According to Wikipedia, Amazon’s Mechanical Turk is a tool that “enables computer programs to co-ordinate the use of human intelligence to perform tasks which computers are unable to do.” It enables companies and individuals to posts tasks and set an amount they are willing to pay for the tasks completion. Qualified users can then scan these tasks and complete them at their leisure to stave off boredom or to make a little money.

The tasks can be manually posted by individual. Say if you want to pay someone to write a blog post or translate a document for you on a one off basis. Or you can tap into Mechanical Turk’s API and automatically have your computer program interact with MTurk. This allows companies to efficiently send requests to Mechanical Turk and fetch the data back. Companies are using MTurk in this way for tasks like the creation of transcripts of speeches and podcasts. You can see some success story here.

Ajit and I have been playing with Mechanical Turk a bit the last few days as we are thinking of tapping into it for one of our projects using the MTurk API. I think there is a lot of potential here.

In reviewing the interface I noticed a lot of people asking folks to write blog posts. Out of curiosity, I decided to use the service to pay three people $1 each to write a review of the Washington Post’s recent foray into video journalism, On Being.

Below are the three reviews so you can judge the quality yourself.

(more…)

After our presentation for the Magazine Publishers of America in NYC on Tuesday, we received some requests for additional research.  I spent this morning trying to find some statistical explanations for the performance of the magazine websites by running some regressions, checking for correlation between the presence of Web features and traffic (as measured by Alexa).  However, much like our regression analysis of newspapers , this did not result in any significant results.

I wanted to find out which websites were performing the best in relation to print versions of magazines, so I created an online-print differential.  This figure represents the difference between the ordinal online ranking of a magazine website and the magazine's ordinal print ranking.  Large negative numbers indicate a website that outperforms the print magazine, where positive numbers indicate print versions that are outperforming their online counterparts.  Here is a table that shows our results.

As you can see, it's difficult to infer any patterns from this data.  I did see a few interesting things, however.

• The Popular Science website has the highest online-print differential of all the magazines we researched.  This makes perfect sense, considering that the demographic to which this magazine appeals is most likely tech-minded, therefore more likely to use the Web to access PopSci materials. Also, the Popular Science website is relatively full-featured and robust.
• Women's magazines made up the majority of the magazines at the bottom of the differential list, meaning that the print versions of these magazines drastically outperform the websites.  I guess I'm not really sure what to make of this, but I would be interested to see if there is any pattern here if we compared this stat to general usage rates for women vs. men.
• I was surprised that TV Guide had the differential it did.  TV Guide has a great website, so I found it odd that its website didn't fare better in this analysis.  I guess this can be attributed to the fact that TV Guide has a massive print audience.
• Endless Vacation is another surprising case.  This website is primarily a brochure site with no online functionality.  Yet, the print version of this magazine only slightly outperformed the website.  What exactly are people looking at on this website?  I can't figure that one out.

Overall, this analysis did not present any clear conclusions.  I think that a problem with this type of research is that obtaining data for magazine Web traffic is difficult.  I used Alexa to determine the traffic rates for magazine websites, but I am not confident in the true accuracy of these figures.  Since Alexa only tracks websites visited by people who have installed the Alexa toolbar, the results are probably skewed toward tech-minded audiences and are not an impartial measurement. 

Another problem with this sort of analysis is caused by what we dubbed "integrated sites"–magazine sites that are part of a bigger network of sites.  Redbook , Country Living , Money , ESPN , and Sports Illustrated are examples of this type of site (Redbook and Country living are part of the iVillage network; Money and SI are part of CNN , and ESPN the magazine is combined with ESPN the network).  Alexa could not read these magazine sites independently, and only presented data for the umbrella network.  For example, when you type the Redbook URL into the Alexa search function, it gives back data for the entire iVillage network rather than traffic just for Redbook.  As a result, we left these "integrated sites" out of the analysis, which probably left holes in the data.

While the analysis itself may not reveal any earth-shattering conclusions, it does draw attention to the lack of transparency in the industry.  In order to conduct a real analysis, we would need access to accurate traffic and page view data, which would probably have to be acquired from the magazines themselves.

Check out our magazine study here and our newspaper study here . 

On February 6th, Erin and I will be giving a presenation at the Magazine Publishers of America offices in NYC on the use of the Internet by magazines.  We will talk about how aggressively magazines are adopting Web 2.0 features, review examples of best practices and speculate a bit about what will come next.

The MPA website has the details.

