Markets are where media function. They also provide the foundation of economic analyses, providing the context and mechanisms for explaining and predicting media and audience behaviors. Economists define markets broadly as any context in which goods and services are offered and purchased. Markets are thus defined by a set of goods or services, the set of firms and individuals that offer them for trade (supply), and the set of firms and individuals that seek to acquire them (demand or, in media terms, audiences). The context of markets includes their scope (reach) and a variety of structural features, including the particular attributes of media technologies and organizations, their products, and their distribution systems. Law and policy often have a role in defining markets, by influencing or even defining some of those structural features and costs.

The development of digital computing and the growth of the Internet have opened up new opportunities to engage in online research. These online research practices involving human subjects, often involving relatively new technologies, can create tension between the online investigator and the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) who are required to review and approve such research prior to data collection. This chapter aims to reduce this tension by discussing the associated ethics issues and applicable federal regulations, identifying specific concerns from the perspective of IRBs, and offering suggestions as to how best to address these concerns in applications in a way that can hopefully serve both the researcher and the review board.

"Broadcasting Policy in Canada." Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 55(4), pp. 605–606

ABSTRACTWhen faced with an abundance of articles, readers must weigh the relative importance of various characteristics to select which articles to read. Over 400 researchers in 12 countries responded to a questionnaire that asked them to rank seven article characteristics and rate 16 article profiles. After article topic, the next most highly ranked characteristics were online accessibility and source of article. Conjoint analysis revealed the highest rated profiles to be (i) article written by a top‐tier author, in a top peer‐reviewed journal, available online at no personal cost to the reader; and (ii) article written by a top‐tier author, in a peer‐reviewed journal not in the top tier, available online at no personal cost to the reader. There were significant differences in characteristic rankings by discipline and geographic location.

The Economics of Intellectual Property Volume I: Introduction and Copyright edited by Ruth Towse and Rudi Holzhauer. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2002, 645 + xxxii pages, ISBN 1-84064-351-X, www.e-elgar.co.uk

The author considers the effect of cable on market concentration in local television markets using different types of market definitions for the analysis. He concludes that cable has introduced competition and that it has lowered concentration levels in local markets, thus altering the structure of television markets put in place by FCC television allocation plans and limits of local economies.

The rise of digital media has created a number of problems for copyright, in large part by removing the physical constraints of copying associated with older media forms. The concept of digital rights management (DRM) has been pushed as one solution, restoring technological constraints on copying. There are, however, other issues associated with DRM approaches; they are costly and can be used to restrict access and use of content beyond the specific rights granted by copyright policy. These costs and additional restrictions reduce the value of content, affecting its demand and use, with repercussions for the creation of both private and social value. This paper will examine several proposed digital rights management approaches from a social economics perspective-an approach that emphasizes recognition of indirect and social sources of value, and the implications of policy for such value.

