Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rdij20
Digital Journalism
ISSN: 2167-0811 (Print) 2167-082X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rdij20
Paying Attention to Attention: A Conceptual
Framework for Studying News Reader Revenue
Models Related to Platforms
Merja Myllylahti
To cite this article: Merja Myllylahti (2020) Paying Attention to Attention: A Conceptual Framework
for Studying News Reader Revenue Models Related to Platforms, Digital Journalism, 8:5, 567-575,
DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2019.1691926
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1691926
Published online: 13 Nov 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 4857
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 38 View citing articles
CONCEPTUAL ARTICLE
Paying Attention to Attention: A Conceptual Framework
for Studying News Reader Revenue Models
Related to Platforms
Merja Myllylahti
School of Communication Studies, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
ABSTRACT
Digital journalism has become entwined with the platform ecosystem
as news companies distribute their news through platforms to
gain audience attention and reader revenue. To understand where,
how, and by whom individual user interaction is collected, measured
and monetised, the concept of attention is critical. However,
attention is a scarce and fluid commodity. It shifts between platforms
and news sites, and is affected by new technologies and
algorithmic changes. All this makes extracting monetary value from
platform attention challenging. This article explores attention as a
core concept to study digital journalism revenue models which are
dependent on harvesting user attention on platforms. Three
aspects of attention are considered as a part of the conceptual
framing offered: attention as a scarce and fluid commodity; attention
as a unit for measurement; attention as a source of monetisation.
This framework is especially useful for understanding evolving
attention patterns for news; news content monetisation opportunities,
shifts in power balances between platforms and news companies,
and associated risks with platform news distribution.
CONCEPT DEFINITION: Attention
KEYWORDS
Digital journalism; attention;
commodity; platforms; news
organisations; metrics;
monetisation
Introduction
News revenue models remain an important area of research in digital journalism studies
while news companies continue to search for long-term financial sustainability.
Digital journalism has increasingly become entangled with the platform ecosystem
while news organisations continue to rely on them for news distribution and marketing.
Van Dijck, Poell, and De Waal argue that academia needs a better understanding
of “monetisation of news through the platform ecosystem” (2018, 71). This article aims
to contribute to our knowledge by utilising attention as a core concept to investigate
digital news revenue models which are dependent on harvesting user attention on
platforms. Earlier research in the fields of digital journalism and digital news business
studies has looked at platform attention as a source of engagement, traffic, and
CONTACT Merja Myllylahti mmyllyla@aut.ac.nz
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
DIGITAL JOURNALISM
2020, VOL. 8, NO. 5, 567–575
https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1691926
revenue, but the concept of attention itself is still relatively poorly examined and
understood, especially in the context of news companies’ reader revenue models
(Cornia et al. 2018; Myllylahti 2018). The premise of this article is that we cannot
understand monetary relations between platforms and news companies without
considering attention. A recent digital inquiry in the United Kingdom, the
Cairncross Review, noted that attention has become essential for the sustainability
of journalism – a statement which validates the importance of this kind of article
aiming to conceptualise attention (Cairncross Review 2019).
To understand where, how, and by whom individual user interaction is collected,
measured and monetised, the concept of attention is critical. It allows us to understand
evolving attention patterns of news consumption, news content monetisation
opportunities, shifts in power balances between platforms and news companies, and
associated risks with platform news distribution. As this paper deals mainly with the
interchange between money and attention, its focus is on the economic rather than
psychological or neurological aspects of attention. A foundation for the attention
economy was laid in the 1970s when researchers linked audience attention to psychological
and neurological aspects of it. Herbert Simon attested that humans have limited
time and stamina to absorb information because the human brain can only select
and process a certain amount of information. He observed that “a wealth of information
creates a poverty of attention and a need to allocate that attention efficiently
among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it” (Simon
1971, 40). The concept of attention economy re-emerged in the 1990s with the arrival
of the internet and the fragmentation of audiences. It was then linked to macroeconomics
rather than just to psychological and neurological aspects of it, and attention
was increasingly considered as a source of revenue (Goldhaber 2006; Kessous 2015;
Vaidhyanathan 2018).
