would have a lower opinion of news organizations that consistently produced lower-quality content, regardless of the con-tent’s length.

Therefore, based on the model of information seeking and the relevant literature, this study proposed that people would prefer short videos to long videos and high- versus low-quality when they are browsing. However, the model also suggests that people become more directed in their information seeking when content meets their needs. As a result, people should prefer long high-quality videos, to any other type of videos, including short high-quality ones because the quality has met their informa-tion-seeking need. Finally, news consumers will think less of news organizations that produce low-quality videos, regardless of their length.


Based on this foundation, the following hypotheses were proposed.

H1:News consumers will prefer high-quality videos to low-quality videos.

H2:News consumers will prefer short videos to long videos.

H3:When quality and length are considered together, news consumers will prefer high-

quality, long videos to any other type, including short, high-quality videos.

H4:Consistent production of low-quality news videos, regardless of length, will

decrease news consumers’ opinion of that news organization.

MethodA 2x2 mixed-design experiment (N = 107) was conducted with video length

(short versus long) as a within-subjects factor and video quality (high versus low) as a between-subjects factor. The experiment was embedded in an online survey created on Qualtrics, and subjects participated on their own computers. Qualtrics randomly assigned roughly half the participants (n = 51) to view high-quality vid-eos, and the rest (n = 56) to view low-quality videos. Pre-test subjects uninvolved in the main experiment rated the quality of the videos, as detailed below. In each condition, half the subjects viewed one set of videos and half viewed a different set. Two sets of videos were used to examine the underlying effect of the video quality, not just the effect of specific videos. A series of analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were conducted, which showed no significant differences between results for the two high-quality videos or the two low-quality videos, so data were collapsed for future analyses. When subjects were presented with the videos, the order in which the long or short videos appeared first was randomized to control for order effects.40

SampleSubjects were solicited through links on Twitter, Facebook and a university list

serve. The majority of the sample was female (69.2 percent). The average age of subjects was 23.94 (SD = 8.54, median = 20.50). Caucasians comprised 75.7 per-cent of the sample, 15 percent were African-Americans, 4.7 percent were Asian/Pacific Islanders, 1.9 percent were Hispanic/Latino and 2.8 percent declined to report a race. The age group of the sample was particularly suitable for this study. Younger people are a target of news organizations, as they attempt to replace their aging customers and woo a new generation of news consumers.41


Pre-testBefore the main experiment, a pre-test that was part of a larger separate project was

conducted to screen the videos to be used as stimuli into high- and low-quality catego-ries. Two of the researchers, who spent nearly two decades each as newspaper journal-ists, selected 36 videos from a newspaper website in the Northeastern United States. This was done so all the videos would be from the same news organization to mini-mize any potential confounding influence of the news organization’s reputation among subjects. This news organization was selected because study subjects would be unlikely to have pre-conceived notions about this news organization because of its far proximity from the university in the Southeastern United States, where the pre-test and main experiment were conducted.

Pre-test subjects (N = 29) were recruited from classes at the university in the Southeastern United States to participate and compensated with a $20 gift card for Wal-Mart paid through a university grant. They were randomly divided into three groups, and those in each group watched 12 of the 36 videos. This was done so subjects would not grow weary by being asked to watch too many videos. Subjects watched the videos individually using earbuds in a classroom with other subjects. They then answered a series of questions about the videos, which are detailed below. Pre-test subjects on average were 24.6 years old (SD = 5.50). Roughly half (55.5 percent) were women, and 69 percent were white, 20.7 percent were Black/African-American, and the rest were Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Latino or multi-racial. Overall, most were not mass communication or journalism majors (75.9 percent). This was deliberate, so average people, not those specifically trained in video or media production, would rate videos for quality.

Pre-Test Measures to Assess QualityTo sort the videos into high- and low-quality categories, pre-test subjects rated

videos they watched using two statements from prior research.42 They were asked to think of the news video they had just viewed and rate their agreement with the follow-ing statements on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale: “You can tell a lot of time and money has been invested in preparation, research, writing and producing this news video story,”43 and “In terms of their technical quality and photography, these news video stories are well done.”44 Subjects also rated the overall quality of the videos on a 1 (low) to 7 (high) scale. Researchers averaged these questions into indices for each video. Indices with means of 5 or higher were deemed “high quality,” while those with means lower than 4 were considered “low quality.” This action resulted in 20 low-quality videos; 10 high quality; six that were excluded because the mean was at 4, which was deemed ambiguous. Then the reliability of all the indices was tested, resulting in 27 videos with Cronbach’s !’s at acceptable levels, ranging from .81 to .98. A series of t tests was conducted to assess whether the means for the indices for videos in each condition were judged of equally low or of equally high quality. All but two of the 27 videos showed equal quality by group. These two videos were excluded.