We received some more feedback from our newspaper study we conducted last August.  For the Media posted an entry today about how South African newspapers are using the Web.

The two most surprising things from this research:  Of 19 South African newspapers, just one offers a blog(s) and just over half (10 papers) are using RSS.  I guess this blogger was correct in stating that South African papers have a ways to go in terms of their Web use.

In addition to looking for the features tested in our study, For the Media expanded the research to include Mobile phone alerts and newsletters, email newsletters, and email alerts. 

Here's a breakdown of the features and the percentage of papers using each tool:

RSS Feed: 52.6%
RSS for different sections: 10.5%
RSS includes ads:
Most Popular: 5.26%
Video: 10.5%
Podcast: 10.5%
Chats: 5.26%
Blogs: 5.26%
Blog Comments: 0
Blogroll:5.26%
Comments on Articles: 5.26%
Registration Required: 31.6%
Bookmarking: 5.26%
Message Boards: 15.8%
Email Newsletter: 10.5%
Email Alerts: 5.26%
Mobile Phone Alerts: 5.26%
Mobile Phone Newsletter: 5.26%

I have two questions related to this research.  For most of the tools, just one or two papers are using various Web tools.  Are the same papers consistently using the Web tools, or is use of various features spread over the whole sample of papers?  Also, I find it quite surprising that given the quality of these websites that 31% of the papers are requiring registration.  What exactly are people registering for? 

Reminder:  Check out the various research related to the newspaper study which has lots of information regarding newspaper research in different countries:

• Italy
• Denmark: here and here
• Japan
• Canada
• New Zealand 
• UK 

 Also check out our TBR wiki, which has an entire section dedicated to ways that newspapers can improve their websites.

Back in November, a number of us here at The Bivings Group were captivated by the Nintendo Wii and Sony PlayStation 3 launch – so much so, that we set up our ImpactWatch demo to follow the news about the two game systems. Now that both the launch and the Holiday Season have past, we decided to put together a report based on the ImpactWatch analysis and our own research.  The following is a brief summary of our findings.

Sony PlayStation 3

Prior to launch, it sounded like Sony’s PlayStation 3 had captivated the imaginations of the gaming world. While the Nintendo Wii was quietly building buzz, the media was all over the PlayStation 3 like a pack of wolves on a fresh kill.  The hype surrounding the PlayStation 3 launch was staggering, and going into the Game Console Wars, a betting man probably would have put his money on Sony.  With the success of the original PlayStation and the even greater success of the PlayStation 2, it seemed like it would be a slam-dunk for Sony.  That turned out not to be the case. Three things that stood out about the media coverage of the PlayStation 3 were:

• PlayStation 3 Launch Sees Rampant Crime. Buying a video game system was never so dangerous.  Due to massive hype-driven demand, combined with severe supply constraints, the launch of the PlayStation 3 was tainted by theft and violent crime that spanned the globe.

• Sony PR and Management Blunders Abound. From Sony's decision to include the Blu-Ray high-definition DVD drive, thus delaying the launch by almost a year, to Sony Australia's General Manager, Nic Foster saying “Wii is a core gaming device. It's a more fun, intuitive sort of product to pick up,” to Sony’s press release falsely claiming that they had won a Technology and Entertainment Emmy for the SIXAXIS controller, they managed to fumble the PR ball on every play.
• Developers Jump Ship, Express Angst. Reports show Sony failed to cater sufficiently to non-Sony game developers. They lost the platform exclusivity of the best selling game of all time (Grand Theft Auto) and alienated their third party developers to such an extent that the launch line-up consisted of only a handful of titles. Gabe Newell of Valve Software said that, “The PS3 is a total disaster on so many levels, I think it's really clear that Sony lost track of what customers and what developers wanted.”

Nintendo Wii

The Nintendo Wii can be described as the underdog going into the Game Console Wars.  Initially, both Sony and Microsoft felt that it was not a direct competitor.  Their machines targeted hard-core gamers, who are interested in the most realistic gaming experience, the best sound, and greatest speed.  The Wii was considered more of toy targeted towards younger gamers. It turned out that the Wii was a more direct competitor than anticipated.

Three thing that helped to shape the brand perceptions consumers have about the Wii were:

• Media Stardom. The Nintendo Wii rapidly ascended to become a pop-cultural icon.  From the beginning, the Wii was a media darling, earning free coverage in editorials, radio station contests, and television shows - including being prominently featured in episodes of South Park and The Colbert Report, as well as being given away to every audience member on an episode of Dr. Phil.