Social and economic policy largely works through the use of various incentives and disincentives designed to affect values in covered markets. A proper understanding of the full range of values can be critical: from a political economics perspective, determining how values are framed as central or peripheral can reflect which groups are privileged; further, the effectiveness of policy can depend on correctly identifying and measuring all values at play in a market, including those considered externalities. This paper discusses the importance of a thorough consideration of value in media and information economic policy, and describes an approach that is appropriate to such a consideration. The social economics approach extends consideration by focusing on the critical role of broad social values and of non-financial (or nonmarket) sources of individual values that arise with information goods and services such as media content. Framing Media Economics Policy: A Social Economics Approach As noted by Gramsci and others, one way in which power is maintained is through cultural hegemony, through the determination of appropriate paradigms and approaches that delimit how cultural and political issues are addressed. At its heart, policy is about achieving a desired end-state through manipulating behaviors. This manipulation is often achieved through providing incentives or disincentives, through shifting the value of actions or behaviors (Boulding, 1958; Galbraith, 1973). Defining what has value and what doesn’t, or which values are the foci of policy and which are ignored, is one way to manifest power and control. The ability to define “value” and its sources defines and delimits the debate, and gives power to those who frame the issue. Getting the policy right can be critical. Policy installs incentives (positive or negative) and its implementation intentionally distorts natural markets and behaviors. If the incentives are based on an accurate understanding of markets and behaviors, they can correct for existing market distortions and/or guide behaviors towards the desired endstate. Even then, in a complex world, there may be unintended consequences, as the shifted values have a ripple effect on other markets and actions. If the incentives are based on a false or imperfect understanding, results may vary from predictions. One area where this is evident is in the approach to debates about media and information policy and economics, particularly in discussions about general debates about media policy goals such as localism, diversity, and fairness, and in defining and implementing intellectual property rights. The supposed rise of the information economy, and the increasing focus on the commercial value of information products and services, have pushed media and information policy to the front lines of economic and trade policy considerations. The rise of new media and the proliferation of distribution channels have raised a number of social and political implications worthy of policy considerations. These include deregulation, digital (and other) divides, media ownership and diversity, development and diffusion of new media systems and markets. Media and information policy, by shifting values, can be central to determining what kind of information society emerges. For example, if the basic goal of intellectual property policy is to encourage creativity and invention (as that benefits society) by enhancing the ability of creators to benefit from their work, then defining what “benefits” are important can be an important and determinative factor. Framing the debate so that the only meaningful value of information and media goods and services are those that emerge from commercial markets, empowers commercial sectors while largely ignoring alternative sources and systems and any broader social or economic consequences (Benkler, 2006). As the key to commercial exchange lies in the making and distributing of copies, it also empowers distributors as the primary mechanism of extracting commercial value, arguably to the detriment of both authors and creators (Vaidhyanathan, 2001). This particular framing of value is proving to be problematic, in large part because it does not adequately reflect real conditions, motivations, and impacts. Focusing on commercial value can work for commercial markets, but is largely ineffective in reflecting or understanding other markets, behaviors, and impacts. To a degree, the impact of these other factors had been masked by the costs tied to the manufacture and distribution of the physical copies necessary for the distribution of information goods and services. These costs provided a kind of threshold effect that made the impact of smaller sources of value largely irrelevant to market functioning. However, the advent of digital networks has provided a system where distribution costs are extremely low, in effect lowering the level of the threshold to the point where various non-commercial values become increasingly relevant and influential (Bates, 2007; Bates & Albright, 2006; Benkler, 2006; Shapiro & Varian, 1998; Shy, 2001). As such, existing policy has been increasingly ineffective; because the model has been incomplete, because there is more at work than fiscal returns, and because more is at risk than narrowly defined markets. Similar problems exist with other media and information policies; they often seem to be increasingly ineffective, or seem to abound with “unintended” consequences. Over the years, I have attempted to better understand information and media behaviors, markets, and policies by developing a “social economics” approach to studying media and information markets and policy (Bates, 1988, 1999a, 1999b, 2006). The approach is based on the idea that, for media and information goods and services, not all value is commercial, nor are the value implications of exchange limited to the immediate parties. The exchange and use of information creates a range of impact, and a comprehensive analysis needs to identify, and include, these other sources of value. This approach is based on work in several areas of economics (valuation and motivation, information economics, socioeconomics), the political economy of media, and the social implications of new technology (particularly the empowering of social production potential). These provide a foundation for identifying and including these alternative sources of value in research on behaviors, markets, and policy. The main focus of this paper will be on outlining this approach, grounding it in various established perspectives and theories and discussing how it integrates and extends them in a coherent manner. I will argue for the validity of the social economic approach in media and information policy research, discussing the implications of such an approach for studies involving issues of valuation. At the very least, this approach argues for the expansion of considerations of value, and perceptions about value are at the heart of production, distribution and exchange behaviors; it is clear that such an approach could be transformative. In fact, the social economics approach directly challenges the dominant hegemonic view that only commercial valuation matters. The paper will conclude by discussing the implications for economic, policy, and political economy studies. I will argue that such an approach can provide an alternative approach to studying how power is manifested through determinations of value, an approach that may be independent of political structures or systems. Finally, I will argue that this approach can effectively challenge the dominant hegemony, and thus should be more widely used in political economy research. 1 There is a subfield of economics called socioeconomics. It calls for a focus on extending considerations to broader social impacts of economic activities and economic change. There is another subfield of “social economics” emerging that describes its focus more on the ethical foundations of economic analysis; it also places an emphasis on the social dimensions of economic issues. Information and Social Economics To me, the heart of economics is value. Value drives economic behavior, and the functioning of markets. From a broader perspective, value can also be seen to drive human behavior (Becker, 2006). We do things because we see value in them. To understand human and social behavior, then, you need to understand how we perceive value, and what influences value. And what we value is not always money (Becker, 1976; Benkler, 2006; Himanen, 2001). As Adkins (1925, p. 25) long ago phrased it, “Economic value is not a material thing, any more than light and heat and sound are material things; and like light and heat and sound, it cannot be represented or measured by a material thing. Economic value is sustenance, comfort, security, beauty and joy, whether contributed to by commodities, services, or order. The artist in us creates value; the technician in us amplifies value; and the critic in us determines the value; for man, the maker, is also the measurer.” Information and media markets amply demonstrate the range of values and motivations that can be at play. Advertisers pay people to consume their product, a seeming violation of economic law. States fund free schools and libraries. People keep watching their favorite episodes of Star Trek or Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Scholars give their work to journals, hoping for publication. Millions of people around the world blog, or create videos for YouTube, giving their work away. In the meantime, Disney still seeks every penny it can from Mickey Mouse and friends. Surely Disney isn’t the only one behaving rationally; there must be more to value than extracting revenues from consumers. The social economics approach starts there – What are those other sources, and how important are they? How do they impact on behaviors and market functions? Are they included in the decisio