StimuliOf those remaining 25 videos, four videos—two from the high-quality group and

two from the low-quality group—were selected to become the stimuli for this current


project. One of the researchers with nearly 20 years experience as a newspaper photo-journalist and videographer edited the four videos to 32 seconds or less to create a short (edited) version of each video. Each of the four videos was left as is for the long version. The editing was done to retain the narrative. Length was treated as a within-subjects variable, so each subject would view the same video but see one short version and one long one with an aim to allow subjects to compare the quality between them in their own minds. The long versions were 2.08 minutes long on average (SD = 1.52), and short versions were 0.24 seconds long on average (SD = 0.06).

Dependent MeasuresPreference for News Video

To measure this concept, portions of the utility scale used for websites45 was adapted. Subjects rated both the short and the long videos on how informative, good and enjoyable to watch each were and how likely they would recommend the video to friends on 1(not very much) to 7 (very much) scales. These statements were averaged into two indices (one for the short video and one for the long video). Both had high reliability, Mshort = 2.82, SDshort = 1.61, ! = .92; Mlong = 3.62, SDlong =1.75, ! = .90.

Opinion of News OrganizationTo operationalize this idea, subjects rated both the short and long videos on a 1 (not

very much) to 7 (very much) scale for four statements about their opinion of the news organization. Subjects were asked if a news organization consistently made videos of this quality, would they: “Rate it favorably”46 and “Visit its website regularly.”47 Using the same scale, they also were asked whether this video quality level was what they “expected from a professional news organization”48 and what they would “think of a professional news organization if it consistently made videos of this quality.”49 Answers were averaged into opinion indices (one for short and one for long), which measured what the subjects thought of the news organization. Both had high reliabil-ity, Mshort = 2.63, SDshort = 1.62, ! = .95; Mlong = 3.13, SDlong = 1.81, ! = .96.

FindingsHypothesis 1 predicted news consumers would prefer high-quality news videos to

low-quality news videos, and H2 predicted consumers would prefer short videos to long videos overall. H3 predicted that when quality and length were considered together, news consumers would prefer high-quality, long videos to any other type, including short, high-quality videos. To test these hypotheses, a repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with quality as a between-subjects factor and length as a within-subjects factor subjected to the repeated measures. This statistic was used because it allowed comparison of preference for both quality and length in one analy-sis. Results showed statistically significant main effects for both quality, F (1,105) = 27.78, p < .001, "2 = .21, and length, F (1,105) = 44.94, p = .001, "2 = .30.


Overall, people preferred the high-quality videos (M = 4.40) to the low-quality videos (M = 2.81), so H1 was supported. However, people, overall, preferred the long version of the videos (M = 4.09) to the short versions (M = 3.12), so H2 was not supported. In addition, an interaction between length and quality was statistically significant, F(1, 105) = 6.42, p = .01, !2 = .06. This suggested that quality was the driving force in whether people prefer a news video, as hypothesized, and that longer videos enhanced this prefer-ence. When both quality and length were considered together, people preferred the long, high-quality videos to any other type, including short, high-quality videos. [Figure 1] In essence, people wanted both length and quality in a news video, not just quality. Therefore, H3 was supported.

Not only do viewers reject poor-quality videos, but also the consistent posting of low-quality videos

may irreparably harm the news brand.

Hypothesis 4 predicted a news organization that consistently produced low-quality vid-eos, regardless of length, would damage viewers’ opinion of it. To test this hypothesis, a repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with quality as the between-subjects factor and length as a within-subjects factor subjected to repeated measures. Results showed a main effect for quality, F (1,105) = 18.45, p < .001, !2 = .15, and length, F (1,105) = 20.35, p < .000, !2 = .16. As hypothesized, viewers in the high-quality (M = 3.91) condition reported thinking better of the news organization than those in the low-quality condition (M = 2.52). They also thought better of the news organizations that produced the long videos (M = 3.53) than those that produced short videos (M = 2.90). In addition, an interaction between

Figure 1Viewers Prefer High-Quality News Videos, Particularly if They are Long.

+ Preference for news video was measured with an index on a 7-point scale with 7 being greater preference.


length and quality was statistically significant, F(1, 105) = 4.27, p = .04, !2 = .04). This suggested that quality influences whether people think highly of a news organization and that longer videos heighten this perception. When length and quality were considered together, people thought the best of the news organization that produced long, high-quality videos over every other type, including short, high-quality videos. [Figure 2] This finding echoed the result from H3 that people wanted both length and quality in a news video, not just quality. Therefore H4 was supported.