The concept of attention itself is not new. However, it has evolved with time, and
has remained hard to define. Goldhaber states that “no one can really define
attention”, but he situates attention in an economic context, and this paper draws
from this point of view (2006, para 10). Attention is often described as a commodity
of which there is a shortage (scarcity), or as a source of commodification and monetisation
(Webster 2014; Van Dijck 2013; Van Dijck, Poell, and De Waal 2018). Van Dijck
notes that “attention means eyeballs or (unconscious) exposure, and this value is an
important part of internet advertising” (2013, 61). According to her, attention on social
media platforms appears in interactions such as the number of shares, likes or comments
a news item gains on a platform (Van Dijck 2013). Similarly, Martin and Dwyer
observe that “attention is mostly measured as hits, clicks and page views” (Martin and
Dwyer 2019, 68). As this article aims to aid our understanding of the concept of attention,
it offers an alternative definition for it - the earlier scholarly definitions are somewhat
vague, especially when explaining interrelations between audiences, platforms,
and news media. In this paper, attention is defined as a scarce and fluid commodity
which carries monetary value; is based on individual user interaction which can be harvested,
measured, and exchanged for revenue on a platform, on a news site, or an online
site. The suggested definition aids conceptualising of attention which is based on
three key dimensions: attention as a scarce and fluid commodity, attention as a unit
568 M. MYLLYLAHTI
for measurement, and attention as a source of monetisation. These three dimensions
will be scrutinised below as a part of the conceptual framework proposed.
Webster (2014) suggests that media users are the ones that power the attention
economy and that their decisions about what to read or watch or share shapes ‘the
marketplace of attention’. However, many other factors affect audience behaviour and
where media users pay attention to news content, or where the attention is collected
and monetised. Attention is also determined by news companies and platforms’ own
strategies and policies as well as technological actants such as algorithms (Lewis and
Westlund 2015). While the focus in this paper is not on technological actants, their role
should not be ignored, as they do have a significant impact on how and whose news
gains attention on any given platform. To exemplify, Facebook controls its users’ news
feeds and what kind of prominence news companies’ content receives on the platform
via its algorithms, and this can have severe consequences for news publishers.
Attention as a scarce and fluid commodity
Wu attests that attention is both a scarce and necessary commodity as it creates
demand for products or political influence (Wu 2017). By the definition offered here,
attention is also a fluid commodity, and this aspect of attention allows us to examine
how the attention for news constantly moves between platforms and news sites also
affecting user interactions. As Wu states, attention is a fluid commodity which “cannot
be stored or hold its value to be used later in time” (2017, 12). Similarly to Simon, Wu
argues that attention is a scarce commodity as the human brain has limited processing
power. Therefore, people have to make “attentional decisions” all the time – we
either pay attention to news or we don’t (Wu 2017, 13). In their study, Newman et al.
found that people were actively avoiding the news because it had “a negative effect
on their mood” (2019, 10). As media businesses and platforms “rely solely on the
resale of attention to make money”, news avoidance can propose a significant challenge
for news monetisation (Wu 2017, 18).
To understand why and how attention has become a scarce and hotly competed
commodity, it is useful to revisit the past, and how the competition for the audience
attention has evolved. Before the 2007–2008 global financial crisis print newspapers in
the Western media markets were profiting greatly from the attention of their readers
because they effectively had a monopoly over the print audience which they were
able to sell advertisers. The emergence of the internet and social media companies
meant that news companies lost their near monopoly over their audiences and their
audiences’ attention. Ekstr€om and Westlund argue that the arrival of the internet and
platforms dislocated news journalism as “the established order surrounding news” was
altered due to the redistribution of power from news companies to platforms (2019,
261). Platforms such as Facebook have become powerful enterprises with their vast
user bases and ability to collect detailed data about their users which they sell to
advertisers and other third parties for profit. The more platforms know about their
users, the more lucrative they are to advertisers who want to tailor and target their
marketing effectively. When moving from a print to a digital media environment,
news media companies believed that they would maintain their readers’ attention.
DIGITAL JOURNALISM 569
However, they ended up fiercely competing for it with multiple other websites, search
engines and social media outlets. Despite news companies’ best efforts, they have
failed to earn significant revenue from their digital audiences because advertising has
shifted to social media platforms and search engines. In this context, it is not surprising
that some news companies’ revenue models are increasingly focusing on harvesting,
retaining and monetising individual users’ attention on and off platforms.