AbstractThe continuing development of digital technology and interconnected digital and global networking are radically transforming media and information markets, cost and value structures, and consumer attitudes and expectations. This is contributing to a shift from a perception of traditional media products as the focus of consumer interest to an interest in content, with the media form of interest only to the degree to which it adds value to media consumption. This suggests a need for media and libraries to shift from thinking of themselves as distributors of specific media (newspaper, radio, TV, books, etc.) to a more generalized provider of access to information. They, as well as emerging cross‐media platforms (Internet TV, Mobile TV, Cell TV, etc.) and digital media products, need to focus on not merely on providing valued content, but on identifying and taking advantage of the appropriate content added‐value that new products and services bring.

The continuing development of digital technology and interconnected digital and global networking are radically transforming media and information markets, cost and value structures, and audience/consumer attitudes and expectations. This is contributing to a shift from a perception of traditional media as the focus of consumer interest, to an interest in content, with the media form of interest only to the degree to which it adds value to media consumption. This suggests a need for media to shift from thinking of themselves as "media" (newspaper, radio, TV, books, etc.) to a content and service provider. For traditional media as well as emerging cross-media platforms (Internet TV, Mobile TV, Cell TV, etc.) and digital media products, emphasis needs to be placed not merely on providing valued content, but on identifying and taking advantage of the appropriate content added-value that new products and services bring. Transforming media, markets, products, and value: Implications of the digital/telecommunications revolution Historically, there has been a tendency to conflate content with medium. We tend to think, and speak, of books, newspapers, radio, records, and movies as the sources of value, of the separate and distinctive media industries. Talk to a station owner, and he will tell you that he’s a broadcaster. An old print reporter is a newspaperman. Talk to a media consumer, and they would tell you that they enjoyed watching TV, or reading a book. Because content tended to be distributed in distinctive forms and media, and firms did not tend to compete across the old industrial boundaries, people tended to equate the content with the media form. That’s beginning to change, however. Talk to a student today about their media consumption and they’ll be more likely to talk about content -listening to music, watching basketball or an old movie, reading a story. Ask them whether the basketball game they’re watching comes from an over-the-air broadcaster, cable, satellite programmer, or even the internet, and they’re likely to have to think about it. Ask them about how they get the music they listen to, or the latest news, and they’ll name a range of sources across a variety of media. This is one of the more consequential impacts of what has been called the Information, or Digital, Age. The rise of digital technology and the growth of telecommunications networks are radically and permanently transforming media markets (Anderson, 2006; Benkler, 2006). From our perspective, the most important transformation is the change in the media marketplace; the shifting cost structures that have led to an increase in media capacity while reducing or removing many of the old media barriers (DeLong & Froomkin, 2000; McKnight & Bailey, 1997). Content is no longer restricted to a single medium of distribution, but is often available through multiple media channels and forms. And people are remembering that it is the content that is the primary source of value in the media product (Bates, 1988, 1990). Neither the old nor the new media can afford to proceed as if they had a monopoly on some content form or media product and an eager but passive audience; that they have a market all to themselves. They have to recognize the impact of the digital revolution on media markets, including the recognition that consumers increasingly place little value on the medium per se, rather the source of value is the content of the media product and their ability to access and utilize it. Of course, there are still aspects of the product that are media-dependent, and can serve as the focal points for competitive marketing. That’s where the new competitive focus lies. This paper will begin by discussing the economic and structural factors that contributed to the initial identification of content with medium, and which formed the basis of the old media market model. I will consider how the perception of media products as a single good influenced consumer behavior and thus demand characteristics. I will then discuss how the digital revolution changed that market model, and contributed to the de-linking of the media “dual good” of content and distribution form. I will look at the changes in the media marketplace and in supply and demand attributes that emerge when the focus of value shifts from the physical joint good that is costly to reproduce to the non-physical content that is inexpensive to reproduce and distribute along digital networks. I will then talk about the