DiscussionThe newspaper industry has been facing an existential threat with the collapse of its

former business model, but this study’s findings show that producing online content without regard for its quality is not the solution to this problem. Results of this study showed people preferred longer, high-quality news videos to any other type, including short, high-quality videos. In fact, they would not tolerate low quality, results show, even if the videos were short. While prior research has found that people can tolerate lower production values if they like the content,50 the findings of this current study showed people would not tolerate content they found uninformative, bad, not enjoy-able or not worth recommending to others. As a result, news organizations cannot afford to produce low-quality videos, even if they are short, because viewers will assert their choice and bounce from the site.

In addition, these results suggested news organizations that consistently produce low-quality news videos might harm their short-term traffic by losing viewers and damage their long-term brands. These findings showed people thought better of a news organization that

Figure 2Exposure to Low-Quality Videos Diminished Viewers’ Opinion of a News Organization, Particularly if Videos are Short.

+ Opinion of the news organization was measured with an index on a 7-point scale with 7 being higher opinion.


produced longer, high-quality videos, and they thought less of news organization that pro-duced poor-quality videos, even if they were short. They also were more likely to report wanting to visit a news site that had produced high-quality videos, compared with those that produced low-quality videos. So the drive to get more videos online, particularly shorter ones, by staffs that lack visual training may backfire for news organizations over time. Like many solutions to the newspaper crisis, posting online videos will not solve the problem of attracting an online audience unless it is done with quality. Videos may be a very fruitful means of adding to news organizations’ advertising coffers,51 but without quality, these efforts may falter and damage news brands long term.

Theoretical RamificationsThe theoretical aim of this current research was to apply the model of information

seeking52 to news videos, where it has not before been tested. The model suggests that people are less directed in their information seeking online until they find something that interests them, and then they become more directed in their search. Similarly, this current study found that people became more directed in their information seeking when they were exposed to a high-quality video, and they preferred a longer video. However, it is worth noting that subjects in this study did not prefer shorter videos at all. This disputes part of the premise of the model that people might initially gravitate to shorter videos when they are browsing or undirected in their information search. This finding also seems contrary to the literature on attention spans,53 which suggests people seek shorter content, particularly online. It may be that other attributes of the video played a role in drawing people’s attention to longer videos. It is also plausible that the particular format of a video story requires a particular length to be engaging. Future research should explore these possibilities.

Practical RamificationsFor news organizations, these finding suggest that multimedia training is required

for all journalists being expected to shoot and produce news videos. This study showed people make a qualitative assessment of quality about news videos. They will not value videos they deem as low quality even if the videos are brief, and they will view a news organization that produces low-quality work less highly and be less likely to visit or recommend its site.

This study suggested that newspaper editors should be a lot more critical of the videos they post online. Not only do viewers reject poor-quality news videos, but also the consistent posting of low-quality videos may irreparably harm the news brand. As a result, news organizations’ shortsighted aim to increase site traffic today by posting short videos, regardless of quality, may have lasting negative consequences.

Limitations and Future ResearchIt is worth noting that this study asked people how they would feel about a news

organization that consistently produced low- (or high-) quality content, but they were


not actually exposed to the content over a period of time. This study suggested that long-term exposure to low-quality news videos would damage viewers’ opinion of a news organization, but it did not actually test this longitudinally. Future research should address this question.

Also, it is important to examine what quality attributes of a video—such as audio, picture quality, composition, editing—compel news consumers to select it and what makes them decide to stop watching before it is over. Future research should examine these questions because it is crucial to understanding the relationship between length and quality in news videos. This research also would be helpful to news practitioners by providing a greater understanding of what type of news videos people value.

AcknowledgementThis study was conducted while the third author was an assistant professor at The University of Southern Mississippi. It was funded in part by a grant from the Aubrey Keith Lucas and Ella Ginn Lucas Endowment for Faculty Excellence that she received there.

Notes 1. Mark Bauerlein, The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and

Jeopardizes Our Future (New York: Penguin, 2009); Jonathan S.A. Carriere, James A. Cheyne, J.F. Grayden Solman and Daniel Smilek, “Age Trends for Failure of Sustained Attention,” Psychology and Aging 25, no. 3 (September 2010): 569-574; Farhad Manjoo, “You Won’t Finish This Article: Why People Online Don’t Read to the End,” slate.com, June 6, 2013, <http://www.slate.com/articles/tech-nology/technology/2013/06/how_people_read_online_why_you_won_t_finish_this_article.html> (March 7, 2015).