• Strapgate. In a public relations coup d’etat, Nintendo managed to turn a potentially damaging quality issue into a resounding brand victory. Within a week of the Wii’s launch, reports began to surface about Wii remotes slipping out of gamers’ hands and the security straps breaking. Nintendo responded promptly and decisively, announcing an investigation and voluntary recall of the straps. What could have turned into a significant issue managed to help solidify the Nintendo brand in the eyes of consumers.
• Broad Demographic Appeal. Nintendo's NES gaming console was an 80's icon and many people that were kids playing their NES console in the 80's are now in their 30's and want to relive the fun of their youth. In a piece on 1up.com, Nintendo's Senior VP of Marketing, George Harrison, cites a 2006 survey by the Entertainment Software Association revealed that 25 percent of all gamers are 50 or older. Of the three next-generation game consoles, only the Wii has been positioned to really target such emerging market segments.

If you are interested in reading the full report, click here to download it as a PDF.

If you would like access to the ImpactWatch demo set up to track this issue, click here to request a username and password.

Gerry McGovern publishes a weekly email about the web, customer service, and how to improve website/intranet performance.  It’s a good read; he really should have a blog.  In his latest installment , “WORDS THAT WORK: SEARCH WORDS VERSUS WEBSITE WORDS,” Gerry highlights a new book by uber-pollster Frank Luntz, who claims that people are changing the words they use describe certain things.  Here are a few examples form Gerry’s list, taken from the book (i believe):

Ok, nothing dramatic here; we’ve heard them all; except maybe for the English “mum.”  However Gerry did a little poking around with Overture (Yahoo Search Marketing), He found out that in December 2006:

Some 730,958 people searched for “used car,” while only 949 searched for “pre-owned vehicle.”

Nearly 73,000 people searched for “housewife” (122,000 searched for “desperate housewife”), while only 43 searched for stay-at-home-mum.

Over 30,000 searched for “gay marriage” while 19,000 searched for ” same-sex marriage”.

While about 17,000 people search for “impotence”, over 100,000 search for “erectile dysfunction.”

This little bit of research is suggestive; and adds another dimension to Luntz’s work.  We all know that word usage changes; some changes are accepted, other not.  For instance, “flight attendant” and “server” have, almost, replaced “stewardess” and “waiter/waitress,” respectively.  But I’m not sure “pre-owned” is ever going to overtake “used”.  It’s no surprise that “erectile dysfunction (ED)” is more common than “impotence” given the barrage of ads on the TV over the past years for Viagra, etc.

Perhaps many such changes are for those words and phrases we use in public, in political discourse, in formal settings — the speech of political correctness, in a sense.  But when we’re alone at our computer using Google or Yahoo, “we revert back to older, more basic words. Words that might be cruder, shorter and simpler,” as Gerry wrote. 

And through Google and Yahoo, we’ll be able to chart such changes in word usage over time.

The Pew Internet and American Life Project released a new study this week about trends in obtaining political news online.  The results were pretty interesting, but predictable, given the rise in user-generated Web content.  Here is a summary of some of the study's important points:

• The number of Americans relying on the internet for political news doubled from the 2002 mid-term election and grew fivefold in the past decade:

• Relatively young broadband users say the internet is a more important political news source than newspapers.  35% of those 36 and younger said that the Internet was their most important source of political campaign information, compared to 18% that cited newspapers.
• 23% of campaign internet users became online political activists, meaning that they wrote blogs, forwarded other bloggers' posts to another person, created political audio or video recordings, or forwarded other people's audio or video recordings to another person.
• Republicans and Democrats were equally likely to rely on the Internet for political campaign news.

This study clearly shows that the Internet has become a premier source of political campaign information.  The results beg an important question: how are potential 2008 presidential candidates making use of this growing dependence on the Web for political information?

To answer this question, I decided to take a close look at 12 websites: these site belong to politicians who have officially announced their 2008 candidacy or who have formed presidential exploratory committees.  I conducted the survey much the same way as I did our original campaign study, altering the criteria somewhat and keeping in mind that many of these sites are probably placeholders for future content and are not yet fully populated.

Here is what I found: 

(more…)

We have just finished a new mini-research study in which we examined the availability of mobile features for the top 50 newspaper websites and the top 50 English-language blogs. The results were surprising. Just 24% (twelve) of blogs provided mobile content, while 54% (27) newspapers offered a mobile browsing option.