With the emergence of new platforms, audience attention has also to some extent
moved between platforms. This fluid nature of attention makes it increasingly hard to
harvest and monetise. While the news is still consumed on social media platforms, news
reading keeps shifting within news and platform ecosystems. A 2018 study demonstrated
that on average 36% of people, surveyed in 37 countries, used Facebook for
news reading. However, in some mature markets, such as the United States, social media
usage for news has started to decline (Newman et al. 2018, 10). To an extent, news reading
has shifted from Facebook to other platforms such as Apple News app, which has
approximately 90 million users, and therefore some news companies are now considering
it as a possible next target for attention monetisation (Newman et al. 2019).
Attention as a unit for measurement
As defined here, attention is based on individual user interaction which can be collected,
analysed and measured. For a long time, audience ratings (television, radio,
newspapers) have been used to “calculate audience commodity” (Martin and Dwyer
2019, 64). Vaidhyanathan notes that “the mania to capture our attention began with
the penny press” as newspapers started to trade subscriptions and newsstand sales for
advertising revenue (2018, 84). Kessous (2015) argues that the arrival of the internet
led to new kind of competition for attention and new market dynamics, meaning that
“those who successfully capture audience attention necessarily gain the rewards of
that economy” (Moore and Tambini 2018, 16).
To capture the attention of fragmented audiences, news companies had to develop
ever more sophisticated tools to measure audience interactions in real-time. There is
increasing evidence that attention metrics have become tightly intertwined with newsrooms
operations, editorial strategies and performance evaluation (Cherubini and
Nielsen 2016; Martin and Dwyer 2019). Newsrooms have employed armies of professionals
to relentlessly record and analyse user’s interactions. The harvested data is
quantified, repackaged and sold to advertisers or it can be churned into reader revenue.
To exemplify, Swedish evening newspaper Expressen has installed 280 screens in
its newsroom to display data about news content and sales goals to its employees
(INMA 2019). Access to data requires newsroom workers to constantly monitor and
analyse this data, and the information provided affects editorial decisions and
“encourages journalists to rethink how they write stories” (INMA 2019). Carlson argues
that this kind of ‘measurable journalism’ aggregates “news consumption behaviours
and attitudes, ideally making journalists more responsive to their audiences” (2018,
408). Additionally, a study by Chua and Westlund of two Singaporean news companies
found that both incorporated user metrics into their news production by creating new
roles and responsibilities, and both used metrics to follow the performance of their
570 M. MYLLYLAHTI
content (2019, 161). At the same time, newsroom workers were concerned about how
metrics affect their news values. As we have seen in the past, news companies ‘click’
chasing strategies eroded their news values and chasing attention carries a similar risk.
As said, measuring attention has become a necessity for news companies because
“every form of user interaction can be captured as data” to be exchanged for advertising
dollars or reader revenue via digital subscriptions (Van Dijck, Poell, and De Waal
2018, 37). Carlson (2018) argues that audience measurements are products of collaboration
between different economic actors such as platforms and news organisations.
However, as long as news companies continue to distribute their content on platforms,
they are, to some extent, reliant on the platform data as well as accuracy and
quality of their attention metrics. The quality of the data received affects news companies’
revenue; decisions about how and where to monetise their content; and how to
invest capital on new products or personnel. Therefore, an important question related
to measuring platform attention arises: what happens if the attention metrics and
data provided by platforms are not accurate? In 2018, the media reported that
Facebook had measured its video viewership numbers wrongly, which resulted in
overstated metrics about time spent on videos on the platform. Before the revelations,
Facebook urged news companies to pivot to video, and many followed. As the real
video figures were revealed, some news companies lost the bulk of their advertising
income (Myllylahti 2019).