implications of these shifts for media and media management strategies. The Old Media Environment From the beginning, there was communication, the transmission of meaning between individuals; and communication made socialization and society possible. Even at the most basic stage, communication combined message (content) with transmission (medium). As the need for communication and information increased over the ages, people found ways to facilitate its distribution through the application of technology. In other words, the medium improved. The first great transition was the development of the word, that is, symbolism and language (Fidler, 1997), which enabled the standardization of meaning and provided for efficiency in communication (Hauser, 1996). However, with speech and language, communication was still in the moment, contemporaneous, and clearly among individuals. The message, in other words, was linked to the creator, who was also the disseminator. Thus, to a great extent, the content was linked in perceptions to the speaker. The next stage was the development of writing, which enabled communication to transcend the immediacy of the moment (Fidler, 1997). Writing also brought forth an awareness of, and focus on, the medium, as it required some physical manifestation of content. Writing, in other words, had to be done on something. From markings on cave walls to writing and printing, a link was established between the informational content and the physical medium used to facilitate distribution of that content (Innis, 1972, 1991). Once again, the message was physically linked to the medium, and people extended this linking to their perceptions. While to most, information goods and products were in common with the medium, economists began to recognize that there was a problem with this perception, as the value of the information goods was not the same as the value of the physical medium. This fostered the concept of information products as dual goods: the combination of the informational content and the physical media distribution form (Albarran, 2002; Bates, 1987). As people increasingly identified the content with the media form, they started to lose sight of the dual goods nature, and began treating the product as a physical good, forming the foundation for some of the problematic aspects of basic media economics (Bates, 1988, 1990). The identification of content with medium in most people’s perceptions was supported by the increasing differentiation of media and its products over time, as continuing technological development introduced new media. New media enabled the distribution of new types of information goods and products. Movies brought motion, radio brought sound. Technology also brought changes to market structures that tended to accentuate media distinctions. Aspects of the technology and its economics created biases that influenced the nature of the content and its use (Innis, 1972, 1991; McLuhan, 1994), further linking content and medium. These biases can also be thought of as the distinctive characteristics of media, markets, and products. Economic efficiency in distribution networks also required that media and content forms be tailored to one another (Bates and Albright, 2006; Shy, 2001), in order to take advantage of particular characteristics of the information product and market. The rise of mass production systems exacerbated this trend, placing greater emphasis on controlling and limiting costs in order to maximize distribution. Thus, media differentiated, and in analog and physical forms that were relatively expensive and/or difficult to convert from one form to another, in most cases. The differentiation of media markets tended to reinforce the conceptual linking of content with the particular medium. Even where the content was similar (say movies and television), the distribution systems and consumption experiences tended to be distinctive enough that they remained identified as distinctive products in the minds of both consumers and producers. This was reflected in the distinctiveness of media markets. The limits of “analog” technologies and market structures created economic barriers that placed strong limits on the ability to move into new markets. The Roots of Change The roots of the next major change can be found in the development of electronic media. Electronic media took the analog message, and transformed it into an electric, non-physical signal. This demonstrated the ability to separate communication from a physical form, while enhancing the ability to distribute to large audiences. As technology developed, a variety of forms for distributing (wired networks, broadcasting) and storing (records, tapes) signals arose. This began the ability to separation of message from content. Still, most analog electronic media were distinctive enough to be perceived, and treated, as distinctive, single, information goods. The relative economic advantages of particular media provided competitive advantages for certain uses, and media became niche products (Dimmick, 2003). This tended to accentuate the differences, and the identity of medium with content/use. Two analog technologies of the last half-century, though, started to decouple the identification of a particular information good with a particular medium. They did this by providing an economically viable new distribution system for content that also provided a source of added value to consumers. The two tech

