This document summarizes a study that explored reasons for audience members' non-usage of participatory features in online news media. The study involved surveys and interviews across four German cases - a daily newscast, weekly political talk show, daily newspaper, and weekly print magazine. Surveys found the top reasons for non-usage were that participation was not fun, took too much effort, or users didn't want to register. Interviews revealed additional barriers like unawareness of options, satisfaction with passive roles, negative perceptions of comments, and costs outweighing benefits. The study provided insights into participation barriers from audiences' perspectives.

1. »It’s just not my thing«
Why audience members don’t use participatory features of
(online) news media – insights from four German case studies.
Nele Heise, Julius Reimer, Jan-Hinrik Schmidt, Wiebke Loosen
4th European Communication Conference, Lisbon
November 15, 2014

2. (Re-)discovering the audience.
Journalism under social media conditions.
Funded by the German Research Foundation (2011-2014)
Blog: http://jpub20.hans-bredow-institut.de/
Twitter: @jpub20team

3. From consumption to participation?
• Increasing participation in and through media (Carpentier et
al. 2013) via various features in (online) journalism, e.g.
discussion boards, feedback forms, social media profiles,
traditional feedback channels
• Research indicates a certain reluctance or hesitance to
engage with these features (Larsson 2012)  participation an
»interactive illusion« (Jönsson/Örnebring 2011)?
• RQ: What are reasons and causes for not using participatory
features and which (potential) participation barriers can be
identified from the user perspective?
3 of 12

4. The jPub20 project: 4 German case studies
daily, information oriented weekly, debate oriented
TV
Print
Political talk show

5. Exploring non-usage of participatory features
• Multi-method case study design: standardized and non-
standardized methods, including journalists, audience
members and journalistic content
• Online user surveys: set of 16 items (cf. Springer/Pfaffinger
2012, Engesser 2010) and open answer field (exploration) 
respondents who do not – or rarely – use participatory
features or functions (e.g. giving feedback, commenting,
sharing/recommending, rating, …)
• In-depth interviews: interviews with ›passive‹/not active
audience members plus non-usage as guideline element [six
to eight per case study]
5 of 12

6. Amount of non-usage
6 of 12
Daily
newscast
Weekly political
talk show
Daily
newspaper
Weekly print
magazine
N = 4.686 354 525 257
% of non-
usage*
49.3 43.4 27.0 12.5
Differences e.g. due to:
• number and types of participatory features offered,
• familiarity with (visible) audience ›traces‹ in journalistic products
(e.g. letters-to-the-editor)
* „non-usage« i.e. respondents that did not (or not anymore) use participartory features/functions

7. Surveys: Reasons for not using participatory features
7 of 12
3.02
3.28
3.58
3.05
3.23
3.4
2.65
2.87
3.47
2.91
3.09
3.48
1 2 3 4 5
… it is no fun to me«
… it takes too much effort/time«
... I don't want to register« Daily newscast
(n=2.249)
Weekly political talk
(n=155)
Daily newspaper
(n=322)
Weekly print magazine
(n=43)
• … I don‘t want to discuss with strangers« (lower at PT);
• … the discussion standards are too low« (lower at WM);
• … it is not the right medium for participation« (higher at TV case studies)
5-point Likert scale: 1=“disagree completely” to 5=“fully agree”; displayed are mean values
»I do not use participatory features, because

8. • Lowest agreement: »I do not use participatory features, because
• … I had technical problems while uploading files or comments.«
• … the journalists do not reply, answer or respond.«
• (… I prefer to participate on other media websites or online
services, e.g. social media, blogs, forums etc.«)
• Differences between user groups point to digital inequalities or
a »digital production gap« (Schradie 2011), particularly
regarding: education (e.g. technical problems and usability, not
daring to participate), age and – at the print cases studies –
gender (e.g. not daring to participate)
8 of 12
Surveys: Reasons for not using participatory features

9. Complementary findings: qualitative data
• Further aspects as articulated in open answer fields and the in-
depth interviews:
• People are not aware of different options for participation or do
not feel invited/engaged to participate (usability)
• Satisfaction with the trusted medium and ›passive‹ recipient role,
no motivation or need to add something
• »Lurking«: observing discussions and opinions of others
• Critical views of participatory functions in general; users feel
overwhelmed; (online) participation is perceived as ineffective
• Users and their concerns/feedback are not taken seriously
• Lacking transparency of participatory conditions (e.g. comment
moderation, selection of readers’ letters)
9 of 12

10. • Costs of participation (registration/personal data, effort/time
etc.) as barriers that might outweigh potential benefits, esp. for
those who do not enjoy it (»it‘s just not my thing«) or prefer
›passive‹ media usage  ›lurking‹ as meaningful activity
• Negative perception of and/or experiences in comment
sections as potential inhibitor of participation
• Open questions regarding the differences between different
types of news media (print vs. TV, information vs. debate
oriented, daily vs. weekly)
• Shift of perspectives: putting the motives, expectations and
conditions on the part of the audience in a more central
position
Conclusion
10 of 12

11. Thank you.
Wiebke Loosen, Jan-Hinrik Schmidt, Nele Heise, Julius Reimer
http://jpub20.hans-bredow-institut.de/
@jpub20team

12. References
• Borger, M., van Hoof, A., Costera Meijer, I., & Sanders, J. (2013). Constructing participatory journalism as a
scholarly object. Digital Journalism, 1 (1), 117–134.
• Bergström, A. (2008). The Reluctant Audience. Online Participation in the Swedish Journalistic Context.
Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture, 5 (2), 60–79.
• Carpentier, N., Dahlgren, P., & Pasquali, F. (2013). Waves of Media Democratization: A Brief History of
Contemporary Participatory Practices in the Media Sphere. Convergence: The International Journal of Research
into New Media Technologies, 19 (3), 287–294, doi:10.1177/1354856513486529.
• Engesser, S. (2010). Barrieren medialer Partizipation: Ergebnisse eines explorativen Feldexperiments. In
Wolling, J., Seifert, M., & Emmer, M. (Ed.), Politik 2.0? Die Wirkung computervermittelter Kommunikation auf
den politischen Prozess (pp. 151–167). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
• Jönsson, A. M., & Örnebring, H. (2011). User-Generated Content and the News: Empowerment of Citizens or
Interactive Illusion? Journalism Practice, 5 (2),127–144, doi:10.1080/17512786.2010.501155.
• Larsson, A. O. (2012). Understanding nonuse of interactivity in online newspapers: Insights from structuration
theory. The Information Society, 28 (4), 253–263.
• Loosen, W., & Schmidt, J.-H. (2012). (Re-)Discovering the audience: The relationship between journalism and
audience in networked digital media. Information, Communication & Society, 15(6), 867-887.
• Schradie, J. (2011). The digital production gap: The digital divide and Web 2.0 collide. Poetics, 39 (2), 145–168.
• Springer, N., & Pfaffinger, C. (2012). Why users comment on online news and why they don’t. Paper presented
at the 62nd Annual Conference of the International Communication Association. May 24-28. Phoenix.
• Weber, P. (2014). Discussions in the comments section: Factors influencing participation and interactivity in
online newspapers’ reader comments. New Media & Society, 16, 641-957, doi: 10.1177/1461444813495165.