2. Ziming Liu, “Reading Behavior in the Digital Environment: Changes in Reading Behavior over the Past Ten Years,” Journal of Documentation 61, no. 6 (December 2005): 700-712.

3. Goeffrey B. Duggan and Stephen J. Payne, “Skim Reading by Satisficing: Evidence From Eye Tracking,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York: ACM, 2011), 1141-1150; Avery A. Holton and H. Iris Chyi, “News and the Overloaded Consumer,” Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 15, no. 11 (November 2012): 619-624.

4. Kayden Kelly, “What is Bounce Rate? Avoid Common Pitfalls,” blastam.com, February 12, 2012, <http://www.blastam.com/blog/index.php/2012/02/what-is-bounce-rate/> (March 7, 2015).

5. Manjoo, “You Won’t Finish This Article.” 6. Chris Savage, “Does Length Matter? It Does for Video,” wistia.com, December 14, 2009, <http://

wistia.com/blog/does-length-matter-it-does-for-video> (March 7, 2015). 7. See for example, Duggan and Payne, “Skim Reading by Satisficing”; Liu, “Reading Behavior in the

Digital Environment.” 8. Chun Wei Choo, Brian Detlor and Don Turnbull, “Information Seeking on the Web: An Integrated

Model of Browsing and Searching,” firstmonday.org, February 7, 2000, <http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_2/choo/index.html> (March 7, 2015).

9. Irene Costera Meijer, “Valuable Journalism: A Search for Quality from the Vantage Point of the User,” Journalism 14, no. 6 (August 2012): 754-770.

10. Kevin E. Voss, Eric R. Spangenberg and Bianca Grohmann, “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Consumer Attitudes,” Journal of Marketing Research 40, no. 3 (August 2003): 310-320.

11. George Albert Gladney, Ivor Shapiro and Joseph Castaldo, “Online Editors Rate Web News Quality Criteria,” Newspaper Research Journal 28, no. 1 (winter 2007): 55-68.


12. R. Glenn Cummins and Todd Chambers, “How Production Values Impact Perceived Technical Quality, Credibility, and Economic Value of Video News,” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 88, no. 4 (winter 2011): 737-752.

13. Paul Farhi, “Online Salvation?” ajrarchive.org, January 2008, <http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=4427> (March 7, 2015); Jeff Sonderham, “Gannett Newspaper Sites Earning High Ad Rates from Online Videos,”poynter.org, November 7, 2011, <http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/medi-awire/152300/gannett-local-newspapers-earning-high-ad-rates-from-online-video/> (March 7, 2015).

14. HDCYT, “Charlie Bit My Finger—Again!” youtube.com, May 22, 2007, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OBlgSz8sSM> (March 7, 2015).

15. Edgar Huang, “Use of Rich Media Differs at Newspapers, TV Web Sites,” Newspaper Research Journal 28, no. 3 (summer 2007): 85-97; Mark Tremayne, Amy Schmitz and Rosental Calmon Alves, “From Product to Service: The Diffusion of Dynamic Content in Online Newspapers,” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 84, no. 4 (December 2007): 825-839.

16. Joe Grimm, “Thriving in a Converged Newsroom,” poynter.org, April 29, 2007, <http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/82026/thriving-in-a-converged-newsroom/> (March 7, 2015); Arthur D. Santana and John Russial, “Photojournalists’ Role Expands at Most Daily Newspapers,” Newspaper Research Journal 34, no. 1 (winter 2013): 74-88.

17. Keith Greenwood and Scott Reinardy, “Self-Trained and Self-Motivated: Newspaper Photojournalists Strive for Quality during Technological Challenges,” Visual Communication Quarterly 18, no. 3 (July-September 2011): 155-166.

18. Santana and Russial, “Photojournalists’ Role Expands at Most Daily Newspapers.”19. Camille Kraeplin and Carrie Anna Criado,” Building a Case for Convergence Journalism Curriculum,”

Journalism and Mass Communication Educator 60, no. 1 (March 2005): 47-56; Sharia Fahmy,” How Online Journalists Rank Importance of News Skills,” Newspaper Research Journal 29, no. 2 (spring 2008): 23-39.

20. The Associated Press, “Chicago Sun-Times Lays Off All Its Full-Time Photographers,” nytimes.com, May 13, 2013, <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/01/business/media/chicago-sun-times-lays-off-all-its-full-time-photographers.html?_r=0> (March 7, 2015).

21. As quoted in Jim Romenesko, “Georgia Newspaper Chain Closes its Photo Department, Tells Reporters to Take Pictures,” jimromenesko.com, July 12, 2013, <http://jimromenesko.com/2013/07/12/georgia-newspaper-chain-closes-its-photo-department-tells-reporters-to-take-pictures/> (March 7, 2015).