Attention as a source of monetisation
By the definition, attention carries monetary value, and it can be commodified by
exchanging it for advertising dollars or reader revenue harvested on a platform, on a
news site, or another online site. Van Dijck, Poell, and De Waal note that “the mechanism
of commodification involves platforms transforming online and offline objects,
activities, emotions, and ideas into tradable commodities” (2018, 37). The commodification
of attention happens via ‘attention brokers’ which sell human attention to third
parties for revenue (Wu 2016, 2017). According to Wu (2016, 2017) these brokers
include media businesses such as broadcasters, newspapers and platforms such as
Facebook and Google. To monetise their audiences, ‘attention brokers’ create
“addictive distractions that maximise the user engagement on which revenue and
profits ultimately depend” (Naughton 2018, 387). These distractions include tailored
content, text message services, e-mails, and newsletters. A recent study by Mele,
Skibinski, and Spector found that e-mail products and newsletters were aiding news
publishers’ digital subscriptions (2019, 4). Festre and Garrouste also believe that certain
features on the news websites, such as tweets and updates, are designed to make
readers feel that they are being paid attention to (2012, 12).
Previous academic studies in digital journalism and digital media business studies
have examined how successful news companies have been in transforming user attention
into revenue. These studies have explored how individual interactions such as
likes and shares can be turned into revenue (Cornia et al. 2018; Myllylahti 2018).
However, what exactly is the monetary value of platform attention is up for debate.
Some media analytic companies and consultancy firms have introduced models for
DIGITAL JOURNALISM 571
calculating a value for single website visits or social shares, but the accuracy and validity
of these calculations are yet to be verified. Nevertheless, they have been used as a
basis when attempting to estimate Facebook-related revenue (Myllylahti 2018).
Sharing news content and posts on social media can drive news companies’ website
traffic and increase page views which can appeal to advertisers. As recent academic
studies demonstrate, news companies have gained substantial engagement and traffic
from social media platforms, but monetary benefits have not been significant, making
social media news distribution strategy questionable. A study of four New Zealand
media companies found that a quarter of their traffic came from social media, but revenue
raised from the traffic (including social shares on Facebook) was negligible
yielded hardly any revenue (Myllylahti 2018). Similarly, a study of 12 newspapers and
commercial broadcasters in six European countries found that the news companies
received substantial traffic from social media platforms, and especially from Facebook
(Cornia et al. 2018). The research found that news organisations have continued to
invest in social media news distribution because of the short-term benefits, although
they acknowledged that “direct monetisation on social media is still a challenge” for
them (Cornia et al. 2018, 28).
Some news companies believe that Facebook offers a cost-effective way to gain
user attention for digital offerings, a view which can be contested. While some companies
have reported substantial increases in their digital subscriptions raised via platforms,
others have noted that converting platform users’ attention into reader revenue
comes with a high cost (Cornia et al. 2018; Myllylahti 2019). Polish Gazetta Wyborcza,
for example, has admitted that the usage of paid campaigns on Facebook has dented
its revenue from platform subscriptions (Cornia et al. 2018). So far academic research
has paid little attention to the costs related platform user acquisition, but there is
some evidence that associated costs are rising rapidly. For example, The New York
Times has reported a substantial increase in its marketing costs on promoting content
and content packages on platforms (Myllylahti 2019).
Platform companies are reported to dominate digital advertising in many Western
media markets controlling 70–80% of total advertising spend, and as a result multiple
news publishers have built their revenue models on reader revenue. However,
platform companies such as Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple have all introduced
their own digital subscription services targeted at news companies, potentially
increasing competition between the two, or conversely, their interdependency. If
news companies sign on to platform subscriptions services and revenue sharing
arrangements, their dependency on platforms will increase. If they don’t, they will
compete more fiercely for reader revenue against the four platform companies mentioned.
Chua and Westlund (2019) argue that approaching audiences as sellable
commodities may “lose significance as platform companies continue to take over the
advertising market and as news publishers focus more on reader revenue” (2019,
162). They believe that news publishers have started to counterbalance platform
power by reducing their dependency on them. It is true that many news organisations
are building their direct traffic and subscriptions services away from Facebook,
but on the other hand, they may wean themselves off one platform, and shift to
another one.
572 M. MYLLYLAHTI
Conclusions
This paper argues that there is an urgency to explore attentional reader revenue models
as news companies are increasingly using platforms for attention monetisation,
and as platforms are moving to the same space to take their share of reader revenue.
The subscription businesses of the two parties are becoming increasingly interlinked.
Hundreds of news companies have already signed for Apple News þ subscription service,
and recently Facebook launched its newest News tab which pays a ‘license fee’
for a handful of news publishers such as News Corp.
