Developing an Index of Media Innovation in a National Market

Abstract

From a global vision of journalism innovation, this article presents a matrix that analyses and measures an innovation index of market-specific media initiatives, providing a valuable tool for comparative analysis. A method has been designed that consists of (1) sample collection and selection, and (2) the quantitative and qualitative analysis of each innovation identified in the cases studied. With the aim of generating an Index of Media Innovation, 25 of the most innovative cases within the field of reference in Spain were studied during the period 2013-2014 through a database consisting of 196 innovations that were analysed as a function of area, degree and technological basis. The results indicate that, in Spain, journalism innovation occurs at the margins of the traditional news industry and, for the most part, innovation is expanding among digital native media outlets, niche initiatives and start-ups.

Innovación y sostenibilidad: una relación examinada en organizaciones periodísticas emprendedoras de América Latina

“…Still, in general, most innovative initiatives were "incremental," or smaller advances. The number of technology-related innovations outweighed the amount of non-technological advances, leading García-Avilés et al (2016) to conclude that "while innovation is not necessarily associated with technology, it is an important driver of change" (p. 38).…”

“…García-Avilés et al (2016) examined innovation within Spanish media to explicate where and how innovation occurred, and what kinds of changes it brought about, in order to create an Index of Media Innovation. Most innovations were seen in the areas of product/service and production/distribution, and involved interacting with audience members.…”

Untitled

“…An increasing number of studies deals with the distinction of journalism from other forms of public communication or the characteristics of journalists as opposed to other protagonists in the media-related public sphere (see e.g., Carlson & Lewis, 2015a;Grubenmann & Meckel, 2015;Neuberger, 2017;Örnebring, 2013;Shapiro, 2014;Young & Carson, 2017), while others are concerned with the determination and measurement of quality in journalism (García-Avilés, Carvajal-Prieto, Lara-Gonzalez, & Arias-Robles, 2016;Gertler, 2013;Lacy & Rosenstiel, 2015;Weischenberg et al, 2006), and yet other significant research efforts tackle issues surrounding production, organisation, digital transformation and management (Küng, 2015;Wyss & Keel, 2016;Kaltenbrunner, 2017).…”

“…The discussion, which has since been held at various levels, attempts to reason how quality in journalism can emerge and persist under economic pressure (e.g., Karmasin, 1996), how this quality can and should be measured (e.g., Bucher, 2003), develops appropriate criteria in the 1990s (e.g., Göpfert, 1993), uses quantitative and qualitative content analyses in specific fields of media to measure (e.g., McLachlan & Golding, 2000), and asks how quality criteria can be applied in new, digital fields, in online journalism, after the turn of the millennium (García-Avilés et al, 2016;Quandt, 2004).…”

Accountability in social networks. Ever-evolving stylebooks and feedback through Twitter

“…This online application, created by Digitonomy, has recently been employed in other research studies on communication that aim to examine content published on Twitter (García-Avilés et al, 2016;Marcos García, Alonso Muñoz and Casero Ripollés, 2017;Moya Sánchez and Herrera Damas, 2016;Barrios Rubio, 2016).…”