22. Choo, Detlor and Turnbull, “Information Seeking on the Web;” Shan-Ju Chang and Ronald E. Rice, “Browsing: A Multidimensional Framework,” Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 28, no. 1 (annual 1993): 231-276.

23. Tom D. Wilson, “On User Studies and Information Needs,” Journal of Documentation 62, no. 6 (November-December 2006): 658-670; Tom D. Wilson, “Information Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Perspective,” Information Processing and Management 33, no. 4 (July 1997): 551-572.

24. Choo, Detlor and Turnbull, “Information Seeking on the Web;” Chang and Rice, “Browsing.”25. Choo, Detlor and Turnbull, “Information Seeking on the Web.”26. Shan-Ju L. Chang, “Chang’s Browsing,” in Theories of Information Behavior, eds. Karen E. Fisher,

Sandra Erdelez and Lynne McKechnie (Medford, NJ: American Society for Information and Technology, 2006).

27. Duggan and Payne, “Skim Reading by Satisficing.”28. Holton and Chyi, “News and the Overloaded Consumer.”29. Choo, Detlor and Turnbull, “Information Seeking on the Web.”30. Elizabeth Perse, “Implications of Cognitive and Affective Involvement for Channel Changing,”

Journal of Communication 48, no. 3 (April 1998): 49-68.31. Paul S. Speck and Michael T. Elliot, “Predictors of Advertising Avoidance in Print and Broadcast

Media,” Journal of Advertising 26, no. 3 (autumn 1997): 61-76.32. Choo, Detlor and Turnbull, “Information Seeking on the Web.”33. See for example, Meijer, “Valuable Journalism;” Gladney, Shapiro and Castaldo, “Online Editors

Rate Web News Quality Criteria;” and David K. Scott, Robert H. Gobetz and Mike Chanslor, “Chain versus Independent Television Station Ownership: Toward an Investment Model of Commitment to


Local News Quality,” Communication Studies 59, no. 1 (January-March, 2008): 84-98; Cummins and Chambers, “How Production Values Impact Perceived Technical Quality, Credibility, and Economic Value of Video News.”

34. Meijer, “Valuable Journalism.”35. Scott, Gobetz and Chanslor, “Chain versus Independent Television Station Ownership.”36. Cummins and Chambers, “How Production Values Impact Perceived Technical Quality, Credibility,

and Economic Value of News Videos.”37. Bauerlein, The Dumbest Generation; Liu, “Reading Behavior in the Digital Environment;” Duggan

and Payne, “Skim Reading by Satisficing.”38. Neil Thurman and Ben Lupton, “Convergence Calls: Multimedia Storytelling at British News

Website,” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 14, no 4 (November 2008): 439-455.

39. Manjoo, “You Won’t Finish this Article.”40. Jon A. Krosnick, Charles M. Judd and Bernd Wittenbrink, “The Measurement of Attitudes,” in The

Handbook of Attitudes, eds. Dolores Albarracin, Blair T. Johnson and Mark P. Zanna (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2005).

41. Wolfram Peiser, “Cohort Replacement and the Downward Trend in Newspaper Readers,” Newspaper Research Journal 21, no. 2 (spring 2000): 22-23.

42. Cummins and Chambers, “How Production Values Impact Perceived Technical Quality, Credibility, and Economic Value of News Videos.”

43. Question from survey conducted online via Qualtrics by author, October 2013-November 2014.44. Question from survey conducted online via Qualtrics by author, October 2013-November 2014.45. Voss, Spangenberg and Grohmann, “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Consumer

Attitudes.”46. Question from survey conducted online via Qualtrics by author, October 2013-November 2014.47. Question from survey conducted online via Qualtrics by author, October 2013-November 2014.48. Question from survey conducted online via Qualtrics by author, October 2013-November 2014.49. Question from survey conducted online via Qualtrics by author, October 2013-November 2014.50. Limor Peer and Thomas B. Ksiazek, “YouTube and the Challenge to Journalism,” Journalism Studies

12, no. 1 (February 2011): 45-63.51. Sonderman, “Gannett Newspaper Sites Earning High Ad Rates from Online Video.”52. Choo, Detlor and Turnbull, “Information Seeking on the Web.”53. Duggan and Payne, “Skim Reading by Satisficing”; Holton and Chyi, “News and the Overloaded

Consumer;” Liu, “Reading Behavior in the Digital Environment.”

Longer, Higher Quality Videos Preferred by News Viewers

Documents

Transcript of Longer, Higher Quality Videos Preferred by News Viewers