The conceptual framework put forward here proposes that we need to investigate
further where and how news content gains attention; how it is collected, analysed
and measured; and by whom it is monetised and how. First, the proposed framework
is useful to research how the monetary and power relations between platforms and
news companies are structured. If we accept that attention is a scarce commodity of
which both compete, it has implications to how and by whom attention is monetised.
Second, while accepting that attention is also a fluid commodity, shifting from platform
to platform, news site to news site, or between news sites and platforms, we can
examine evolving patterns of attention. It enables us to track in which platforms news
companies’ monetisation opportunities lie, or if they perhaps lie outside the platform
ecosystem. Where attention is gained also affects the value of the attention, bringing
us back to monetisation and reader revenue. It can be argued that individual users
behave differently on platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp, Snapchat or Twitter,
and therefore how their interactions are monetised also differs. Academia and the
news industry itself lack empirical evidence of the value of attention on each platform,
and therefore assessing news companies’ revenue derived from them is challenging.
Third, the fluid nature of attention also affects how and by whom attention is measured,
and the nature and quality of those measurements. News companies have built
their own data analysis tools and metrics, but still partly rely on the information provided
by platforms. As discussed, in some cases that information has proven untrustworthy,
putting news companies’ revenue models at risk. In this context it is crucial to
scrutinise how attention is measured and by whom and what is the quality of platform
and news companies’ own metrics when they aim to build their revenue models
based on attention harvesting. Fourth, the framework suggested also enables researchers
to contextualise how platform news distribution, marketing, measuring and monetising
affects news companies’ news values and newsroom practices.
To research reader revenue in an attention economy requires multiple approaches
and mix-methods to tackle complex issues. In the context of the suggested framework,
we need to systematically map and analyse corporate data and documents to explore
which news companies are signing for platform subscription services, what are the
revenue sharing arrangements, and how the reader revenue market is structured as a
consequence. We also need case studies to understand how contemporary metrics aid
news publishers’ subscription revenue. For example, news companies have built
increasingly sophisticated audience data systems that use hundreds of parameters to
analyse their users’ attention, engagement, and even emotions, but how they link to
the reader revenue is unknown to us.
DIGITAL JOURNALISM 573
The framework proposed here has limitations as it considers only a number of
aspects of attention. For example, Hindman (2018) argues that the attention economy
threatens the public sphere and functioning of a democratic society – an aspect that
was not addressed in this framework. The paper did not consider the problematic
assumption that gaining newsreaders’ attention leads to informed citizens, which is
not necessarily the case. The past studies have shown that chasing readers with attention-grabbing
headlines has in many cases lead to ‘low quality’ - clickbait – news and
less informed citizens (Thurman and Myllylahti 2009). Additionally, the framework does
not address issues such as what happens if people are not paying attention to things.
The issue of news avoidance is becoming relevant for further studies in this field. If
people actively avoid news – do not pay attention to it - how are news companies
going to monetise it?
Acknowledgements
The author appreciates unwavering support and encouragement from the journal editor Oscar
Westlund and constructive comments from reviewers.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
ORCID
Merja Myllylahti http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7763-4867
References
Carlson, Matt. 2018. “Measurable Journalism: Digital Platforms, News Metrics, and the Quantified
Audience.” Digital Journalism 6 (4): 406–417. doi:10.1080/21670811.2018.1445003
Cherubini, Federica, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2016. “Editorial analytics: how news media are
developing and using audience data and metrics.” https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.
cfm?abstract_id=2739328
Chua, Sherwin, and Oscar Westlund. 2019. “Audience-Centric Engagement, Collaboration Culture
and Platform Counterbalancing: A Longitudinal Study of Ongoing Sensemaking of Emerging
Technologies.” Media and Communication 7 (1): 153. doi:10.17645/mac.v7i1.1760
Cornia, Alessio, Annika Sehl, David A. L. Levy, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2018. Private Sector
News, Social Media Distribution, and Algorithm Change. Reuters Institute of Study of
Journalism. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2018-10/Cornia_Private_
Sector_News_FINAL.pdf
Ekstr€om, Matt, and Oscar Westlund. 2019. “The Dislocation of News Journalism: A Conceptual
Framework for the Study of Epistemologies of Digital Journalism.” Media and Communication
7 (1): 259. doi:10.17645/mac.v7i1.1763
Goldhaber, Michael. 2006. “The Value of Openness in an Attention Economy.” First Monday 11
(6). http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1334/1254
Hindman, Matt. 2018. The Internet Trap. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
INMA. 2019. “INMA Stockholm Study Tour Gets First-Hand Look at Data in Newsrooms.”