(more…)

Wireless users in the United States aren’t really using the their mobile devices to browse the Internet. At least not yet. A study conducted in April of 2006 found that 18 percent of wireless users had tried mobile Internet browsing and that 6 percent browsed the web from their mobile device regularly.

While the numbers are low, I think the emergence of the mobile Internet is inevitable. As phones get better and download speeds get faster, people will start surfing the Internet on their phones.

As a website developer, that means it is increasingly important to build websites that work on mobile browsers. Fortunately, if you are a WordPress user this isn’t much of a problem. We made a mobile version of The Bivings Report using a great plugin developed by Alex King.

To access our mobile version, simply type www.bivingsreport.com into your mobile browser. That’s pretty much it.

<Rant: All mobile websites should work this way, meaning they should auto-detect whether you are browsing from a mobile phone. Sites that have separate URLs for their mobile versions are missing the boat, in my opinion. Who is going to memorize a separate mobile URL?>

If you are a web developer working on a mobile version, you might try out this mobile phone emulator software from Openwave. It’s free and allows you to see what your site looks like on a mobile phone without having to look on a mobile device.

According to the average American, this one’s a no-brainer. In a poll of 1,203 American adults, Zogby International and 463 Communications reported that 83% of those surveyed believe that a typical 12-year old knows more about Internet than members of Congress.

Do I even need to remind anyone that The Internet is a Series of Tubes?? If the average member of Congress thinks like Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens, it’s pretty obvious that this 83% of people are 100% correct.

It’s getting increasingly difficult for older career politicians to catch up with younger generations in terms of knowledge about the Web. I personally remember having computer classes as early as elementary school; I’m sure kids today are being exposed to the Internet at even younger ages. The result? Politicians that declare nonsensical myths about the “mystery” of computers. They just don’t get it.

CNET blogger Anne Broache also wrote about this survey:

“…when it came to deciding which political party has a better “grasp” of the Internet, survey respondents were mostly, well, undecided. About 30 percent threw their confidence behind Democrats, 20 percent chose Republicans, and more than 40 percent picked “neither” or said they weren’t sure.”

All of this information ties in with our research about political campaign sites and blogs (here, here, and here), which we found were generally of poor quality and failed to reach the general public on a personal level.

This leads me to make one obviously clear conclusion. Politicians should have 12-year olds run their websites.

Okay, maybe not. But on a more serious note, I do believe that it would be to the advantage of every campaign staff to include some younger people in their day-to-day operations. College students, for example, operate in huge social networks (both digitial and actual), and could help politicians reach out to younger and more tech-savvy demographics. I realize that many campaigns have college interns, but it would surprise me if these interns did much more than make photocopies and coffee.

At any rate, it’s apparent that politicians need to do something to improve their use and understanding of the Web. As shown in Sen. Ted Stevens’ “Series of Tubes Speech”, it is simply unacceptable to have senior members of our Congress have no understanding of a technology that so greatly affects our daily lives and operations of the US government.

In addition to the discussion of kids vs. politicians, the survey had some other interesting findings. One that caught my eye is that when asked “What would make it harder for you to work – your car not starting, or losing Internet and email access?”, 78% of those surveyed said their car, while just 10% said the Internet. I personally do not own a car, but the thought of going one day without Internet or email is actually scary.

Also of note is that just one in five Americans believes that the next Bill Gates will come from the US. Half of those surveyed think that the next Internet mogul will be from China or Japan.

The survey was conducted between 12/5/06 and 12/8/2006, consisted of 1,203 American adults, and has an error margin of +/- 2.9%. You can read about the survey here and here.

Pew Internet Life released a fascinating study a few days back (PDF) that looked at voter contacts during the 2006 election.  Below is a table summarizing the key findings:

Two things jump out at me here:

(1) 56% of folks surveyed received recorded calls urging them to vote, usually from celebrities and high profile politicians.  That’s a big number.  I hate robocalls and can’t hang up fast enough.  But the calls are dirt cheap to make and clearly effective enough to justify the expense.  These things are definitely a case of campaigns using a shotgun instead of a rifle.

(2) People were more likely to have a campaign representative visit their home (16%) than to receive an email from a campaign (12%).  Basically all that means is that parties still have some work to do in developing email lists of voters.  If parties sent emails to 12% of the population, that pretty much means they have the email address of 12% of the population.