Technological innovation is transforming media markets, facilitating competition, multiplatform distribution of content, and time and media shifting. As such, media are increasingly unable to rely on the basic value of content to attract audiences or extract value [premiums. In effect, these changes are creating three highly valued sources of added value: choice (having a wider range of content options available), control (the ability to control the time and means of consumption), and convenience (the ease of finding and consuming desired content). This paper will address how such added value affects audience demand and media product markets. Consuming Choice: Audiences and Added Value in Media Products Media markets are undergoing a radical transformation. Advances in digital technologies, computing, and telecommunications are not only creating new media and markets, but also drastically impacting production and distribution costs in older media markets (Anderson, 2006; Bates, 2005; Benkler, 2006; DeLong & Froomkin, 2000; Low, 2000; McKnight & Bailey, 1997; Sampler, 1988). Established media systems, which used to be secure in their markets behind significant barriers to entry, now find themselves facing significantly more competitive markets for consumers as those barriers erode and new media develop. Not only that, they are finding that the old passive mass audience demand structure is also undergoing a major transformation (Becker and Schoenbach, 1989; Neuman, 1991; Wirtz, 2001). As competition drives the price for basic information goods down, media must find other ways to differentiate products in order to extract at least some monopoly profits. This paper will focus on the potential of using distinctive media characteristics to take advantage of their added value to audiences. Background In the old analog universe, media markets tended to be discrete, and intellectual property rights provided a high level of monopoly power. Competitive pressures came from the presence of substitutes more than alternative suppliers of the same content. Economic efficiency in distribution networks also required that media and content forms be tailored to one another (Bates and Albright, 2006; Shy, 2001), in order to take advantage of particular characteristics of the information product and market. The relative economic advantages of particular media provided competitive advantages for certain uses, and media became niche products (Dimmick, 2003), and in analog and physical forms that were relatively expensive and/or difficult to convert from one form to another, in most cases. The development and diffusion of digital technologies and telecommunications is radically transforming costs in the production and distribution of information goods and services (Bates and Albright, 2006; Benkler, 2006, DeLong and Froomkin, 2000, Low, 2000; Shy, 2001). Production and distribution costs have lowered, and intelligence in the system has made versioning and format shifting reasonably inexpensive. The generally declining costs, along with a general policy shift towards deregulation, are removing many of the old market barriers (Picard, 1998) and allowing migration of content across markets (Vogel, 1998). The rise in competition is not quite as simple as adding a new firm producing the product. The breaking down of the old media market barriers and the rise of new digital media forms is, rather, creating what Lacey (2004) termed ‘fuzzy’ markets. Product differentiation, rapidly shifting (or evolving) market structures, greater diversity within consumers, and uncertainty about the value of media products can all make details of market structure difficult to define and measure (Sampler, 1998, Varian, 2000a). The ‘fuzzy’ nature of evolving media markets makes it difficult to predict impacts in any precise way, in part because there may be fundamental changes in structural aspects at work (Lacey, 2004). In the emerging transformed media markets, the basic content of media will increasingly be distributed through and across multiple media and platforms (Tsakali and Kaptsis, 2002; Wirtz, 2001). On the positive side, media firms and content owners are finding themselves able to translate and market content across multiple platforms and to find new markets (Feldmann, 2002; Vogel, 1998), which allows for a greater potential to exploit and benefit from the distribution and use of content and information goods and services (Lawson-Borders, 2003). On the other hand, this capacity also increases the potential for competition and creates new options for consumers. The increased availability of basic content will inevitably drive down market prices, particularly since advertising and other nonmarket sources of value can subsidize apparent prices (Bates, 1987; Benkler, 2006; Albarran, 2002). These trends are creating an environment that offers significant positive value for audiences and consumers (Benkler, 2006). The new cost structures offer the potential for significant savings, and the increase in competition is likely to make it more difficult for media to maintain their customary monopoly pricing (and profits) (Anderson, 2006). But perhaps even more significant in the long run is the potential that emerging media markets have for creating and delivering choice to audiences and consumers. Technology continually offers consumers new levels of access, choice, and the ability to control their use of media content. Cable and DBS have rapidly expanded choice in television programming. VCRs, DVDs, DVRs and personal media players have rapidly expanded the ability of individuals to control their use of media content. Further, the rise of the Internet offers the potential for almost unlimited access, choice, and control of all forms of content, providing a range of possible ways to create added-value (Yakhlef, 1998). Intelligent networks combined with intelligent search agents are opening access to, and aiding discovery of alternative sources and content. Finally, the rapid diffusion and adoption of these technologies and systems would seem to suggest that consumers place a fairly high value on these abilities. Consumers are not likely to be eager to give up this value, restricting the ability of media and states from trying to recoup their old monopoly profits. For media, choice is a problem; limiting access and availability provided media firms and content owners a degree of monopoly power, and monopoly profits. At first, old media seemed to seek to confront their changing markets by enforcing the monopoly rights granted through intellectual property law. When that proved problematic, they sought to extend monopoly rights and their ability to enforce those rights. These efforts, however, face several serious long-term problems, as they ignore the fundamental realities of the new markets. It is a strategy that attempts to use policy to further distort markets, rather than to resolve market distortions. Another problem is that such a strategy seeks to re-impose the old passive audience model, removing from consumers the diversity and choice they crave, as well as their ability to control how they use content. Not only does this reduce the value of the use (and thus demand for the content), but is likely to be vigorously opposed. For these reasons, strategies based on seeking a return to old market structures is unlikely to be unsuccessful in the long term. Some media, on the other hand, like the movie industry, sought to exploit the new markets, first in television and cable, then videotapes and DVDs, and now find that the new markets generate the majority of revenues and profits (at least for now) (Vogel, 1998). In addition, there seems to be an increasing awareness of the nonmarket sources values associated with networks and information (Bates, 1988; Benkler, 2006; Kingma, 2001; Shapiro and Varian, 1999; Shy, 2001). And media are beginning to also realize that they can exploit their distinctive characteristics as they discover which deliver added value to audiences (Dimmick, 2003). In the long term, media firms must come to grips with the reality of increased competition, both within and across markets, and with a changing demand structure for their goods and services. Their success, and possibly survival, requires that they seek out and exploit new 1 There are four main problems: first, enforcement is costly and also alienates potential consumers, reducing demand; second, most of the “violations” concern uses which are (or are believed to be) fair uses; third, that many media are not the primary holder of these rights; fourth, that technology makes violation easy and inexpensive. 2 This can be seen in the efforts of the WIPO and WTO to extend intellectual property rights terms and coverage. In particularly expansive move, the proposed WIPO Broadcast Treaty seeks to extend monopoly rights to broadcasts (independent of existing copyright and performance rights). sources of value. Some of this can be achieved by developing new markets; although these new markets will face the same competitive pressures in the long term. It would seem that a better strategy would be to determine possible sources of added value associated with media and content, and seek to exploit the ability to extract that value. The next section looks at where such value may lie. Basic and added value in content and media As noted briefly above, the basic value in media resides in content, and the basic value of content is its usefulness (Bates, 1988, 1990; Becker and Schoenbach, 1989; Kingma, 2001; Napoli, 2003; Vogel, 1998). However, content may be useful to multiple parties, in multiple ways, with the result that media are often considered as multiple goods operating in multiple markets (Albarran, 2002; Bates, 1987; Low, 2000). Further, value can exist in both market and nonmarket aspects of media and its content (Bates, 1988, 1990; Benkler, 2006; Kingma, 2001), allowing firms to take

Printed surveys, administered at several educational institutions in the Southeastern U.S., studied three basic research questions regarding use, and perception, of news sources for information about two natural disasters, Hurricane Katrina and the tsunami that struck parts of Asia at the end of 2004. Research questions addressed proximity effects on the selection of news sources, the role of experience and familiarity with the affected area on perceptions about news coverage, and the factors driving changes in media preference and use. The data showed that proximity, both directly and as a indicator of likely experience and familiarity, largely explained differences in preference and use between media, and differences in perceived coverage of the two disasters. The data also validated suggested trends in media use, particularly the shift from print to electronic media forms, and the rise of the Internet as the preferred source of college audiences..