Conference blog, March 20. https://www.inma.org/blogs/conference/post.cfm/inma-stock-
holm-study-tour-gets-first-hand-look-at-data-in-newsrooms
574 M. MYLLYLAHTI
Kessous, Emmanuel. 2015. “The Attention Economy between Market Capturing and Commitment
in the Polity.” Oeconomia 5-1: 77–101. https://journals.openedition.org/oeconomia/1123
Lewis, Seth, and Oscar Westlund. 2015. “Actors, Actants, Audiences, and Activities in Cross-Media
News Work.” Digital Journalism 3 (1): 19–37. doi:10.1080/21670811.2014.927986
Martin, Fiona, and Tim Dwyer. 2019. The numbers game: social news analytics. Chap. 3 in Fiona
Martin and Tim Dwyer, Sharing News Online: Commendary Cultures and Social Media News
Ecologies. (Pre-publication version).
Mele, Nicco, Matthew Skibinski, and Matthew Spector. 2019. “Digital Pay-Meter playbook.
A Shorenstein Center and Lenfest Institute white paper.” https://shorensteincenter.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/08/Paymeter-Playbook-August-2019.pdf
Moore, Martin, and Damian Tambini. 2018. Introduction. In Digital Dominance, edited by Martin
Moore and Damian Tambini, 1–18. New York: Oxford University Press.
Myllylahti, Merja. 2018. “An Attention Economy Trap? An Empirical Investigation into Four News
Companies’ Facebook Traffic and Social Media Revenue.” Journal of Media Business Studies
15 (4): 237–253.
Myllylahti, Merja. 2019. “How news media wins in the attention economy?” INMA report, April.
https://www.inma.org/report-detail.cfm?pubid=204
Naughton, John. 2018. Platform Power and Responsibility in the Attention Economy.” Chap. 15
in Digital Dominance. The Power of Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple, edited by Martin
Moore and Damian Tambini, 370–395. New York: Oxford University Press.
Newman, Nic. 2019. “Journalism, media and technology trends and predictions 2019.” Reuters
Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/our-research/
journalism-media-and-technology-trends-and-predictions-2019
Newman, Nic, Richard Fletcher, Antonis Kalogeropoulos, David A. L. Levy, and Rasmus Kleis
Nielsen. 2018. “Digital news report 2018.” Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. http://
media.digitalnewsreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/digital-news-report-2018.pdf?x89475
Newman, Nic, Richard Fletcher, Antonis Kalogeropoulos, and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2019. “Digital
news report 2019.” Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://reutersinstitute.politics.
ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2019-06/DNR_2019_FINAL_1.pdf
Simon, Herbert. 1971. “Designing Organizations for an Information-Rich World.” In Computers,
Communication, and the Public Interest, edited by Martin Greenberger, 37–72. Baltimore, MD:
The Johns Hopkins Press.
Thurman, Neil, and Merja Myllylahti. 2009. “Taking Paper out of News. A Case Study
of Taloussanomat, Europe’s First Online-Only Newspaper.” Journalism Studies 10 (5): 691–708.
Vaidhyanathan, Siva. 2018. Antisocial Media. How Facebook Disconnects us and Undermines
Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Van Dijck, Jose. 2013. The Culture of Connectivity. A Critical History of Social Media. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Van Dijck, Jose, Thomas Poell, and Martijn De Waal. 2018. The Platform Society. Public Values
in a Connective World. New York: Oxford University Press.
Webster, James. 2014. The Marketplace of Attention. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Wu, Tim. 2016. The Attention Merchants. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Wu, Tim. 2017. “Blind Spot: The Attention Economy and the Law.” Columbia Law School Faculty
Publications. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3030&context=
faculty_scholarship
DIGITAL JOURNALISM 575