[Via CNet]

Chris Anderson, author of the Long Tail and the editor-in-chief at Wired Magazine, has written two (1, 2) though provoking posts outlining how online media might work in the future. In his second post, he outlines his vision for "radical transparency" by the media. There is some great thinking here. Describing the posts simplistically, Anderson wants to not only show readers what’s behind the curtain at Wired, but let them help control the wizard. Following are the main elements of this "radical transparency" (presented in quotes) and my quick thoughts on each:

(1) "Show who we are. All staff edit their own personal ‘about’ pages, giving bios, contact details and job functions."

Absolutely. I think another key here is to have the reporters actually interact with users via comments, posting clarifications and engaging in friendly bickering. Do this in real time, not through some delayed mailbag type of feature.

(2) "Show what we’re working on. We already have internal wikis that are common scratch pads for teams working on projects. And most writers have their own thread-gathering processes, often online. Why no open them to all? Who knows, perhaps other people will have good ideas, too."

I think it is a great idea to encourage users to submit story ideas and tips or even to ask for input in certain instances. But, frankly, as a magazine reader I don’t think I’d be that interested in knowing everything a magazine is researching. It is just sort of too much. I’d worry this would be used and abused more by interested parties (PR firms, companies, etc.) trying to impact stories before they are written than real people.

(3) "Process as Content. Why not share the reporting as it happens, uploading the text of each interview as soon as you can get it processed by your flat-world transcription service in India?"

I’m a big proponent of publications including the source documents when they publish a piece. And this may make sense for some big cover story type of thing. But in most cases I’m just not going to care. I want to read the short and sweet version and then dive into the source materials if my interest is piqued. Not the other way around. And once again, in most cases the only ones who will care are interested parties trying to slant the story.

(4) "Privilege the crowd. Why not give comments equal status to the story they’re commenting on? Why not publish all letters to the editor as they’re submitted (we did that here), and let the readers vote on which are the best?"

On the comments, no thanks. I think allowing comments on every story is enough. I’m comfortable with the comments being below the story. Of course, Anderson may have some way of doing this design wise that I can’t envision. On the letters to the editor, absolutely. This is something that came up in a follow up to our 9 Ways to Improve Newspaper Websites post. I would love to see this process opened up.

(5) "Let readers decide what’s best. We own Reddit, which (among other things) is a terrific way of measuring popularity. Why should we guess at which stories will be most popular and give those preferential treatment?"

Absolutely. This is exactly what I was hoping for when they bought Reddit. I would just say that there is a sweet spot between a popularity-based news view and an editor-controlled view that hasn’t really been hit on yet (I know Netscape is trying). How about giving the user the ability to switch between the popular and editor views of the site? This was what we tried in our redesign of USA Today.

(6) "Wikifiy everything. The realities of publishing is that at some point you push the publish button. In the traditional world, that’s the end of the story. It is a snapshot in time, as good as we could make it but inevitably imperfect. The errors (and all articles have them) are a mix of commission and omission–we hope for the best yet brace ourselves for the worst. But what if we published every story on a wiki platform, so they could evolve over time, just like Wikipedia itself? The original story would be the foundation of what could eventually become a version expanded and updated by readers."

Great idea. The web isn’t print. Let the story be a living breathing thing and not something disposable.

You can read his full post here. Let us know what you think in the comments.

Update: Netly News has a good piece exploring another problem with this approach: giving away scoops to competitors.

Update 2: Jeff Jarvis weighs in.

We've been somewhat critical of newspaper and magazine websites in the past few weeks.  Two of our studies, "The Use of the Internet by America's Newspapers" and "The Presence of Magazines on the Internet", concluded that newspapers and magazines aren't maximizing their presence on the Web.  By using a larger number and variety of Web tools, we fell that magazine and newspaper websites can be significantly improved.

This doesn't mean that all newspaper/magazine websites are terrible.  In fact, I've listed here some sites that do some things on the Web quite well.

• Best Use of RSS Feeds:  The Houston Chronicle does a great job of  making its RSS feeds clearly available from its home page.  While this may seem obvious to some, a large majority of newspaper sites make users go through several clicks to access the site's RSS feeds.   The fact that the Chronicle makes them accessible directly from its homepage is somewhat unique.
• Best Blog Network:  The Boston Globe has an enormous network of journalist and citizen blogs that cover a wide variety of topics.  Definitely worth checking out, especially if you live in the Boston area.
• Best Use of Bookmarking:  For newspapers, the Washington Post  is a great example of a site that gives users a variety of options for external bookmarking.  For magazines, Sports Illustrated is the only publication that allows both internal and external bookmarking options (users can save articles on their si.com account or their facebook account). 
• Best Commenting Features:  There are a few newspapers that have fantastic mechanisms for user comments on articles.  For example,   on the Philadelphia Inquirer website, users cannot comment on every article.  But the site does enable comments on popular articles about local news or special interest items.  On the main section pages, articles with commenting functions are highlighted by a special icon.  The Morning Call and the Virginian-Pilot take a different approach, allowing comments on just about every article on the site.  Also noteworthy is the commenting functions for The Guardian (UK).  This publication has a separate site dedicated to user comments, called Comment is Free.
• Best Use of Tags:  We found three magazine websites that used tags:  US Weekly, Popular Science, and Parenting.  All three sites have tag clouds on their homepage, which makes searching for article pretty easy.

The great use of these features is encouraging in that it shows that not all publications are clueless when it comes to the Web.  Some magazine and newspaper websites are, in fact, starting to get it right.

Know of any other interesting uses of Web 2.0?  Let us know!

TBG has recently completed a research study called "Analyzing the Presence of Magazines on the Internet". In the wake of success surrounding our previous newspaper study, "The Use of the Internet by America's Newspapers ", we decided to conduct similar research on the magazine industry. Our study reviews the websites of the top 50 most circulated magazines in the United States and evaluates them based on the presence or absence of various Web 2.0 features. After finishing the research, it became clear that magazines are not making use of Web 2.0. Despite their failure in terms of Web features, it should be recognized that magazines have taken on a more effective general strategy than newspapers when it comes to the Internet. Instead of replicating printed content online, as newspapers do, magazines have made efforts to publish unique, Web specific, and easily digestible materials on their websites. In this way, magazines are using the Internet as a supplement to, rather than a replacement of, their printed publications. Magazine websites limit their article content and focus on pushing customers to purchasing printed subscriptions. Here are some key findings from our research:

• The most common online feature offered by magazines is RSS feeds (48 per cent). All of the RSS feeds offered by magazine websites are partial feeds. In addition, none of the magazines are including advertisements in their RSS feeds, while just 28 per cent of magazines divide their RSS feeds into different sections.

• Message boards/forums are offered by 46 per cent of magazine websites. This seemingly old-fashioned form of communication is extremely popular on magazine websites, particularly on the sites of women’s magazines.

• 38 per cent of the magazines require registration to view all of the site’s content. While this feature is only present on 23 per cent of the nation’s top 100 newspaper sites, it seems that magazines are still heavily reliant on website registration. It must be noted, however, that newspaper and magazine online registration is very different. The large majority of the magazines we investigated allow users to view article content free of registration. However, to participate in forums, registration is required. This seems to serve as a mechanism for monitoring content that people post on message boards rather than to collect demographic information, as is the case with newspapers. Thus, this 38 per cent figure largely represents magazines that require forum registration, not registration for the purpose of reading articles.

• 40 per cent of the magazines offer at least one reporter blog. Readers can comment on 17 of the 19 magazine blogs, while eight reporter blogs offer blogrolls, or external links to other blogs.

• Video is an offering on 34 per cent of websites.

• Just 14 per cent of websites use podcasts and bookmarking; eight percent allow comments on articles; and six per cent use tags.

You can read the report in its entirety here and view our data sheets here Please take a look and let us know what you think!

We've just published the second in a series of reports on media favorability in the Connecticut Senate race. The race isn't nearly as close as it was a couple of months ago, but come election day surprises are always plentiful! Even so, as a niche case study in media favorability on a major Senate race, we think it's probably one of only a handful out there. We used our ImpactWatch(TM) web platform to generate this report — those interested can obtain access to a demo showing the nuts and bolts of the system here.

Key findings in our second Connecticut Senate race report covering the period from October 1, 2006 to November 5, 2006:

• Campaign Tactics, a category we created for articles about overall strategies employed by the candidates, particularly advertising strategies, was the most written about subject with 18% of all articles.
• The subject most written about in the last reporting period, the war in Iraq, was written about in 16% of the articles in this reporting period.
• Overall, coverage for both Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman was predominantly negative at 47 and 48% respectively.
• Local Connecticut publications favored Ned Lamont in the Campaign Tactics and Iraq War subject categories much moreso than national publications which tended to slightly favor Joe Lieberman.
• Poll results seem to directly affect the overall positive or negative media coverage of a particular candidate in a very significant manner.

To view the full report click here. We blogged about our previous report here.

The following graphs illustrate some of the trends in coverage available within the full report.

Lieberman Favorability Breakdown: 

Lamont Favorability Breakdown:

Lamont vs. Liberman Average Favorability: