#LED Traffic Signs and Signals Market trends

[businessindustry]

LED Traffic Signs and Signals Market Size, Analysis, Research Report, Trends by 2024-2032

The Reports and Insights, a leading market research company, has recently releases report titled “LED Traffic Signs and Signals Market: Global Industry Trends, Share, Size, Growth, Opportunity and Forecast 2024-2032.” The study provides a detailed analysis of the industry, including the global LED Traffic Signs and Signals Market share, size, trends, and growth forecasts. The report also includes competitor and regional analysis and highlights the latest advancements in the market.

Report Highlights:

How big is the LED Traffic Signs and Signals Market?

The global LED traffic signs and signals market was valued at US$ 1,106.2 Million in 2023 and is expected to register a CAGR of 5.6% over the forecast period and reach US$ 1,806.4 Mn in 2032.

What are LED Traffic Signs and Signals?                                                                                                                                                                            

LED traffic signs and signals are modern roadway devices that employ light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to communicate vital information to drivers and pedestrians. These signs and signals are designed to improve road safety and traffic management by providing clear and highly visible indications, such as stop signs, speed limits, and directional arrows, even in challenging weather conditions and low-light environments. The use of LED technology offers numerous advantages, including energy efficiency, long lifespan, and minimal maintenance needs, making them a cost-effective option for municipalities and transportation agencies. The bright illumination and rapid response time of LED traffic signs enhance drivers' reaction times, reducing the risk of accidents and promoting smoother traffic flow. Overall, LED traffic signs and signals represent a significant advancement in traffic control systems, contributing to safer and more efficient transportation networks.

Request for a sample copy with detail analysis: https://www.reportsandinsights.com/sample-request/2467

What are the growth prospects and trends in the LED Traffic Signs and Signals industry?

The LED traffic signs and signals market growth is driven by various factors and trends. The LED traffic signs and signals market is witnessing significant growth, driven by factors such as rising urbanization, increasing vehicle populations, and a heightened focus on road safety and effective traffic management. These advanced devices offer improved visibility and clarity, essential for conveying crucial information to drivers and pedestrians, particularly in low-light and adverse weather conditions. Government initiatives and investments in smart city infrastructure are further fueling market expansion, as they aim to enhance transportation systems and reduce traffic-related accidents. Technological advancements in LED technology, including greater energy efficiency and longer lifespans, are making these solutions more attractive to municipalities and transportation agencies. Additionally, the growing awareness of sustainable practices is promoting the adoption of eco-friendly LED traffic solutions, positioning the market for continued growth in the years ahead. Overall, the LED traffic signs and signals market is set to flourish, reflecting the rising demand for innovative and effective traffic control systems. Hence, all these factors contribute to LED traffic signs and signals market growth.

What is included in market segmentation?

The report has segmented the market into the following categories:

By Type

Solar

Electric Power

By Product Type

Traffic Signals

Variable Message Signs

Guidance Signs

Warning Signs

Others

By Technology

Conventional LED

Smart LED

By Application

Urban Areas

Highways

Construction Sites

Others

By End User

Private Sector

Public Sector

Europe

Germany

United Kingdom

France

Italy

Spain

Russia

Poland

Benelux

Nordic

Rest of Europe

Asia Pacific

China

Japan

India

South Korea

ASEAN

Australia & New Zealand

Rest of Asia Pacific

Latin America

Brazil

Mexico

Argentina

Middle East & Africa

Saudi Arabia

South Africa

United Arab Emirates

Israel

Rest of MEA

Who are the key players operating in the industry?

The report covers the major market players including:

ARCUS USA Inc.

D G Controls Ltd.

Econolite Control Products Inc.

Envoys Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

European Safety Systems Ltd.

Federal Signal Corp.

Horizon Signal Technologies Inc.

LITE-ON Technology Corp.

North America Traffic

Pfannenberg Group Holding GmbH

Sinowatcher Technology Co. Ltd.

Traffic Safety Corp.

Trafitronics India Pvt. Ltd.

Ver Mac

Yangzhou Xintong Transport Equipment Group Co., Ltd

Beijing Wistron Technology Ltd

Yunex Traffic

Hesham Industrial Solutions

View Full Report: https://www.reportsandinsights.com/report/LED Traffic Signs and Signals-market

If you require any specific information that is not covered currently within the scope of the report, we will provide the same as a part of the customization.

About Us:

Reports and Insights consistently mееt international benchmarks in the market research industry and maintain a kееn focus on providing only the highest quality of reports and analysis outlooks across markets, industries, domains, sectors, and verticals. We have bееn catering to varying market nееds and do not compromise on quality and research efforts in our objective to deliver only the very best to our clients globally.

Our offerings include comprehensive market intelligence in the form of research reports, production cost reports, feasibility studies, and consulting services. Our team, which includes experienced researchers and analysts from various industries, is dedicated to providing high-quality data and insights to our clientele, ranging from small and medium businesses to Fortune 1000 corporations.

Contact Us:

Reports and Insights Business Research Pvt. Ltd. 1820 Avenue M, Brooklyn, NY, 11230, United States Contact No: +1-(347)-748-1518 Email: sales@reportsandinsights.com Website: https://www.reportsandinsights.com/ Follow us on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/report-and-insights/ Follow us on twitter: https://twitter.com/ReportsandInsi1

[bbmledsblog]

BBM LED: Leading the Way in LED Traffic Light Manufacturing

In the bustling world of urban infrastructure, traffic management plays a crucial role in ensuring safety and efficiency on our roads. One of the most vital components in traffic management systems is the traffic light, and when it comes to sourcing high-quality, reliable traffic lights, BBM LED stands out as a premier traffic light manufacturer.

A Beacon of Innovation: BBM LED’s Expertise in LED Traffic Lights

As a leading LED traffic light manufacturer, BBM LED is committed to producing advanced LED traffic signal lights that meet the highest standards of performance and durability. With a focus on innovation and quality, BBM LED has established itself as a trusted name among traffic light suppliers globally.

Why Choose BBM LED for Your Traffic Light Needs?

State-of-the-Art Technology:

BBM LED leverages cutting-edge technology to design and manufacture top-of-the-line LED traffic signal lights. Their products are engineered with the latest advancements in LED technology, ensuring bright, clear signals that enhance visibility and safety for drivers and pedestrians alike.

Custom Solutions for Diverse Requirements:

Understanding that different locations and situations require unique solutions, BBM LED offers customized options for their LED traffic lights. Whether you need a standard traffic light or a tailored solution that includes specific features or design modifications, BBM LED’s team of experts is ready to assist.

Commitment to Quality:

At BBM LED, quality is not just a promise but a practice. The company employs rigorous quality control processes to ensure that every traffic light produced meets stringent safety and performance standards. Their dedication to excellence has earned them a reputation as a reliable LED traffic light manufacturer.

Global Reach:

BBM LED serves a diverse range of clients across the globe. Their ability to cater to international markets speaks to their adaptability and expertise. As a prominent traffic light supplier, BBM LED’s products are used in various traffic management systems worldwide.

Eco-Friendly Solutions:

In line with global trends towards sustainability, BBM LED is dedicated to producing environmentally friendly products. Their LED traffic signal lights are designed to be energy-efficient, which helps reduce carbon footprints and lower operational costs for traffic management authorities.

BBM LED’s Product Line

BBM LED offers an extensive range of products designed to meet various traffic management needs:

LED Traffic Lights: Reliable, high-visibility traffic lights designed for urban and rural settings.

LED Traffic Signal Lights: Advanced signal lights that offer clear and consistent performance.

Gas Price Signs: Durable, weather-resistant signs for displaying fuel prices.

Each product is crafted with attention to detail and a commitment to quality, making BBM LED a top choice for those in need of reliable traffic management solutions.

Partnering with BBM LED

For municipalities, transportation agencies, and businesses looking for LED traffic light solutions, BBM LED provides more than just products; they offer partnerships. Their team works closely with clients to understand their specific needs and provide solutions that ensure the efficiency and safety of traffic systems.

In summary, BBM LED stands out as a leading LED traffic light manufacturer, offering high-quality products and customized solutions to meet diverse traffic management needs. Their commitment to innovation, quality, and sustainability makes them a preferred partner for clients seeking effective and reliable traffic light solutions.

For more information or to explore BBM LED’s range of products, visit their website or contact their sales team today.

[delvenservices]

Mechanical Control Cables Market Manufacturers Analysis

Mechanical Control Cables Market for Military and Aerospace Market, by Application (Aerial, Land, and Marine), Type (Push-pull, Pull-pull), Platform, Material, End-Use (Commercial, Defense, Non-Aero Military) and Geography (North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Middle East and Africa and South America)

Market Overview

The global Mechanical Control Cables Market for Military and Aerospace market size is projected to reach USD 12.4 billion by 2026 at a CAGR of 5.4% from USD 9.2 billion in 2021 during the forecast period 2021-2028.

Control cable are cables specially designed to send signals in order to control the functioning of an equipment. These are commonly used as machinery supply cabled, motor cables or as robotic cables. These go through various process f automation like automation application, induces signal transmission, measurement regulation and control.

With the surge in demand for military land vehicles and land vessels along with increased air traffic and demand for commercial aircraft are some of the factors that have supported long-term expansion for Mechanical Control Cables Market for Military and Aerospace Market

Request For Free Sample Report: https://www.delvens.com/get-free-sample/mechanical-control-cables-market-for-military-and-aerospace-market-trends-forecast-till-2028

Regional Analysis

North America is expected to be the largest market during the forecast period. With the technological advancements and the development of infrastructure of military and navy have led to growth of market in the region.

Competitive Landscape

Key Players

Crane Aerospace & Electronics

Triumph Group

Elliott Manufacturing

Orscheln Products

Glassmaster Controls Company

Loos & Co. Inc.

Bergen Cable Technology Inc.

Cable Manufacturing & Assembly Inc.

Wescon Controls

Tyler Madison Inc.

Escadean Ltd

Sila Group

Cablecraft Motion Controls

Ringspann GmbH

Lexco Cable Mfg.

Drallim Industries Limited

Grand Rapids Controls LLC.

VPS Control Systems Inc.

AeroControlex

Küster Holding

To Grow Your Business Revenue, Make an Inquiry Before Buying at: https://www.delvens.com/Inquire-before-buying/mechanical-control-cables-market-for-military-and-aerospace-market-trends-forecast-till-2028

Recent Developments

In May 2021, Jaunt Crane Aerospace & Electronics signed a pact in order to Collaborate with BAE Systems on Power Electronics for Jaunt Air Mobility

In August 2018, Quickstep collaborated with Triumph Group. This collaboration offered various composites solutions to customer base in the US and Australian defense and aerospace.

Reasons to Acquire

Increase your understanding of the market for identifying the best and suitable strategies and decisions on the basis of sales or revenue fluctuations in terms of volume and value, distribution chain analysis, market trends and factors

Gain authentic and granular data access for Mechanical Control Cables Market for Military and Aerospace market so as to understand the trends and the factors involved behind changing market situations

Qualitative and quantitative data utilization to discover arrays of future growth from the market trends of leaders to market visionaries and then recognize the significant areas to compete in the future

In-depth analysis of the changing trends of the market by visualizing the historic and forecast year growth patterns

Purchase the Report at: https://www.delvens.com/checkout/mechanical-control-cables-market-for-military-and-aerospace-market-trends-forecast-till-2028

Report Scope

Mechanical Control Cables Market for Military and Aerospace Market is segmented into Type, Platform, Material, Application, End-Use and geography.

On the basis of Type

Push-pull

Pull-pull

On the basis of End-User

Commercial

Defense

Non-aero Military

On the basis of Application

Aerial

Flight Control

Engine Control

Auxiliary Control

Landing Gears

Others

Land

Engine Control

Brake Control

Others

Marine

Engine Control

Others

On the basis of Material

Wire Material

Jacket Material

On the basis of Region

Asia Pacific

North America

Europe

South America

Middle East & Africa

Read More:

About Us:

Delvens is a strategic advisory and consulting company headquartered in New Delhi, India. The company holds expertise in providing syndicated research reports, customized research reports and consulting services. Delvens qualitative and quantitative data is highly utilized by each level from niche to major markets, serving more than 1K prominent companies by assuring to provide the information on country, regional and global business environment. We have a database for more than 45 industries in more than 115+ major countries globally.

Delvens database assists the clients by providing in-depth information in crucial business decisions. Delvens offers significant facts and figures across various industries namely Healthcare, IT & Telecom, Chemicals & Materials, Semiconductor & Electronics, Energy, Pharmaceutical, Consumer Goods & Services, Food & Beverages. Our company provides an exhaustive and comprehensive understanding of the business environment.

Contact Us:

UNIT NO. 2126, TOWER B,

21ST FLOOR ALPHATHUM

SECTOR 90 NOIDA 201305, IN

+44-20-8638-5055

SALES@DELVENS.COM

The Mechanical Control Cables Market report answers a number of crucial questions, including:

Which companies dominate the Mechanical Control Cables Market?

What current trends will influence the market over the next few years?

 What are the market's opportunities, obstacles, and driving forces?

What predictions for the future can help with strategic decision-making?

What advantages does market research offer businesses?

Which particular market segments should industry players focus on in order to take advantage of the most recent technical advancements?

What is the anticipated growth rate for the market economy globally?

[chetanare]

Global LED Traffic Signs and Signals Market Vendor Landscape with SWOT Analysis 2020 to 2024

Global LED Traffic Signs and Signals Market Vendor Landscape with SWOT Analysis 2020 to 2024

KandJ market research added a new market research report on Global LED Traffic Signs and Signals Market Research Report 2020-2024 in the database of market research collaterals consisting of overall market scenario with prevalent and future growth prospects, among other growth strategies used by key players to stay ahead of the market. The Research has the ability to help the decision-makers in…

[shashiemrf]

Surface Mount Technology Equipment Market Analysis of Key Players, End User, Demand and Consumption By 2022

The global surface mount technology equipment market is on an upward growth trajectory and is expected to reach USD 4 Bn by the end of the forecast period of 2016-2022, reveals Market Research Future (MRFR) in a minutely analyzed research report. The market has been observing persistent growth on account of the ever increasing demand for smart gadgets and need for miniaturization of products and higher accuracy. Rapid replacement of the traditional through-hole method by surface mount technology is a growing trend in various countries which is propelling the market growth. Surface mount technology equipment finds its application over different industry verticals which include automotive, consumer electronics, healthcare, aerospace, and others which boosts the market growth primarily. The automotive industry is one of the most significant end users of the surface mount technology equipment. Electric cars generally have a high number of electric components as compared to traditional vehicles and surface mount technology equipment are very efficient in handling the complex electronics components without any malfunction. Thus, the growing automotive industry and rising production of electric vehicles augment the growth of the market.  High usage of surface mount technology in consumer electronics owing to need for miniaturization and growth in the electronics industry fosters the market growth. Escalating need for printed circuit boards in smartphones and the smart card industry reflects positively on the growth of the market. On the downside, the high cost of surface mount technology equipment is restraining the market growth. Moreover, surface mount technology equipment is not suitable for high power or high voltage parts such as power circuit which too acts as a limiting factor. All of these factors in conjunction will help the market capture a CAGR of 8% over the forecast period. SegmentationThe global surface mount technology market has been segmented based on equipment, end user industries, and components. By equipment, the market has been segmented into Pick and place, Coating equipment, Solder equipment, Cleaning agents, and Rework and repair equipment. By end use industries, the market has been segmented into telecommunication, consumer electronics, automotive and medical. By components, the market has been segmented into passive surface mount devices, transistor & diodes, and integrated circuits.Get Free Sample Report @ https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/sample_request/2248 Regional AnalysisThe global surface mount technology equipment market spans across the regions of Asia Pacific, North America, Europe and Rest of the World. Asia Pacific is at the forefront of the global market. Countries such as China, India, and Japan are leading the market owing to the abundance of skilled labor in the region and the growing penetration of high tech devices which require miniaturization. Also, high demand for consumer electronics from the populous countries of India and China also boost the market growthCompetitive LandscapeThe notable players in the global surface mount technology market include CyberOptics Corporation (U.S.), Mycronic AB (Sweden), Nordson Corporation (U.S.), Orbotech Ltd. (Israel), Fuji Machine Manufacturing Co., Ltd.(Japan), Assembly Systems (Germany), and Hitachi High-Technologies Corporation (Japan).Industry UpdatesIn July 2018, Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., introduced two new series of surface mount automotive Grade power LEDs. The LEDs are ideal for automotive interior and exterior lighting, traffic signals and signs, LCD switches and for general use. In July 2018, Calgary-based Blackline Safety Corp. announced an investment of USD 1 Million in surface mount technology equipment. The investment will allow the company to reduce their overall costs for which they have expanded their premises. Table of Content:1 MARKET INTRODUCTION1.1 INTRODUCTION1.2 SCOPE OF STUDY1.2.1 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE1.2.2 ASSUMPTIONS1.2.3 LIMITATIONS1.3 MARKET STRUCTURE 2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY2.1 RESEARCH NETWORK SOLUTION2.2

PRIMARY RESEARCH2.3 SECONDARY RESEARCH2.4 FORECAST MODEL2.4.1 MARKET DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSIS & FORECAST2.4.2 MARKET SIZE ESTIMATION 3 MARKET DYNAMICS3.1 INTRODUCTION3.2 MARKET DRIVERS3.3 MARKET CHALLENGES3.4 MARKET OPPORTUNITIES3.5 MARKET RESTRAINTS 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5. MARKET FACTOR ANALYSIS5.1 PORTER’S FIVE FORCES ANALYSIS5.2 SUPPLY CHAIN ANALYSIS 6 SURFACE MOUNT TECNOLOGY EQUIPMENT MARKET, BY SEGMENTS6.1 INTRODUCTION6.2 MARKET STATISTICS6.2.1 BY EQUIPMENT6.2.1.1 PICK AND PLACE6.2.1.2 COATING EQUIPMENT6.2.1.3 SOLDER EQUIPMENT6.2.1.4 CLEANING AGENTS6.2.1.5 REWORK AND REPAIR EQUIPMENT6.2.2 BY END USER INDUSTRIES6.2.2.1 TELECOMMUNICATION6.2.2.2 CONSUMER ELECTRONICS6.2.2.3 AUTOMOTIVE6.2.2.4 MEDICAL6.2.3 BY COMPONENTS6.2.3.1 PASSIVE SURFACE MOUNT DEVICES6.2.3.2 TRANSISTOR & DIODES6.2.3.3 INTEGRATED CIRCUITS6.2.4 BY GEOGRAPHY6.2.4.1 NORTH AMERICA6.2.4.2 EUROPE6.2.4.3 ASIA-PACIFIC6.2.4.4 REST OF THE WORLD 7 COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS7.1 MARKET SHARE ANALYSIS7.2 COMPANY PROFILES7.2.1 CYBEROPTICS CORPORATION (U.S.)7.2.2 FUJI MACHINE MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.(JAPAN)7.2.3 MYCRONIC AB (SWEDEN)7.2.4 ASSEMBLY SYSTEMS (GERMANY)7.2.5 NORDSON CORPORATION (U.S.)7.2.6 HITACHI HIGH-TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (JAPAN)7.2.7 ORBOTECH LTD. (ISRAEL)7.2.8 APPLIED IMAGE, INC. (U.S.)7.2.9 KBC ELECTRONICS, INC. (U.S.)7.2.10 OHMITE MANUFACTURING CO. LLC (U.S.)7.2.11 OTHERSGet Complete Report @ https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/reports/surface-mount-technology-equipment-market-2248About UsMarket Research Future (MRFR) is an esteemed company with a reputation of serving clients across domains of information technology (IT), healthcare, and chemicals. Our analysts undertake painstaking primary and secondary research to provide a seamless report with a 360 degree perspective. Data is compared against reputed organizations, trustworthy databases, and international surveys for producing impeccable reports backed with graphical and statistical information.We at MRFR provide syndicated and customized reports to clients as per their liking. Our consulting services are aimed at eliminating business risks and driving the bottomline margins of our clients. The hands-on experience of analysts and capability of performing astute research through interviews, surveys, and polls are a statement of our prowess. We constantly monitor the market for any fluctuations and update our reports on a regular basis.Media Contact:Market Research Future (Part of Wantstats Research and Media Private Limited)99 Hudson Street, 5Th FloorNew York, NY 10013United States of America+1 628 258 0071 (US)+44 2035 002 764 (UK)Email: sales@marketresearchfuture.comWebsite: https://www.marketresearchfuture.com

[mail00omkar]

LED Traffic Signs Market Growth Prediction, Investment Opportunity, Product Type and Forecast 2027

LED Traffic Signs market analysis on global market is a thorough study that offers a select combination of skillful market realities. The study shows changing market trends as well as the market size of individual segments in this market. This report mentions various top players involved in this market. Analysis of the LED Traffic Signs market begins with a market-based outline and underlines the current information on the global market, complemented by data on the current situation. The report further discusses market share, market size, revenue growth, emerging trends, and offers a comprehensive industry overview.

Global LED Traffic Signs market report is a comprehensive study of the global market and has been recently added by Reports and Data to its extensive database. Augmented demand for the global market has increased in the last few years. This informative research report has been scrutinized by using primary and secondary research. The LED Traffic Signs market is a valuable source of reliable data including data of the current market.

Market Overview:

The automotive industry has expanded exponentially in the recent decades owing to increasing demand for vehicles in emerging economies. Countries like China, India, Vietnam and others have offered lucrative growth opportunities to the automotive sector as the growing middle-class population and rising disposable income in these countries have created a massive demand for passenger vehicles as well as other types of vehicles.

Leading companies included in the study:

Voxson

Yaham

Traffic Safety Corp.

Messagemaker

EKTA

Hunan Xiangxu Traffic & Lighting Co. Ltd.

SWARCO

Federal Signal

Stars Plastic

Econolite Group

Aldridge Traffic Systems

Alphatronics

Arcus Light

D.G. Controls

Market coverage based on Type:

Flashing

Non-flashing

Market coverage based on Application:

Railways

Airports

Urban Traffic

Others

Highways

Roadways

Pathways

Other Routes

In the more mature markets of developed nations, there has been a rising demand for electric and hybrid vehicles. Concern for climate change and the catastrophic effect carbon emissions can have on the planet, strict legislature has been put in place around the world. This has driven the growth of electric automotive industry.

Get a sample of the report @ https://www.reportsanddata.com/sample-enquiry-form/957

The key questions answered in the report:

What will be the market size and growth rate in the forecast year?

What are the key factors driving the LED Traffic Signs market?

What are the risks and challenges in front of the market?

Who are the key vendors in the LED Traffic Signs market?

What are the trending factors influencing the market shares?

What are the key outcomes of Porter’s five forces model?

Which are the global opportunities for expanding the LED Traffic Signs market?

To know more about the report @ https://www.reportsanddata.com/report-detail/led-traffic-signs-market

Across the globe, different regions such as North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and Middle East & Africa have been examined on the basis of productivity and manufacturing base. Researchers of this report highlight different terminologies of the LED Traffic Signs market.

This research report represents a 360-degree overview of the competitive landscape of the LED Traffic Signs market. Furthermore, it offers massive data relating to the recent trends, technological advancements, tools, and methodologies. The research report analyzes the LED Traffic Signs market in a detailed and concise manner for better insights into the businesses.

The research study has taken the help of graphical presentation techniques such as info graphics, charts, tables, and pictures. It provides guidelines for both established players and new entrants in the LED Traffic Signs market.

The detailed elaboration of the LED Traffic Signs market has been provided by applying industry analysis techniques such as SWOT and Porter’s five-technique. Collectively, this research report offers a reliable evaluation of the global market to present the overall framework of businesses.

Request a discount on the report @ https://www.reportsanddata.com/discount-enquiry-form/957

Table of Contents:

LED Traffic Signs market Overview

Economic Impact on Industry

Market Competition by Manufacturers

Production, Revenue (Value) by Region

Supply (Production), Consumption, Export, Import by Regions

Production, Revenue (Value), Price Trend by Type

Market Analysis by Application

Manufacturing Cost Analysis

Industrial Chain, Sourcing Strategy and Downstream Buyers

Marketing Strategy Analysis, Distributors/Traders

Market Effect Factors Analysis

LED Traffic Signs market Forecast

Reasons for Buying this Report

This report provides pin-point analysis for changing competitive dynamics

It provides a forward-looking perspective on different factors driving or restraining market growth

It provides a six-year forecast assessed on the basis of how the market is predicted to grow

It helps in understanding the key product segments and their future

It provides pin point analysis of changing competition dynamics and keeps you ahead of competitors

It helps in making informed business decisions by having complete insights of market and by making in-depth analysis of market segments

Request a customization of the report @ https://www.reportsanddata.com/request-customization-form/957

About us:

Reports and Data is a market research and consulting company that provides syndicated research reports, customized research reports, and consulting services. Our solutions purely focus on your purpose to locate, target and analyze consumer behavior shifts across demographics, across industries and help client’s make a smarter business decision. We offer market intelligence studies ensuring relevant and fact-based research across a multiple industries including Healthcare, Technology, Chemicals, Power and Energy. We consistently update our research offerings to ensure our clients are aware about the latest trends existent in the market. Reports and Data has a strong base of experienced analysts from varied areas of expertise.

Contact us:

+1-212-710-1370

Reports and data

sales@reportsanddata.com

Read More:

Automotive Gaskets And Seals Market

Automotive Leaf Springs Market

Automotive Maintenance Tools Market

Top 5 Trends That Will Shape the Defence Industry In 2021

Check our upcoming research reports @ https://www.reportsanddata.com/upcoming-reports

Visit our blog for more industry updates @ https://www.reportsanddata.com/blogs

[rohitch]

Cryptocurrency Trading Guide For Beginners

Cryptocurrency Trading

Trading is the standard practice of transacting that involves money, a valuable asset, or a commodity. The world economy relies upon the phenomena. It dictates the prices of every entity, which is in demand or otherwise. Contemplating the similar behaviour in cryptocurrency, the mode of transaction and trading in cryptocurrency is understandable.

Need of cryptocurrency

The basis of any invention or discovery is the need. If it works in tandem with human welfare, acceptance is the subject matter of time. To serve the concern of the digital economy and its far-reaching effects on humanity, it came into existence. Besides, keeping safety the priority, the crypto form of the digital economy is finding places in people’s hearts.

Precisely, it is the way ahead and mode of keeping your hard-earned money within the purview of your pockets. Thieves can have no claim on it.

What is the utility of crypto trading?

It is a question that validates the importance of cryptocurrency trading. Why did the need arise? What was the requirement to jump on it from the conventional and traditional stocks and commodity market trading?

One answer that suffices it all is the responsive feature. It is time that we all are running short. In that way, stocks take a longer duration to fit in your portfolio. On the other hand, cryptocurrency is right there in your account within a few minutes.

For now, crypto trading is a decentralised entity. No government, authority, and administration control it. The liberty that it warrants makes it an attractive option for users.

Stocks and commodities have to follow the rules and regulations. It abides by the laws of a nation. So, companies listed in stock markets across the world have a governing body regulating them.

Whereas cryptocurrency does not depend on outside dynamics. It has its own set of advanced computer mechanisms, networks, and software running it.

The technology heads it ahead of other volatile markets. And security features are a given.

Mechanism of cryptocurrency

It relies on cryptography for verifying each transaction. It is posing as an alternative form of economy for many. However, for now, it overtly depends upon the third party as the means of exchange. The deduction in the overall value of amount hurts the prospects.

Banks may take a day or more to acknowledge receiving the payment. It causes inconvenience.

Though, Bitcoin is one such cryptocurrency that delivers on all the doubts. Its optimum transparency technology can help cut down on corruption and help in mitigating inflation.

Cryptocurrency trading for beginners

Before we invest our time, energy, and money in anything, proper research does not harm. And beginners should remain wary enough before initiating a step. In-depth research, study, and investigation can pave the way for understanding the dynamics of this trading.

Steps aiding you to deal in the game of crypto trading

Beginners need to be cautious about every stepping stone. They should consider noting down their activities in a diary. This exercise enriches their experiences and teaches them a lesson.

Write down all your passwords, URLs, login credentials, confidential information regarding your crypto wallet.

As you are new to the game, make sure to invest in the blue-chip or the best prospects.

Do not store your password on a browser or your login manager or devices that have access to the internet.

Violating the above step can make you easy prey for hackers, so watch out.

Long and convoluted passwords are saviours for life. It applies handsomely for everyone.

To keep up with the first line of defence, take up complex questions and answer them likewise.

Sanitise your system before making any transaction on it. A single malware or virus can lead to mayhem.

Make exchanges from official currencies to deny any cheating.

Using the same password for other accounts can dupe you.

Platforms assisting cryptocurrency trading

Cryptocurrency trading platforms help you in buying and selling of your favourite virtual currency. Here will we shed light on the best performing platforms that are ruling the chores of the trade.

Bitfinex:-This platform plays on its user-interface acceptability. It is the tipping point that attracts a vast footprint. Its support to all renowned virtual or cryptocurrencies makes it a good prospect for traders. The less time lag allows here, allows the buyer to get hold of the entity in a budget. Though, not everything here is hunky-dory. The threat of security looms large. It has a past of landing in the hands of hackers.

Coinbase:-  It is one of those platforms that trends Bitcoin. People lay their faith in it without inhibitions. It comes packed with multiple features that work in favour of buyers, sellers, lookers, learners, beginners, technicians and everyone involved in it. Folks keep it on their priority because of unbreachable security features and acceptance of money from a plethora of wallets. It offers a fantastic buying limit at a low cost. What else would a beginner want? Despite heavy traffic, it manoeuvres your transaction in no time.

Change now:- If you are willing not to take too much botheration, then the platform serves the purpose effectively. Sign-up is not required for an account opening here. It is a tailor-made space for those who want everything quickly. They provide 24 hours support for 365 days a year. No extra penny gets charged for a transaction. The artificial intelligence-enabled element in it informs the best buys regularly.

Poloniex:- It is gaining momentum in the hearts of people because of the deliverables. Investors are finding their friend on the platform due to high exchange and volumes in some cryptocurrencies. It provides seamless trading to its clients. The platform can store the data in offline mode also, which adds to the security purpose—Poloniex strategies its ideas with algorithmic technology to serve people with better chances of earning.

Changelly:- People who wish to keep their identity under wraps or conceal it, the platform assists them in doing so. The trading finds its initiation through an email, and it makes everything hassle-free. It is accessible to all from across the globe. So, the universal appeal is translating into positive word of mouth. It has the potential to convert cryptocurrencies using other applications. Clients can use it as a widget also. Changelly does not have any limitations cap to man it.

Kraken:- This website works on leveraging the user experience through its simplified and super responsive features. It offers solutions to all types of traders who visit Kraken. The site provides plans that are accessible for beginners to veterans, coupled with flawless customer support. The enchanting services that it swears by have cut short the possibility of fraudulent to bare minimum.

Bittrex:-The platform is revolutionising the dynamics of trades by enhancing public perceptions. It stands out in standards in terms of technology trading cryptocurrency market. The resourcefulness in the stream transactional capacity and faith of customers has led it to become one of the finest. It is one of the rarest sites that allow third party intervention through API. Digital wallets, advanced blockchain technology, swift transactions, and focus on security concerns make it viable.

How to go about trading in the cryptocurrency market?

As others would mention, there is no rocket science to it. You should take your chance but wisely. Consider the virtual currency market as some traffic signal. Stop when it is reds (dipping furiously), get your funds in yellow, and in green just invest.

There are no rules for guessing, and you have to be patient with your greedy appetite. An appetiser in these scenarios should quench your thirst. Quest for more significant profits can cast troubles.

Some of the essential tips that one pay heed to:-

Rewards and risks may seem synonymous with each other. There is a thin line manning both intentions. So, never invest more than you can lose.

Averaging your portfolio from time to time is advisable to learn tricks of the trade.

Do not hesitate to make small profits.

Greed takes a toll on your wealth. So, be wise and exit while the crypto market is surging.

Do not make a significant investment at once. Take your time and picture the volatility, fundamentals, and fluctuations.

Unlike stock markets, cryptocurrencies trade for twenty-four hours a day and three sixty-five days a year. This phenomenon makes it highly unpredictable.

Eye bitcoin:-If you are willing to scale heights in the market, then you must keep a tab on how bitcoin performs. The reason for it is that most of the crypto or virtual currencies get traded using bitcoin. If it is on the rise, the market shows signs of a surge, else it slips.

Small portion investment:-You cannot gulp the entire food at once. Small portions intake with some variety helps in better digestion and taste, of course. Similarly, investing your money on a single virtual currency can incur losses. It can cause a deficiency in the wallet and your account. For result-oriented and profitable outcomes, invest in a few currencies. If one causes you some loss, who knows the other one can provide you with some respite. It is like being mindful.

Important categorisation:-While putting yourself into research, categorisation plays a pivotal role. You come across relatively volatile coins, which have limited volumes but enormous fluctuations. There are some that trail with great publicity and fall short on delivery point. A few currencies seem right for the future, holding them for long-term is profitable. Bifurcate or categorise them to create a balance in your investments.

Do not Panic:-Beginners tend to feel helpless when markets shatter. These are the testing times. Have patience, consider them as an opportunity for calculated investment. That can result in a profitable venture. Correction or dip in the market is like rain for farmers. You can sow the seeds and wait for good crops. Here your calm works as the sunlight to ream them.

Put a stop loss:-Initially, when you are susceptible and vulnerable regarding your coins’ performance, put a barrier. It is known as stop-loss in the technical term. If you do not want to hold a coin for a longer time and it’s dipping, put a stop-loss on a specific price. Once it touches that, you’ll exit automatically, as your asset gets sold. That can save you from incurring heavy losses.

If you are a fresher and thinking of getting into the unknown waters of cryptocurrency trading, just do it. Never have two thoughts once you decide to experience something new. Research about it, learn from other’s mistakes, analyse, check the volumes and see the past. Take one step at a time. Once you claim expertise in the domain, I’m sure that you will over time, experiment. Once you make profits, keep your invested money on the shelf and use it instead for future transactions. And pass on the sound advice.

[muhamedshafaan]

The Latest Digital Marketing Trends For 2021

1)No Click Searches(Featured Snippet)

Generally, when you have a question, you type your question into Google, hit enter, and click on the article that best answers your question or gives you the information you need.

Sometimes though, the answer is suggested to you in a paragraph at the top of the result page. These boxes, called Position Zero in search engine results, often come with an image and all the information you were looking for displayed in an easy to distinguish box. You have the answer you need, so you don’t need to click on an article. This is what’s called a no-click search. Google and other search engines provide these to help people find answers quickly and keep people on their website (and off of yours).

When search engines use your website to show information to searchers, it shows you’re providing valuable content. The trick is to make sure you add something to these snippets that will draw the reader in and entice them to click on your website for more information, and away from the search engine that has provided them with a quick answer.

2)Google Verified Listings For Local SEO

Having a geographically-defined service area with Google My Business listing aids in showing up for “near me” searches. It also lets customers learn more about your business within Google Search results. At a glance your potential customer can see your open hours, address, and star rating left by other users.

In order to make sure the information displayed is correct, you should verify your Google business listing and keep information up to date. The benefits of verifying your business are:

You can manage your business information in Search, Maps, and other Google properties.

Verified businesses are considered more trustworthy and reputable than unverified competitors.

When you verify your business, you’re preventing fraud in the event that someone else tries to act as the owner and claims your listing as theirs.

3)Voice Search

Voice-activated digital assistants continue to be huge sellers, and let’s be realistic – some households talk to Alexa, Siri, or Cortana more than they speak to family members. The popularity of voice search both at home and on our phones has led to one of the most significant shifts in using keywords. When writing content, choose your keywords based on the questions people may ask when using Siri or Alexa. This can increase your visibility, and this digital marketing trend shows no sign of slowing down.

4)Visual Search

Instead of typing a description into Google, users can now upload an image and get information about an item just from a picture. If they’re uploading a plant photo, the search returns species information, while a landmark image will return historical data. When a user searches a product, it returns similar products and where to buy them. Google Lens, Pinterest Lens, and related search tools turn a user’s camera into a search bar.

You can Add high-quality images tagged with descriptive keywords, introduce an image search into your online inventory, having an image sitemap will increase the likelihood of your images being discovered by search engines , use descriptive filenames for images before uploading them to your website,  add alternative text to all image aka “Alt tags”.

5)Online Reviews

Online reviews can make or break your business’s ability to attract new customers or clients. While any company can talk up their products or services, other consumers can provide real, unbiased reviews. Having many reviews from verified sources can make your business stand out from the competition and start building trust before they even click on your website. The most useful review for a business to receive is through Google Business. These are the most trusted sources, they’re the most visible, and your Google Business listing lets people call or visit the website. Facebook is another excellent source of online reviews, and you can use them to build a testimonials page on your website, while Yelp is suitable for restaurants, hotels, and recreational businesses.

6)Automated And Smart Bidding In Google Ads

To get the best possible results from a Google Ads campaign, Ads specialists analyze every piece of data and continuously tweak and adjust keywords, bids, and ad phrasing. While this obsessive attention to detail gets results, it’s exhausting. A business owner trying to run a campaign may become completely overwhelmed and end up failing.

Enter automated bidding strategies. These allow Google to use machine learning to analyze the tremendous amount of data it has on its users to adjust your bids in real-time. Ads specialists can embrace automated strategies while still being in complete control. Automated bidding isn’t anything new – Smart Bidding made its debut in 2016 – but most business owners aren’t aware of what it is or what it does.

It’s important to note that there are still plenty of human strategies involved in optimizing PPC performance. You can’t just set it and forget it and expect results – you still need to test everything, including testing automated bid strategies against each other.

7)Interactive Content

Adding interactive sections to your website is a great way to provide value for visitors, get them to engage with your website, and learn more about them.

Examples of interactive marketing include:

Assessments like quizzes

Polls and surveys

Calculators

Contests

8)Shoppable Posts

If you’ve got an e-commerce business, having a link to your shop in your bio or linking to a specific product in your Instagram Stories is great. Over the past few years, Instagram, Pinterest, and Facebook have all introduced ways for e-commerce stores to create shoppable posts. Using a native integration, they’ve made it easy to tag and shop products directly in your posts. For online retailers, this is a great way to drive traffic to product pages .

9)Social Media Stories

Social media stories are easy to use and are an incredible way to feature products, events, and even behind-the-scenes experiences. When you consider that one-third of the Instagram Stories with the highest amount of views come from businesses, it’s hard to ignore that Instagram Stories and Stories on other platforms are an effective form of digital marketing. Once you offer a behind the scenes look, discount code, or limited edition product through Stories, followers will be hooked on your updates – as long as you deliver.

Some easy ideas for adding value to your social media stories are:

Search for customer content your business is tagged in and repost it onto your Stories

Upload livestream video for people who didn’t see it live

Utilize polls, Q&As, and quizzes to engage viewers with your brand and encourage their involvement in your content

Create simple animations and short videos of your product or service in action

9)Employee Engagement

If you have a business with multiple employees that are dedicated, engaged, and excited about the work they do, this can be a tremendous asset not only to your company in general but also to your online reputation.

When employees love their work and the company they do it for, they tend to talk about it. And they should be encouraged to talk about it online while tagging or mentioning the company and sharing interesting stories.

Employee engagement builds your online community in a natural and relatable way. LinkedIn is an excellent example of how this works. You can have a company page where you post events and share articles, but to get even more traffic and engagement, have your employees share and comment on these posts.

The LinkedIn algorithm values personal connections, so this spreads the news out to more connections, signaling to LinkedIn that the people behind the post are active and engaged with their company. You may also consider setting goals and rewarding employees who often share your content; that way, the people who work for you are even more excited about sharing company news with their network.

10) Mobile First Websites

Why choose a mobile-first web design?

Your page will load faster, improving both visitor experience and search engine ranking results.

Less expensive than building an app and a website.

Integrate mobile features like voice detection and camera use into your website.

Increased sales and conversions! Improving the user experience on mobile helps users navigate the website with greater ease and increases conversions.

11)Video Marketing

Think about the benefits of video marketing:

Customers respond well to videos.

They increase engagement.

It’s an effective way to show off new and existing products.

It’s easy to put together and cost-effective, especially compared to graphics and copy.

Live video, such as Facebook Live and Instagram Live, keeps people watching three times longer than standard video. It triggers the “fear of missing out” and hooks viewers in so they are the first to find some big news.

Personalized video advertising is being integrated into emails to create more personalized messages, share information more quickly, and prevent your message from being lost in a wall of text. Emails with videos have a click-through-rate that’s 8x higher than traditional email.

Product videos make customers feel more confident in what they’re buying, and they can offer a better sense of scale and specifications that text and pictures just can’t.

12)Page Speed

A slow-loading page is the number one reason users leave a website within a minute of landing on the page (also called the bounce rate)—even a second or two of a delay in how the page loads can negatively affect your conversion.

The good news is you can speed up your page load times pretty easily. First, optimize your images and make sure there are no large image files. If there are, compress them to where they are less than 100KB.

Next, reduce the number of internal redirects, specifically redirect chains that go through several redirects before landing on the correct URL and internal links to redirects. Reducing these can speed up your authority in Google and your page load speeds (both good things).

https://transorze.com/

[michaelbennettcrypto]

Bitcoin Falls Alongside US Futures as Economic Recovery Flatlines

Bitcoin price pulled back in the early trading session Tuesday after logging a strong opening for the weekend a day before.

The corrective action appeared as the rising number of COVID cases in the US prompted the Federal Reserve to make a stark warning.

The central bank said the trajectory of the US’s economic recovery would be bumpy despite promising data.

A modest rally in the Bitcoin market paused on Tuesday as traders pitted the signs of economic recovery against the resurgence in COVID cases in the US.

The BTC/USD exchange rate fell 1.16 percent to circa $9,234 as of 1018 GMT shortly after the US futures signaled a similar downside move. Futures linked to the S&P 500 plunged 0.91 percent, hinting that the benchmark index will open lower after the New York opening bell.

Bitcoin and S&P 500 over the past three months. Source: TradingView.com

The positive correlation between Bitcoin and the S&P 500 have grown higher in the last three months.

Altcoin Season, Fed Warning

Bitcoin’s plunge also followed a substantial capital shift to competing blockchain projects. Traders moved into the so-called altcoins to seek short-term profits, causing Bitcoin’s market dominance to decline by more than 1 percent.

It’s too funny that a few months ago everyone said ‘altcoins are dead’.

While right now; everyone is rushing in on them as they are moving.

More funny; the moment to accumulate them was the past year, when they were called dead.

Market psychology. $BTC #BITCOIN

— Crypto Michaël (@CryptoMichNL) July 7, 2020

One of the altcoin tokens even surged by as much as 22 percent against Bitcoin on a 24-hour adjusted timeframe.

Negative signals for Bitcoin also kept appearing from the mainstream market. Raphael Bostic, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, told FT in an interview that a resurgence in the COVID cases across the US is dampening economic recovery.

United States daily COVID cases. Source: ABC News

Late last week, the S&P 500, and its Wall Street peers rallied after the US jobs data released for the second-quarter showed a surge in employment numbers. Nevertheless, the report did not include June figures after the rise in COVID cases that led some states to impose lockdowns.

The comments from the Fed prompted investment bank Jefferies to say that economic recovery may have flatlined alongside stocks.

“The loss of momentum is broad-based, spanning small business activity, discretionary footfall, restaurant bookings, traffic congestion, and web traffic to state unemployment portals,” it said.

That left the S&P 500 rally facing red flags as it moves further into the third quarter. Likewise, Bitcoin merely followed the trend into negative territory.

Bitcoin Technical Outlook

Lack of homogenous fundamentals now keeps Bitcoin prone to moves on Wall Street. That leaves traders with only technical indicators to guess the cryptocurrency’s next directional bias.

“To reduce sell pressure we need this $9300 resistance broken,” one trader commented. “$9k has been protected well, but the dips there won’t get bought forever. Either hold this progress or I could see a further retrace being more possible.”

Bitcoin was trading near $9,242 at the time of this publication.

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

from Cryptocracken WP https://ift.tt/2C95vJw via IFTTT

[joshuajacksonlyblog]

Bitcoin Falls Alongside US Futures as Economic Recovery Flatlines

Bitcoin price pulled back in the early trading session Tuesday after logging a strong opening for the weekend a day before.

The corrective action appeared as the rising number of COVID cases in the US prompted the Federal Reserve to make a stark warning.

The central bank said the trajectory of the US’s economic recovery would be bumpy despite promising data.

A modest rally in the Bitcoin market paused on Tuesday as traders pitted the signs of economic recovery against the resurgence in COVID cases in the US.

The BTC/USD exchange rate fell 1.16 percent to circa $9,234 as of 1018 GMT shortly after the US futures signaled a similar downside move. Futures linked to the S&P 500 plunged 0.91 percent, hinting that the benchmark index will open lower after the New York opening bell.

Bitcoin and S&P 500 over the past three months. Source: TradingView.com

The positive correlation between Bitcoin and the S&P 500 have grown higher in the last three months.

Altcoin Season, Fed Warning

Bitcoin’s plunge also followed a substantial capital shift to competing blockchain projects. Traders moved into the so-called altcoins to seek short-term profits, causing Bitcoin’s market dominance to decline by more than 1 percent.

It’s too funny that a few months ago everyone said ‘altcoins are dead’.

While right now; everyone is rushing in on them as they are moving.

More funny; the moment to accumulate them was the past year, when they were called dead.

Market psychology. $BTC #BITCOIN

— Crypto Michaël (@CryptoMichNL) July 7, 2020

One of the altcoin tokens even surged by as much as 22 percent against Bitcoin on a 24-hour adjusted timeframe.

Negative signals for Bitcoin also kept appearing from the mainstream market. Raphael Bostic, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, told FT in an interview that a resurgence in the COVID cases across the US is dampening economic recovery.

United States daily COVID cases. Source: ABC News

Late last week, the S&P 500, and its Wall Street peers rallied after the US jobs data released for the second-quarter showed a surge in employment numbers. Nevertheless, the report did not include June figures after the rise in COVID cases that led some states to impose lockdowns.

The comments from the Fed prompted investment bank Jefferies to say that economic recovery may have flatlined alongside stocks.

“The loss of momentum is broad-based, spanning small business activity, discretionary footfall, restaurant bookings, traffic congestion, and web traffic to state unemployment portals,” it said.

That left the S&P 500 rally facing red flags as it moves further into the third quarter. Likewise, Bitcoin merely followed the trend into negative territory.

Bitcoin Technical Outlook

Lack of homogenous fundamentals now keeps Bitcoin prone to moves on Wall Street. That leaves traders with only technical indicators to guess the cryptocurrency’s next directional bias.

“To reduce sell pressure we need this $9300 resistance broken,” one trader commented. “$9k has been protected well, but the dips there won’t get bought forever. Either hold this progress or I could see a further retrace being more possible.”

Bitcoin was trading near $9,242 at the time of this publication.

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

from Cryptocracken Tumblr https://ift.tt/2C95vJw via IFTTT

[brettzjacksonblog]

Bitcoin Falls Alongside US Futures as Economic Recovery Flatlines

Bitcoin price pulled back in the early trading session Tuesday after logging a strong opening for the weekend a day before.

The corrective action appeared as the rising number of COVID cases in the US prompted the Federal Reserve to make a stark warning.

The central bank said the trajectory of the US’s economic recovery would be bumpy despite promising data.

A modest rally in the Bitcoin market paused on Tuesday as traders pitted the signs of economic recovery against the resurgence in COVID cases in the US.

The BTC/USD exchange rate fell 1.16 percent to circa $9,234 as of 1018 GMT shortly after the US futures signaled a similar downside move. Futures linked to the S&P 500 plunged 0.91 percent, hinting that the benchmark index will open lower after the New York opening bell.

Bitcoin and S&P 500 over the past three months. Source: TradingView.com

The positive correlation between Bitcoin and the S&P 500 have grown higher in the last three months.

Altcoin Season, Fed Warning

Bitcoin’s plunge also followed a substantial capital shift to competing blockchain projects. Traders moved into the so-called altcoins to seek short-term profits, causing Bitcoin’s market dominance to decline by more than 1 percent.

It’s too funny that a few months ago everyone said ‘altcoins are dead’.

While right now; everyone is rushing in on them as they are moving.

More funny; the moment to accumulate them was the past year, when they were called dead.

Market psychology. $BTC #BITCOIN

— Crypto Michaël (@CryptoMichNL) July 7, 2020

One of the altcoin tokens even surged by as much as 22 percent against Bitcoin on a 24-hour adjusted timeframe.

Negative signals for Bitcoin also kept appearing from the mainstream market. Raphael Bostic, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, told FT in an interview that a resurgence in the COVID cases across the US is dampening economic recovery.

United States daily COVID cases. Source: ABC News

Late last week, the S&P 500, and its Wall Street peers rallied after the US jobs data released for the second-quarter showed a surge in employment numbers. Nevertheless, the report did not include June figures after the rise in COVID cases that led some states to impose lockdowns.

The comments from the Fed prompted investment bank Jefferies to say that economic recovery may have flatlined alongside stocks.

“The loss of momentum is broad-based, spanning small business activity, discretionary footfall, restaurant bookings, traffic congestion, and web traffic to state unemployment portals,” it said.

That left the S&P 500 rally facing red flags as it moves further into the third quarter. Likewise, Bitcoin merely followed the trend into negative territory.

Bitcoin Technical Outlook

Lack of homogenous fundamentals now keeps Bitcoin prone to moves on Wall Street. That leaves traders with only technical indicators to guess the cryptocurrency’s next directional bias.

“To reduce sell pressure we need this $9300 resistance broken,” one trader commented. “$9k has been protected well, but the dips there won’t get bought forever. Either hold this progress or I could see a further retrace being more possible.”

Bitcoin was trading near $9,242 at the time of this publication.

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

from CryptoCracken SMFeed https://ift.tt/2C95vJw via IFTTT

[shashiemrf]

Surface Mount Technology Equipment Market Leading Segment, Demand and Growth Analysis over 2022

The global surface mount technology equipment market is on an upward growth trajectory and is expected to reach USD 4 Bn by the end of the forecast period of 2016-2022, reveals Market Research Future (MRFR) in a minutely analyzed research report. The market has been observing persistent growth on account of the ever increasing demand for smart gadgets and need for miniaturization of products and higher accuracy. Rapid replacement of the traditional through-hole method by surface mount technology is a growing trend in various countries which is propelling the market growth. Surface mount technology equipment finds its application over different industry verticals which include automotive, consumer electronics, healthcare, aerospace, and others which boosts the market growth primarily. The automotive industry is one of the most significant end users of the surface mount technology equipment. Electric cars generally have a high number of electric components as compared to traditional vehicles and surface mount technology equipment are very efficient in handling the complex electronics components without any malfunction. Thus, the growing automotive industry and rising production of electric vehicles augment the growth of the market. High usage of surface mount technology in consumer electronics owing to need for miniaturization and growth in the electronics industry fosters the market growth. Escalating need for printed circuit boards in smartphones and the smart card industry reflects positively on the growth of the market. On the downside, the high cost of surface mount technology equipment is restraining the market growth. Moreover, surface mount technology equipment is not suitable for high power or high voltage parts such as power circuit which too acts as a limiting factor. All of these factors in conjunction will help the market capture a CAGR of 8% over the forecast period. SegmentationThe global surface mount technology market has been segmented based on equipment, end user industries, and components. By equipment, the market has been segmented into Pick and place, Coating equipment, Solder equipment, Cleaning agents, and Rework and repair equipment. By end use industries, the market has been segmented into telecommunication, consumer electronics, automotive and medical. By components, the market has been segmented into passive surface mount devices, transistor & diodes, and integrated circuits. Access Report @ https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/reports/surface-mount-technology-equipment-market-2248Regional AnalysisThe global surface mount technology equipment market spans across the regions of Asia Pacific, North America, Europe and Rest of the World. Asia Pacific is at the forefront of the global market. Countries such as China, India, and Japan are leading the market owing to the abundance of skilled labor in the region and the growing penetration of high tech devices which require miniaturization. Also, high demand for consumer electronics from the populous countries of India and China also boost the market growthCompetitive LandscapeThe notable players in the global surface mount technology market include CyberOptics Corporation (U.S.), Mycronic AB (Sweden), Nordson Corporation (U.S.), Orbotech Ltd. (Israel), Fuji Machine Manufacturing Co., Ltd.(Japan), Assembly Systems (Germany), and Hitachi High-Technologies Corporation (Japan).Industry UpdatesIn July 2018, Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., introduced two new series of surface mount automotive Grade power LEDs. The LEDs are ideal for automotive interior and exterior lighting, traffic signals and signs, LCD switches and for general use. In July 2018, Calgary-based Blackline Safety Corp. announced an investment of USD 1 Million in surface mount technology equipment. The investment will allow the company to reduce their overall costs for which they have expanded their premises. Table of Content:1 MARKET INTRODUCTION1.1 INTRODUCTION1.2 SCOPE OF STUDY1.2.1 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE1.2.2 ASSUMPTIONS1.2.3 LIMITATIONS1.3 MARKET STRUCTURE 2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY2.1

RESEARCH NETWORK SOLUTION2.2 PRIMARY RESEARCH2.3 SECONDARY RESEARCH2.4 FORECAST MODEL2.4.1 MARKET DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSIS & FORECAST2.4.2 MARKET SIZE ESTIMATION 3 MARKET DYNAMICS3.1 INTRODUCTION3.2 MARKET DRIVERS3.3 MARKET CHALLENGES3.4 MARKET OPPORTUNITIES3.5 MARKET RESTRAINTS 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5. MARKET FACTOR ANALYSIS5.1 PORTER’S FIVE FORCES ANALYSIS5.2 SUPPLY CHAIN ANALYSIS 6 SURFACE MOUNT TECNOLOGY EQUIPMENT MARKET, BY SEGMENTS6.1 INTRODUCTION6.2 MARKET STATISTICS6.2.1 BY EQUIPMENT6.2.1.1 PICK AND PLACE6.2.1.2 COATING EQUIPMENT6.2.1.3 SOLDER EQUIPMENT6.2.1.4 CLEANING AGENTS6.2.1.5 REWORK AND REPAIR EQUIPMENT6.2.2 BY END USER INDUSTRIES6.2.2.1 TELECOMMUNICATION6.2.2.2 CONSUMER ELECTRONICS6.2.2.3 AUTOMOTIVE6.2.2.4 MEDICAL6.2.3 BY COMPONENTS6.2.3.1 PASSIVE SURFACE MOUNT DEVICES6.2.3.2 TRANSISTOR & DIODES6.2.3.3 INTEGRATED CIRCUITS6.2.4 BY GEOGRAPHY6.2.4.1 NORTH AMERICA6.2.4.2 EUROPE6.2.4.3 ASIA-PACIFIC6.2.4.4 REST OF THE WORLD 7 COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS7.1 MARKET SHARE ANALYSIS7.2 COMPANY PROFILES7.2.1 CYBEROPTICS CORPORATION (U.S.)7.2.2 FUJI MACHINE MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.(JAPAN)7.2.3 MYCRONIC AB (SWEDEN)7.2.4 ASSEMBLY SYSTEMS (GERMANY)7.2.5 NORDSON CORPORATION (U.S.)7.2.6 HITACHI HIGH-TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (JAPAN)7.2.7 ORBOTECH LTD. (ISRAEL)7.2.8 APPLIED IMAGE, INC. (U.S.)7.2.9 KBC ELECTRONICS, INC. (U.S.)7.2.10 OHMITE MANUFACTURING CO. LLC (U.S.)7.2.11 OTHERSGet Complete Report @ https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/reports/surface-mount-technology-equipment-market-2248About UsMarket Research Future (MRFR) is an esteemed company with a reputation of serving clients across domains of information technology (IT), healthcare, and chemicals. Our analysts undertake painstaking primary and secondary research to provide a seamless report with a 360 degree perspective. Data is compared against reputed organizations, trustworthy databases, and international surveys for producing impeccable reports backed with graphical and statistical information.We at MRFR provide syndicated and customized reports to clients as per their liking. Our consulting services are aimed at eliminating business risks and driving the bottomline margins of our clients. The hands-on experience of analysts and capability of performing astute research through interviews, surveys, and polls are a statement of our prowess. We constantly monitor the market for any fluctuations and update our reports on a regular basis.Media Contact:Market Research FutureOffice No. 528, Amanora ChambersMagarpatta Road, Hadapsar,Pune - 411028Maharashtra, India+1 646 845 9312Email: sales@marketresearchfuture.com

[jccamus]

Platforms and Publishers: The End of an Era

Platforms and Publishers: The End of an Era https://ift.tt/2OH87Rj

This report is part of an ongoing, multi-year study by the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia Journalism School into the relationship between large-scale technology companies and journalism.

This research is generously funded by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Open Society Foundations, John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, Abrams Foundation, and Craig Newmark Philanthropies.

Executive Summary

The relationship between technology platforms and news publishers is entering a new moment. In interviews conducted since we published our last report, “Friend and Foe: The Platform Press at the Heart of Journalism,” in June 2018, publishers spoke of what they called the end of a platform “era.” This era, one defined by the belief that the massive audiences platforms offer would lead to meaningful advertising revenue for publishers, was a “bubble” and a “distraction,” they said. This promise has proven to be a broken bargain. Finally, publishers believe “the scale game is over.” 

This acknowledgment, repeated throughout interviews conducted in early 2019, was a significant departure from years past. Throughout much of 2018, publishers were still optimistic that partnering with platforms on scale-based products and initiatives could help sustain the business of journalism—despite years of pushing their content to these platforms without consistent returns on their investment. 

Publishers continue to rely on a variety of platform products, but the ethos of collaboration that infused our research in 2018 has since significantly diminished. More openly than ever before, publishers expressed heightened distrust toward platforms. And while in past interviews they appeared willing to overhaul parts of their businesses to fall in line with platform maneuvers, their priorities were more focused this time around: Post-scale success necessitates regaining control of revenue streams and putting core audience interests above platform demands. 

Last year, we observed strong signals that publishers were looking to bring audiences back to their own properties over “social-first” publishing. In 2019, the trend gained momentum. Many publishers interviewed openly regretted focusing on brand-diluting social content during the scale era, at the expense of undervaluing their core audiences, and have subsequently recommitted to serving their most loyal readers. From a business perspective, this means diversifying reader revenue streams to include, for example, events and membership programs.

Sign up for CJR's daily email

Our key findings from this phase of research are:

The most discernible difference between past findings and those of our most recent interviews is that any hope that scale-based platform products might deliver meaningful or consistent revenue for publishers has disappeared. This does not mean, however, that publishers will no longer work with platforms—an impossible scenario, as the latter are the gatekeepers of the online information ecosystem—but rather that any optimism about the ability of ad-based products to sustain journalism seems all but gone.  

The 2018 Facebook algorithm change de-emphasizing news content on News Feed confirmed a previously theoretical fear: that platforms can turn off “audience taps” on a whim. The fallout from disappearing traffic forced publishers to train their focus on the core audiences that some admit they had previously taken for granted. Rather than chasing clicks and shares on social media, publishers recommitted to serving their most loyal readers (or trying to: The transition is proving treacherous for those most dependent on advertising dollars). 

In previous reports, publishers used the word “diversification” to reference diversifying ​platform​ strategies—in other words, putting resources toward a variety of platform products. In this round of interviews, however, publishers spoke of diversification almost exclusively in the context of squeezing revenue from their own properties in as many ways as possible. This often involves reader revenue (membership or subscriptions) and new products to drive that revenue (newsletters), events, branded retail products, sponsored content, affiliate links, agency services, and, of course, traditional advertisements.

After years of contradictory public statements, platforms have lost credibility with many publishers. Our interviewees were more skeptical than ever of platforms’ commitment to helping journalism and often framed platforms’ journalism initiatives as mere PR moves.   

Unlike in the past when publishers were eager to participate in new platform products, they now have a heightened bar for signing on. Due to years of disappointing returns on investments, many publishers described no longer feeling a “fear of missing out” when it comes to platform opportunities. Instead of crafting strategy around platform products and hoping for revenue, publishers are planning around revenue, and from there determining which platform products might provide a means to that end.  

Publishers’ owned audiences increasingly determine editorial. Instead of commissioning stories around what performs best on platforms and measuring success by audience size, publishers are focused on serving their core audiences, regular readers likely to become a source of revenue. The platforms are a secondary consideration. That being said, those publishers most dependent on ad revenue are more likely to find themselves still prioritizing clicks, and therefore chasing what’s trending on platforms.  

As more news organizations turn to direct contributions from audiences, interviewees from various newsroom types repeatedly spoke of platform products not as money makers but as marketing vehicles to capture readers at the top of an engagement funnel, with an eye toward eventually converting them into paying readers.

A conversion-focused strategy requires thinking about audience data and metrics in a new way, setting different goals and benchmarks, and seeking more granular insights. As publishers seek to regain control of their audiences, they are segmenting them with the aim of better focusing on serving their core readers, while strategizing around converting more casual readers. Some reader categories we heard included: “drive-by,” “grazers,” “most loyal fans,” and, of course, “subscribers.” 

Sensing the opportunity to insert themselves into this funnel process, platforms have been quick to unveil new subscription products that offer to take “friction” out of “conversion.” Google offers Subscribe with Google and Facebook rolled out a paywalled version of Instant Articles. Just as publishers previously had to weigh the pros and cons of ad-based platform publishing products, they are now facing similar decisions over which platform-led subscription products to use—and how.

 The increased public scrutiny of big platforms’ effects on society and democracy has led to new ethical considerations for publishers and their audiences. Some newsroom employees wonder whether their companies should accept platform money, and if leading their audiences to platform properties makes them complicit in a harmful information ecosystem.

  While it is tempting to frame this new phase as empowering for publishers, the power dynamics at play still do not bode well for the future of the online media industry. With this in mind, what will a post-scale world look like for online news publishing? 

One hint comes in the form of the latest platform product rollout, the Facebook News tab. A total departure from Facebook’s first major publisher product, Instant Articles—which required publisher content to live on the platform inside the News Feed and whose revenue potential was ad-based—News tab stories will be presented in a dedicated and differentiated news section, curated by human editors and aided by an algorithm. Publishers will choose whether users read entire stories there or are redirected from a preview to their own sites. Regardless of that choice, some publishers will be paid for their participation.

Payments vary from outlet to outlet, but so far they’ve been reported to reach as high as seven figures. Participating publishers range from the Chicago Tribune to The Atlantic to Fox News, and even includes The New York Times, which was quick to abandon Instant Articles in 2017 but described the News tab as a “truce.” 

Meanwhile, Google and Facebook have kickstarted investments they say will total 300 million dollars apiece over the next three years into news initiatives, particularly those aimed at grants and trainings for local newsrooms. In Google’s case, the company has done what was practically unimaginable when our research began: directly fund the creation of new local newsrooms. 

This strategic shift from news products toward news initiatives renders these platforms more patrons than partners of journalism. Thus, as platforms become the de facto policy makers of an information ecosystem not designed with journalism as top of mind, a line between platform and publisher that’s always been blurry is being erased.  

Regardless of labels, what remains constant is the distribution of power. There are those who make the rules and those who adapt to them.

Introduction

Since our last report was published in June 2018, the shift in the journalism landscape has been seismic. Advertising revenues have continued to plummet and newsrooms across the country have experienced mass layoffs. In turn, publishers have scrambled to adapt their business models and priorities in an ever-changing and volatile media ecosystem—one still dominated by platforms despite the large-scale public reckoning with their effects on society and democracy. 

For the majority of publishers in our study, Facebook has been integral to their publishing operations for years now, and had an outsized effect on their audience and revenue numbers. In the months after Facebook’s January 2018 algorithm change to deprioritize publisher posts on the News Feed in favor of updates from friends and family, publishers began to realize the extent of the drop in traffic. Slate reported, “For every five people that Facebook used to send to Slate about a year ago, it now sends less than one.” 

Publishers’ anticipatory angst about how the change would affect readership and therefore revenue numbers proved to be well founded, even as their worries had been swiftly dismissed early last year by Facebook’s head of global news partnerships, Campbell Brown. She said, “If anyone feels this isn’t the right platform for them, they should not be on Facebook.” 

But for those already deeply invested in the platform, it was devastating to watch as audience numbers for publisher posts on Facebook and referral traffic to publisher-owned websites crashed throughout the year, bringing advertising revenue down with them.  

The lesson of platform unreliability, particularly when it comes to revenue, has never been more clear to publishers. Building on the pivot toward reader revenue that we highlighted in our last report, dozens of publishers have since put up paywalls or launched membership programs, including Vox, Quartz, TechCrunch, and New York Magazine. Even once-digital-darling BuzzFeed is re-strategizing as the platforms on which it built its business evolve in unexpected directions.

BuzzFeed is one of many newsrooms to suffer from sweeping layoffs, with more than 200 of its employees losing their jobs in the past year. Meanwhile, The Outline, Refinery29, Mic, and Vice have cut more than 400 jobs since September 2018, with Mic effectively shutting down. This is all in addition to cuts in legacy newsrooms like CNN and Meredith Corp., which have slashed more than 300 jobs in that time. Some of the most significant layoffs have taken place at national local chains like Gannett and McClatchy, which axed more than 850 jobs this year alone. A Bloomberg article estimates journalism jobs lost in 2019 to be around 3,000. 

The precarity of digital media businesses in a platform-dominated internet has led to an industry-wide resurgence of labor organizing. In the last two years, newsrooms from The New Yorker, Vox, Slate, Fast Company, Refinery29, and even the podcast company Gimlet have unionized. But union campaigns have not been easy. Joe Ricketts, the billionaire owner of DNAinfo and Gothamist, shut down both local news organizations after their employees voted to unionize. At Vox Media, management did not agree to certain contract demands until more than 300 employees staged a walkout. A similar walkout by BuzzFeed News employees followed tense negotiations. The union has since been recognized. The latest effort to meet resistance is at Hearst Magazines, where staff at several of its publications are trying to unionize.

Given this environment, new platform product rollouts over the last year were met with an unprecedented level of caution. When Apple introduced Apple News+ (a personalized digital subscription newsstand of sorts) in March, it did so without the participation of The New York Times and The Washington Post, which the platform had reportedly tried and failed to recruit for inclusion. Though Apple did successfully get The Wall Street Journal aboard, many news organizations remained wary after getting burned by just about every other similar platform product promising meaningful revenue. Apple’s revenue sharing proposal, in which the company would keep 50 percent and all participating publishers would split what remained, was swiftly criticized. New York Times CEO Mark Thompson warned against the product days before it hit the market, drawing a comparison to Netflix.

“Even if Netflix offered you quite a lot of money . . . does it really make sense to help Netflix build a gigantic base of subscribers to the point where they could actually spend $9 billion a year making their own content and will pay me less and less for my library?” he asked. Already, Apple News+ is reportedly struggling to attract subscribers, and Apple may bundle the product with its others, like Music and TV+.

Since our last report, Google and Facebook have started to fund various news initiatives, particularly those aimed at local coverage. This is a 180-degree shift from how these platforms treated local news at the outset of our research in 2016, when new products like Instant Articles and Snapchat Discover were aimed at or reserved for national or household-name publications alone. In fact, in early 2019, the race to support local news resulted in a game of one-upmanship among platforms. In January, Facebook earmarked 300 million dollars to local news, and in March held its first local news summit to meet with publishers about the local news crisis and their wants from the platform. That same month, Google introduced a boot camp for eight local subscription publishers, similar to one Facebook hosted last year.

In May, Google announced that its Digital News Initiative, which has previously been focused only in Europe, would fund efforts in the United States. Unsurprisingly, the aim was “on projects which generate revenue and/or increase audience engagement for local news.” Then in September, Facebook announced the first recipients of its “Community Network” grants, which are meant to “support initiatives that connect communities with local newsrooms.” In sum, the money that Facebook, Google, and the Knight Foundation, which works closely with and receives funding from both platforms, have pledged toward local news is roughly one billion dollars, to be delivered over the next several years. 

Another trend to surface over the last year is the pronounced shift in platforms’ eagerness to engage in editorial practices—whether by actually producing journalism or by selecting stories or publishers to feature. LinkedIn now has a full newsroom. Twitter started more carefully curating its Moments tab, with annotations accompanying collections of tweets that are written by a team of human editors. Apple worked with select partners for a special Midterm Elections section in Apple News. And in March 2019, Google announced that for the first time it would directly fund the creation of new local news websites launching in the US and the UK.  

Facebook remained reluctant, until this spring, to treat news in some hands-on way, as distinct from all other content. That all changed in April when Mark Zuckerberg announced he was considering paying for “high-quality news” and separating it into its own news feed—plans that were confirmed in June. Intervening with human judgement about surfacing content is a practice from which Facebook had run fast and far after it disbanded the team that curated news for Trending in 2016. But it seems the platform has again decided that leaving its news ecosystem to algorithms is unsustainable. Facebook hired a team of journalists to curate its new News tab, aided by algorithms, and is offering some publishers millions of dollars to license their content.

The shift toward becoming more hands-on was necessitated, at least in part, by a seemingly endless string of PR crises. After long resisting direct action against the rise of white nationalism, hate speech, and harassment on its platform, this spring Facebook published a post on “standing against hate” and banned Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos. In May, Twitter was pushed to start rerouting users in search of anti-vax information on its platform, instead showing them “reliable public health information.”

Facebook, in particular, has taken a series of steps that could reshape the company from its core in the coming months. In January, struggling to moderate problematic content with technology alone, the platform announced it would create an “oversight board for content decisions.” In March, Mark Zuckerberg wrote a post on building “a privacy-focused messaging and social networking platform” and then redesigned the platform the following month to be “more trustworthy.” In June, the company announced it would roll out “a new global currency powered by blockchain technology.” This digital currency, expected in 2020, will be called Libra. Its launch, however, remains uncertain as it hits up against potential US regulatory restrictions.  

There is no telling how publishers will fare in the coming years as platforms undergo perhaps their most dramatic transformations since their foray into publishing products in 2015. However, one thing is certain: Despite facing increasing antitrust scrutiny and calls for regulation, platforms are more powerful than ever. Over time, they have come to control the online information ecosystem and, increasingly, in the case of Facebook and Google, are among the news industry’s top funders. 

It is in this context that many of the publishing executives and employees we interviewed described the “end of an era.” But as is clear in the report, this does not mean the end of their cooperation with platforms. It refers, rather, to the end of optimism that scale and ad-based platform products will bring about meaningful revenue and audience growth. From the rise of paywalls and reader revenue initiatives to the diversification of revenue streams through live events and podcasts, publishers are attempting to regain control over the future of their businesses. 

Methodology

We conducted 42 interviews with individuals from 27 news organizations (representing national and local legacy outlets, national and local digital natives, broadcast, audio, and magazine), six platform companies, and one foundation. These interviews were carried out primarily over the phone, lasting 30 to 90 minutes, and were recorded and transcribed. Interviewees were promised anonymity and confidentiality, and guaranteed that their responses would not be identifiable in the final results. The conversations were semi-structured and centered mostly around editorial, audience, and revenue-related platform strategies. Because the focus of this research was publisher reactions to the evolving platform ecosystem for news, the bulk of our interviews were conducted with publishers.

For the purposes of this research, we define a publisher as any organization that regularly publishes accounts and analyses of current events using a staff of journalists and editors. The size and reach of publishers in our sample varied (hyperlocal, local, regional, national, or global), as did their production formats (print, audio, video) and revenue models (membership, subscription, and/or advertising).

We use the term “platform” to refer to technology companies which maintain consumption, distribution, and monetization infrastructure for digital media—though each is distinct in its architecture and business model. Google, for example, is a search engine, while Facebook is a social network. In both cases, the majority of each company’s revenue comes from advertising. Meanwhile, Apple makes money from hardware sales, proprietary software, licensed media, and hosted apps. All have used their technology, however, to create products for news publishers to find audiences and monetize readers within their own ecosystems. Our interviews with publishers focused primarily on Facebook (and Instagram), Google (and YouTube), Twitter, Apple, and Snapchat.

Publishers on the End of an Era

In our June 2018 report, we wrote that both platforms and publishers had repeatedly begun to use “words like ‘partner’ and ‘partnership’ to describe their increasingly close relationship.” Still, we labeled this relationship an “uncomfortable union,” given that it was not one in which publishers enjoyed equal power or influence.

There was, in 2018, still hope that working in tandem on ad-based products and initiatives represented an opportunity to make meaningful money—an expectation that existed in spite of publishers’ continued puzzling over the inability to earn consistent revenue from these platform-native products. With no guarantee of return on investment, publishers pushed more and more of their journalism to third-party platforms. 

Indeed, the most discernible difference between then and now, observable across historical interviews we’ve conducted over four years, is diminished hope that these platform products might deliver substantive revenue for publishers. This year, one of the most striking themes to emerge from our interviews was publishers’ tendency to answer questions about the current state of their relationship with platforms as if conducting a postmortem.

 Phrases we heard throughout our interviews included:

“It was an era”

“The platform moment”

“The platform stuff was a distraction”

“It was a bubble”

“The scale game is over”

“Post-scale world”

Already, a warning issued in our first report has come true: “If the monetization of material given to social platforms by news organizations does not improve, it will exacerbate the crisis in sustainable journalism at the local and regional level. If the tools and design of platforms do not have civic purposes as well as commercial purpose, this is an inevitability rather than a possibility.”

A broken bargain

When publishers refer to the platform era, game, moment, or bubble, they are describing a simple equation that was, until very recently, the platform promise: The platforms had audiences in the hundreds of millions and billions, and should publishers choose to publish their content through platforms’ publishing products—placing ads against that content—the unrivaled number of eyeballs would bring publishers a level of revenue that made it worthwhile to forfeit the direct editorial control and audience relationships that publishers now understand to be key to their success. 

The era was all about scale. For publishers, it meant putting platform demands first. Facebook, in many ways, defined this era. It was the platform that most aggressively laid out the promise of massive exposure—and advertising revenue to follow. Though initially the vehicle was Instant Articles, Facebook continued to “pivot” to formats, like video, through which it might still deliver on the basic premise that had been set out. 

It eventually became apparent to news organizations that even with upfront cash deals to use Facebook products or create content for them, in the cases of Live and Watch specifically, there was little meaningful money to be made through these “partnerships.” One publisher said, “The reason why publishers and these platforms got into bed with each other originally was that there was a basic bargain”—publishers would provide content in exchange for audience and, by extension, revenue—but “the bargain has broken down.” 

Then came Facebook’s 2018 News Feed algorithm change to deprioritize news. While publishers were still puzzling over issues like a lack of robust and reliable audience data from Facebook, the severity of the “Facebook-pocalypse” made clear the worry was no longer that publishers couldn’t quite “see” their platform audiences, it was that huge chunks of those audiences could disappear overnight.

“Eighteen months ago, Facebook sent somewhere between 35 and 45 percent of many of our sites’ total visitation. In that period of time, it has gone from that to seven percent,” one publisher told us in early 2019. “It’s just, the bottom fell out.” 

Stories like this one became commonplace. For example, in June 2018, Will Oremus reported that Facebook traffic to his (then) publication, Slate, had “plummeted a staggering 87 percent, from a January 2017 peak of 28 million to less than 4 million in May 2018.” 

Though the algorithm change occurred a full year before our latest round of interviews in early 2019, it remained top of mind for a majority of our interviewees, almost as if it had confirmed the death of a broken model. One executive reflected, “Certainly the era of high growth, traffic growth, and just continuing to reach new scale is over. Everything that Facebook has done for us—I think in some ways we took for granted, but also just believed that it would be there. And when that ended, there was a little bit of a reckoning.” 

The emergence of a ‘post-scale world’

Language situating a platform era or moment in the past should not be taken too literally, of course, especially given that platform companies (namely Facebook and Google) have too tight a stranglehold on the information ecosystem for publishers to realistically abandon them. That being said, underwhelming return on investment from collaboration with platforms finally led publishers to definitively adjust their priorities. 

One person told us, there’s “less optimism around what the platforms can deliver for us” and “a lot less trust in Facebook, specifically.” Another said that the “little glimmers of hope” that remained last year have given way to “the recognition that you shouldn’t be too reliant on [platforms], and that any hope of having any kind of direct commercial benefit from them is probably misguided.”

While in past interviews publishers spread their agenda, and were much more willing to overhaul parts of their businesses in line with platform maneuvers, our conversations were much more streamlined this time around. Publishers mostly talked about two areas of focus: controlling their own revenue models and putting audiences first—platforms second.

Reclaiming Control of Earning Potential

Interviewees across the board talked with more urgency about the need to “stand on their own two feet,” and spoke assertively about “standing up more for themselves” and “calling [platforms’] bluff[s]” instead of shapeshifting in tandem with the whims of tech companies as many had previously.

Publishers are convicted in their efforts to wrestle back control of both how they publish and how they bring in revenue. Specifically, this has meant a renewed focus on their owned-and-operated properties, precisely because they are the only places where they have control over audience experience, data, and revenue. 

Diversification across publisher properties

While the term “diversification” is one that has cropped up repeatedly over the years, in past interviews it was most commonly used to reference diversifying ​platform​ strategies—as in, not putting all of your resources toward one platform or platform product. 

More recently, however, publishers spoke of diversification almost exclusively in the context of exploring the variety of ways they can squeeze revenue from their own properties: reader revenue (memberships or subscriptions) and new products to drive that revenue (newsletters), events, branded retail products, sponsored content, affiliate links, agency services, and, yes, advertisements. While the scope of such diversification varies greatly from one outlet to the next, many interviewees repeatedly described a concerted drive to identify a meaningful mix.  

A digital director from one organization told us:

“The basic premise of platforms for publishers has changed significantly​. The second-order effect of monetizing traffic that came from posting your story to Facebook—this past year has proven that that model ​cannot​ sustain. There’s no way that any publisher who is reliant on Facebook, and increasingly on Google, will have a sustainable business model. There’s no correlation, in almost every case, to actual money. A digital media brand that relies on advertising is almost impossible. Almost zero chance of succeeding today.”

Reader revenue reigns

Reader revenue is a crucial part of the diversification mix and has only continued to gain traction. Even among the 12 outlets whose distribution strategies the Tow Center has tracked since 2016, the three digital natives—BuzzFeed News, HuffPost, and Vox—have all launched membership initiatives in the past year. 

(L–R) Membership-based reader revenue initiatives introduced at BuzzFeed News, HuffPost, and Vox in the past year.

Subscription and membership models are poised, publishers hope, to give them control over their route to sustainability and insulate them from the platforms’ often-experimental changes (algorithm shifts, abrupt pivots in format priorities, withdrawal of payments, etc.). There were some encouraging signs in this area.

For example, an interviewee from a relatively young, membership-funded nonprofit described how their outlet had been “insulated” from the most damaging repercussions of major platform shifts because “diversification or diversity has always been an important part of our DNA both on the audience acquisition side and on the revenue side.” This, they contended, “probably has a lot to do with buffering us against a lot of the dramatic changes that other publishers are seeing.” 

One person from a membership-funded outlet argued that the continuation of this trend seems inevitable:

“It’s much clearer to everyone that . . . the end game has got to be sustainable readership. If you don’t have a revenue plan—beyond ad impressions and display ads—that is trying to move all of that reach into something more substantive in terms of readers giving [money] to you, whether it’s subscription or through donations, then what’s the point?”

Publishers describe a heightened bar for partnering with platforms

Those publishers who have taken steps toward becoming more self-sufficient claim to be far more cautious about ceding power back to platforms by (re)entering into partnerships. “The barrier to entry is higher because we have a general sense that the more we control our own fate, the better,” one said. 

Another interviewee described “control” as being central to a “robust review” of their outlet’s use of platform-native products: “A lot of it was really about just recognizing what things were within our control and what things weren’t​.” Conducting this review, they continued, “led to a natural shift away from a lot of the collaboration that we have done with Facebook previously. And as Facebook sort of fell in the industry, there was less focus on building things on Facebook and thinking about that as something that was a key part of our focus.”

As publishers better solidify their own needs and priorities, they are also able to identify whether, and which, platform products are a good fit. Time and again interviewees described being more circumspect in their platform dealings, outlining a requirement for platforms to reach a far higher bar before they will enter partnerships or opt in to third-party product solutions.

Recurring reasons for this new approach can be broadly grouped into four categories:

Diminished fear of missing out

Years of underwhelming return on investment from platform partnerships and products

Deeper knowledge about the considerable ongoing costs of integrating with and supporting third-party products (e.g., engineering costs, etc.)

New and incompatible business models

  1. Publishers feel less FOMO about platform opportunities

Previously, there was a strong fear of missing out among publishers that could only look on enviously at those who got the earliest opportunities (sometimes coupled with financial incentives) to partner with platforms on glitzy new products from Snapchat Discover to Facebook Instant Articles. This was particularly palpable during our earliest interviews in 2016.

Now, however, concerns about feeling left out seem to have all but disappeared. In a surprising turn of narrative, the most optimistic of publishers with whom we spoke in our latest interviews tended to be those working at outlets that were long left out of, or had managed to limit their reliance on, products from third-party platforms. 

In our earliest interviews, publishers either felt like haves or have-nots, as smaller, nonprofit, or local newsrooms felt excluded from platform relationships, products, or initiatives. 

While many of those outlets that were overlooked in years past couldn’t have anticipated the recent platform turn toward an all-in effort funding local news, some described the fallout of the platform-publisher relationship as one mess they didn’t have to clean up. One publisher suggested feeling spared, saying, “We didn’t have money to throw at it. In this case that worked out because . . . we didn’t see some of the higher returns that some of the other outlets did that ended up informing larger overall strategy and how dependent they got on the platforms.” 

Another publisher said there was a time when platforms were the “end all, be all,” adding that “in the past, me and other publishers, especially smaller and local ones, we all wanted better relationships with the platforms. We got frustrated when they were unresponsive.​ I think we all realized that it’s so unpredictable, and that you can’t rely on any one platform and need to diversify.”

2. A far greater need for evidence of ROI

Stung by years of underwhelming return on investment (ROI) and unfulfilled promises of dollars tomorrow, many publishing executives told us they now require far more compelling evidence that platform partnerships will be fruitful for their businesses. As one local publisher put it, “A year ago . . . [our attitude was], ‘Hey, why not? Let’s give it a shot. [It’s a] 50/50 call, but let’s find out.’ I would say now somebody would have to show me pretty clearly that the benefit was likely, rather than 50/50, for me to make the change.”

One person from a major global news outlet said their “very sensible approach to the platforms” boiled down to one simple question: “What are we trying to achieve and how does each platform fit into that or does each platform fit into that? If they do, let’s partner with them; if not, let’s not waste our time.” 

Another person from a local nonprofit was even more specific about their requirements: “If we’re having a conversation with a platform that does not involve revenue or retention, it’s not a conversation that’s worth having, to be honest.”

3. The cost of supporting underwhelming third-party products

Many of the most prominent platform-native news products have been around for some time. Apple News, Snapchat Discover, and Facebook Instant Articles launched in 2015, while Google AMP arrived a year later.

Years of experience with these products have taught publishers that the ongoing costs of integrating platform products extend far beyond the initial outlay for joining. Multiple interviewees identified this as a major consideration when deciding whether to adopt new platform products or continue to use existing ones.

One publisher shared their experience dealing with the expensive, time-consuming effects of juggling multiple platform products: “We redid our [website’s] article page last year, which was a huge undertaking. After we finished rebuilding the page on our site, we had to rebuild it on all of these other platforms. It probably took us two months to rebuild our template on Apple. It took us two months to rebuild Google AMP.” 

They continued, “In any project you undertake, each of these platforms adds complexity and development time. Complexity requires people. It really is just about trying to figure out if the ongoing costs of participating are worth the returns​.”

This publisher, who was assessing the extent to which platform products could figure into their outlet’s upcoming paywall, described the stages of their platform integration in recent years as: 1) “initial effort” 2) “limping along” and, finally, 3) a “new lens”—through which they could assess the business case for continuing to invest resources into these products.

“We have years of data, so we look at the monetization of​ the platform and we look at the cost to continue to participate. Because we’ve gone well past the ​initial effort​, and then we had several years where those things just ​kept limping along​. Now we’re looking at all of that with ​the new lens​ of: How will this play into or does it play into our consumer strategy, and where can that be a benefit or a drawback to us?”

4. New and incompatible business models

Platform-native publishing products from the most ubiquitous companies like Facebook and Google have long been optimized for keeping users on-platform and serving digital ads quickly. So, in other words, these news outlets are pivoting to business models with which those platform products are not necessarily compatible. For example, one local publisher described how a shift to reader revenue had made him more cautious about being talked into using platform products:

“Now that we’re doing so well with membership, and we see how crucial that [model] is to our future, I’m wary of anything that could make that unstable at all. And so there’s more of a barrier for the platforms to hit for me to make a change. You’ve got to prove you’re not gonna blow this up, because this is really working for us​. ​And before [adopting a membership model] there was nothing that was working so well that the risk was that large.” 

This person added that, having abandoned AMP and Instant Articles due to their incompatibility with the business, “There is something lovely about feeling like I have much more control of my own fate than was the case before.”

This, of course, is an area to watch closely, as platforms have rolled out products for reader revenue-supported publishers such as Subscribe with Google and a paywalled version of Facebook Instant Articles. Publishers interviewed did not not yet have enough experience with these products to provide an assessment of their utility. For now, it’s fair to say that platform products, including these newest ones, are seen as tools in a larger toolkit. They may be one mode to a multi-pronged end for publishers, with any resulting revenue earned considered a bonus. 

Some publishers still don’t enjoy the luxury of refusing help or ‘going it alone’

Publishers’ flexibility in relation to their use of platform products continues to be largely determined by their business model and the health of their owned-and-operated properties, as has been the case since our earliest interviews. Publishers eager to be less reliant on platform products shared different obstacles holding them back, ranging from higher CPMs on Instant Articles or larger audiences on Apple News as compared to their own mobile or web sites.

An interviewee who moved from a publication focused on advertising and scale to one operating a membership model described the extent to which these contrasting business models impacted the importance placed on following the tech platforms’ lead:

“All I did [before] was talk to the platforms all the time. [. . . ] I don’t want to undermine how important they are because we do get a fair amount of traffic from them. But they don’t lead our strategies in the way that they used to at [the previous publication]. They’re a soccer ball on the field and people run with it in one direction and everybody chases it. Everybody’s playing soccer and we’re watching, and have vested interest in the game, but we are not running after the ball. We’re doing our own thing on the side.”

Some interviewees described this ongoing attachment as a “continued dance” and “never-ending game.” An audience engagement manager captured the prevailing mood as “skepticism rather than optimism, but not a retreat.”

While better-resourced publishers intent on shifting revenue strategies away from platforms reported changes in the nature of their interactions with previously high-touch platform representatives, describing them as “less frequent, less urgent, and less tense,” a social media manager from a local publisher with an ad-heavy revenue model outlined a decidedly different experience: 

“It just frustrates me because I feel like they’re giving us just enough where we’re not fully letting go and trying to pursue a different strategy. They’re feeding the beast just enough to keep [us] hooked onto Facebook. So here I am with a social media team that is getting smaller and smaller every year. And my Facebook traffic keeps shrinking, but . . . I’m still forced to make sure they do spend a ton of time posting to social media . . . when there’s a million other things that maybe we could be experimenting with, or finding time for some innovation, or freeing that team up for more strategic initiatives instead of just posting to Facebook all day. But we’re hooked just enough where I can’t tell them, ‘No, you don’t have to post to Facebook all day, every day anymore.’”

Similar sentiment was voiced by an interviewee from a digital native still reliant on dwindling eyeballs and therefore ad revenue from Facebook, who said, “Before, we were still seeking a partnership . . . but now it’s like we’re wounded animals and wondering if they’re going to shoot us or try to give us just enough medical help to keep us alive so we can continue to serve them.”

Publishers ramp up skepticism about platforms’ commitment to journalism

Despite—or possibly because of—the introduction of numerous, high-profile initiatives to fund news, we heard stronger sentiment than ever that platforms do not have journalism’s best interests in mind and cannot be trusted no matter what they promise.

When it came to assessing platform motivation, Facebook was the subject of particular scorn, due in large part to its ubiquity and tendency over the years to pivot its product focus far more often than other platforms. In fact, many complaints we heard about “platforms” boiled down to primarily a dissatisfaction with Facebook. “Facebook have never really been genuinely engaged with the idea that news has any value for their platform. I think they’re really focused on [giving money to] local news in the US because that’s the political hot topic [right now],” one person said. Another called their recent journalism efforts “PR.”

The precarious nature of direct payments from platforms—whether in the form of grants from Facebook or Google to smaller newsrooms, or seven-figure deals to larger newsrooms to use products such as Facebook’s News tab—was another area where multiple interviewees claimed to have become more clear-eyed, typically characterizing them as welcome but unreliable bonuses. 

An interviewee whose organization had recently been in receipt of one such offering described their reaction as, “This is fantastic. But also this is not going to save our business. And I can’t count on this to renew.”

Yet another publisher representative from a national newspaper conglomerate said, “We absolutely need the money that they’re giving us to innovate, or have a shot at growing our audience, or even figuring out a path to a subscription strategy. So, I am thankful for the money, but I think there’s also some resentment . . . from people who work in [our] social media [departments] who are like, ‘I’m just tired of being at your beck and call’ kind of thing.”

The Shifting Platform-Publisher-Audience Dynamic

In our first report from this research project, published in 2017, Carla Zanoni, then of The Wall Street Journal, said that successfully utilizing platforms hinged on “your ability as a publisher to engage with [the] audience and build a long-standing relationship that extends beyond the platform.”

But developing a new audience on-platform, and figuring out how to monetize that audience, meant grappling with the question of “who owns the relationship with the user,” and “who controls that relationship and that data,” said Cynthia Collins of The New York Times.  

Nearly two and a half years ago, these were prescient points—especially at a time when, as we noted then, “scale is everything, from number of likes and shares to ultimate reach.” Many publishers were fixated on how to access a huge universe of potential readers at the expense of their most loyal ones. According to a local publisher, that meant chasing trending content and operating in a way that left their local readers feeling “distant.”

By the time we published our second report in June 2018, publishers were reckoning with the ramifications of treating audiences not as individuals, but as a number.  

One publisher told us then, “News organizations lost the idea of the audience as a real user, somebody that you had to work to acquire. Now there is this turn to understanding that our mission needs to be stronger. We need to be more respectful of our audience, because we need to have a direct relationship with them. They are not just a couple of billions that show up in analytics, but real people who care about news or who want a reliable and trustworthy news experience.”

Numerous interviewees in this latest round suggested that the drastic withdrawal of Facebook traffic, and associated “end of the scale game” that was just beginning to emerge in our 2018 report, led to one of the most significant learnings from the fallout of this platform “era”: Anything that distracts a publisher from focusing on their most loyal audiences is a losing strategy.

“The platform stuff was a distraction. It was a good lesson, an objective lesson in: Listen to your audience,” one publisher said. Another told us that the immense pressure and urgent stress “really forced us to focus on the core—the people that ​did​ continue to come back—and to think about how we shift our thinking from just pure scale to really engaging with those core loyal users.”

One publisher nicely summed up their (re)prioritization of audiences as “seeking you out in some way, versus just running into you.” They added, “If you rewind three, four, five years ago, the drive-by audiences, the scale that you could drive through these platforms, in some ways could blind you to the fact that you’re not necessarily building your own community or audience. It really changes the strategy, which I think is a good and healthy thing for brands.”

Platforms are now (generally) secondary to audience when making editorial decisions

In our 2017 report, we noted that journalism with high civic value was discriminated against by an ecosystem that favors scale and shareability. Still, as platforms introduced new formats for publishing, which happened at a particularly rapid pace back then, publishers adopted them quickly. And this decision began to affect editorial strategies with questionable results. One publisher told us then, “We are telling stories that other outlets aren’t telling, which is almost to our detriment in the world of viral news. When it comes to the way Facebook and Twitter currently surface trending content and breaking news, it’s not about the story that no one has. It’s about the story that everyone has.”

Over the years, platforms continued to shape both the style and substance of publisher content. As we wrote in last year’s report, there was still an appetite to “play” with platform formats and products, and for experimentation, as publishers were still trying to figure out editorial that would perform on platform and count as important journalism. One digital native publisher asked then, “How do we match up what we consider important journalism with extreme audience optimization”—or, in others words, platform scale. “Those things don’t always click.” 

The answer, it turns out, is that “those things” seldom do. In an effort to untangle editorial decisions from platform scale strategies, in our most recent interviews publishers described varying degrees of liberation. One publisher pursuing reader revenue said their editorial thinking is now shaped “more around our audience strategy and who we’re trying to reach. The platforms are secondary.”

Another person said they are “thinking politically and ambitiously about what we need to do to get our audience. What should we be focusing on as topics or viewpoints for our editorial brand?” One interviewee, based at a local, subscription-based outlet, described the win-win of adopting a stronger audience-centric approach, saying, “Our top subscribers read stories that are really local. They are generally investigative or enterprise. It actually is the kind of journalist’s dream of what you think people want from a newspaper.”

Connecting the dots between the triumvirate of business model, audience, and editorial, an interviewee from a global publisher with a membership model argued that their model enabled them to prioritize quality over quantity:

“If you need to create highly engaged users with your brand . . . it means you can take different decisions about the content you commission and you can be much more focused on building quality and trust, rather than creating content that drives one-time readers. If your focus is on engagement to drive reader revenues, it changes your approach to the sort of journalism you’re commissioning—maybe less stuff, but publishing better stuff. I think it’s quite a healthy change really.”

At times, contrasting responses from interviewees brought the connection between business model and editorial freedom into sharp focus. One local publisher described how a change in business model, pivoting away from digital ad revenue, had directly impacted their willingness, or need, to regurgitate viral stories: 

“The truth of the matter is, when you’ve decided membership and events are where you’re going to make 80 percent of your money, then virality is only of some [limited] value. It’s limited because you get a bunch of ad revenue out of it but no members​, or ​the likelihood is it’s a story that would go viral nationally and thus you’re not going to get a lot of [local] members or anybody to come to an event.”

On the other hand, a local publisher that remains tied to platform economics and digital ad revenue described a continued focus on trending stories in pursuit of page views. They described feeling “still stuck on the Facebook and Google train,” and expressed frustration that corporate pressures to hit a “massive page view goal” dictated that they “have a whole team of people that do nothing but stare at CrowdTangle all day, see what’s going viral on Facebook and then aggregating that content. We’re doing follow-up stories on what’s going viral and what’s trending, which kind of dilutes your local feel.”

This person shared a particular anecdote that illustrates how top-down directives to pursue scale for advertising revenue resulted in cutting smaller, but potentially monetizable, beats. Citing their publication’s food section, the interviewee said, “We looked back and thought, ‘Oh my God, we cut all these beats purely off of one factor, and that’s page views.’ We didn’t consider, ‘Do they drive loyalty and retention? Do people subscribe off of these stories more than the other ones? We don’t know. We didn’t do the analysis. We don’t have the data. We weren’t tracking it.” 

They went on to describe how their shrinking editorial staff had resorted to taking matters into their own hands, conducting experiments to try and ascertain “what verticals may drive more repeat visits and then maybe drive more conversions in the long run.”

Platform products as marketing vehicles to capture readers atop the engagement funnel

Facing the end of the scale era has forced many publishers to take a more nuanced approach to audience data. One publishing executive described the change in thinking as follows:

“We used to be more of a one metric-focused company. It used to just be about, ‘How many visitors do we have?’ and that’s all we cared about and talked about—to really thinking about them in cohorts, thinking about engagement, and thinking more deeply about how you move people from one place to another. It is going from one metric to many metrics.” 

Another publisher said, “Now I’m much more focused on: What is the loyalty behind those different audiences? How often are you coming? How many pages per visit are you seeing?” 

Multiple interviewees described segmenting their audiences based on their levels of engagement with the brand, categorizing via labels such as “drive-by,” “grazers,” “most loyal fans,” and, of course, “subscribers.”

In this vein, as more and more news organizations turn to direct contributions from audiences in the form of memberships and subscriptions, many interviewees from various newsroom types invoked the marketing language of “funnels” with remarkable frequency when describing a new platform-publisher-audience dynamic.

It was in this context that they frequently returned to talk reminiscent of our earliest interviews, citing platforms as “distribution channels to put content in front of audiences.” The difference now, however, is that instead of just spraying content every which way and hoping for eyeballs, publishers are forming strategies around how to hook readers at that point of platform contact and reel them in, down the funnel. 

Most interviewees referred to platforms in terms of their position at the top of the funnel because of their unmatched reach and centrality to so many aspects of people’s everyday lives. One said their newsroom “talks about the platforms as a form of acquisition.” 

An audience manager from a local nonprofit told us, “The platforms are a big part and will be a big part of [reaching people] as long as people are there living their lives, getting information, conversing about the information that they’re getting with their friends and families and hopefully with us. It’s simply that we need to figure out and be strategic about the next steps.”

Those next steps after discovery—at the top of the funnel when audiences are exposed to and become aware of a brand—are engagement, conversion, and retention. Another person said, “We are increasingly obsessed with what happens in the middle of the funnel,” referencing the phase of engagement when audiences can begin to develop a habit and brand loyalty, before conversion, which happens at the bottom of the funnel when they decide to support the outlet by becoming a subscriber, member, or donator. Having converted users, the final stage in this model is retention.

This process of engaging, converting, and retaining audiences demands considerably more of news organizations than simply inducing readers to click, share, or react to a post on a third-party platform. It was in this context that some interviewees lamented how platform products redefined the term “engagement.” Referencing CrowdTangle’s metric of “overperformance” (based on Facebook interactions), one complained that they see stories “quote-unquote over-perform on Facebook ​all the time​ and all they are are people sharing things without reading the stories.”

An audience manager from a local nonprofit went further, speaking in depth about the importance of reclaiming the term so that it centered around the publisher-audience dynamic rather than the platform-audience dynamic: 

“The overarching thing for me is the importance of engagement. I really think it was such a bad trend where newsrooms were obsessed with ‘engagement’ and kept talking about it in terms of all these social interactions. Those were really metrics that were helpful for these platforms in terms of them trying to build their own platforms and ensure their users were addicted or obsessed with those apps, but not super helpful to publishers in the long run. I think finally publishers are looking at that word ‘engagement’ and understanding that it’s much more about a relationship with a reader. For that to exist you have got to think beyond an interaction or platform. We have to think about retention and where do I move next with this person and how do I keep in contact with this person.”

Ethics

In our previous rounds of interviews, when asked about the ethics of partnering with platform companies, publishers did not draw a connection between broader platform controversies and their own newsrooms. This time, however, as negative press about platform companies is front and center in the public consciousness, interviewees described pushback from both their newsroom employees and readers about the potentially problematic nature of their alliances with platforms.

Guilty by association? 

Growing platform scrutiny—by journalists, legislative and regulatory authorities, and even the general public—has intensified significantly since our research began. Platforms have become hotbeds of rampant misinformation, hate speech, extremist viewpoints, and foreign interference. Further, platform companies have endured a host of security and privacy breaches, which compromised user data. Calls to break them up—both inside the US and outside—are growing louder. Less than 30 percent of US respondents said they trust major technology companies “most of the time” or more, according to a 2018 Pew Research study. 

In this environment, it is unsurprising that some interviewees reported pushback from their audiences about their complicity in continuing to use of these platforms. One publisher said, “When Mark Zuckerberg testified before Congress we had a ton of stories about that and we’d post them on Facebook. We’d see our readers saying, ‘We don’t want to read you on Facebook’ or ‘How is it that you are doing this reporting about some of the unethical things that this company is doing but you’re still using them as a platform?’”

They added, “Our membership group . . . [moved] off Facebook because people didn’t want to have to join Facebook or they had deleted their Facebook and didn’t want to have that as a barrier to interacting with this membership community.”

Although in this case the publisher did take action in response to audience feedback, others have not felt they had that luxury. Another interviewee noted that while they are aware of audience concerns, platforms remain vital distribution mechanisms for reaching those very readers with need-to-know information. “We really want to be using them as little as possible because of all the criticism,” this person said, “but we’re definitely not in a position where we’re going to turn away from it because it does so much. I think we don’t really see an alternative to using them.” 

There were rumblings of concerns within news organizations, too. One social media editor said of journalists in the newsroom, “It mostly comes up when I ask for them to do something and they’ll say, ‘Is anything changing because I’m uncomfortable being a part of this.’ They have to login through a Facebook account and there’s certain people who don’t want a Facebook account because of what’s going on.” But, they said, the conversations end there, and no action is taken. “Facebook is not as popular as it once was but it still has millions and millions of active users. We’re still just going until something explodes.”

Beyond Facebook, another interviewee wondered where the line could be drawn, noting that scandals are not exclusive to any one platform. “If you do walk away from Facebook, are we then saying it’s worse than things like Reddit, which has its problems, or Twitter, which certainly has its problems, or things like Apple, which is a little bit evil, too? What about Google? Google is terrible with fake news,” this publisher said. “We can’t just disappear off the internet. . . . We talk about it but I don’t know how confident we are that we’re going to do anything differently.”

Still, this person continued to grapple with their complicity in drawing audiences back into platforms. “It’s weird because you have a business team that has technology reporters who delete Facebook,” they said. “If we post our content on a company site that is not good to people are we not encouraging people still to use that product? Facebook is bad but this is still a place where you can find us. We’re encouraging people to use it and we report on how bad it is, yet still post on it.”

Others voiced an alternative perspective. For example, one interviewee spoke with strong conviction about the need for accountability journalism about tech platforms to reach the users of those very platforms:

“What we haven’t done is step back from publishing journalism on [Facebook] and the really clear reason for that is it would be absurd if we were publishing news stories about the relationship with Facebook and Cambridge Analytica and all of the issues that go along with that and the people who were using that platform weren’t able to read that journalism.”

On accepting ‘free’ platform money

The publishing industry as a whole is grappling with whether to accept the hundreds of millions of dollars pouring in from Facebook and Google journalism initiatives.

One person whose cash-strapped news organization had received a large sum in free Facebook ad credits described their attitude as, “Of course we’re going to take your money, because without it we wouldn’t be able to innovate, and we wouldn’t have as many opportunities as we have right now.” It’s a sentiment that recurred often across our interviews. 

One journalism funder who works with both Facebook and Google at first told us flatly: “Take the money; it’s money.” But as they continued, they began to wonder about the optics and possible ethical implications of taking platforms at their word that these supposed philanthropic offerings come with no strings attached: 

“If it was tobacco money or alcohol money, then don’t take it. Oil money or . . . from a gun company, there’s an ethical thing about that. Maybe some people would argue that Facebook is becoming that, especially just this week with this thing they installed on people’s phones to track teenagers’ activity and pay them for it. I mean, I guess they told people they were doing this and had to obviously get them to install it on their phone. It’s not like they’re giving malware.

“[But] it doesn’t look great. Is Facebook linked with tobacco or gun companies just yet? I mean, if you truly think that then maybe don’t take the money. Some people on our board have questions like, ‘Are we sure we want to be working with Facebook?’ It’s not always like that, but then, in the end they’re like, ‘But they’re offering us [millions of] dollars. Yeah, I guess we should take it.’”

The funder concluded, “You don’t want to be reliant on them. That would just be my caution,” adding, “we can’t build a business around having these tech companies fund journalism. That’s what concerns me when some people say they should give us more money and billions to journalism. Is that their role, to be the subsidy for journalism? That seems wrong somehow.”

The Platform Response

With a few exceptions, the platforms we spoke to agreed that platform-publisher relationships have become more strained in recent years. One platform representative said, “I think there’s less optimism, and there’s more frustration. I think there’s more strategic misalignment which makes it far harder for both parties to try and come together [so that it] doesn’t feel like one is benefiting off the other.”

Another one told us, “I think in 2018 the relationship became a little bit more antagonistic and as a result of that a lot of my colleagues who were doing partnership management with news publishers were responsible for a little more sentiment management than pure marketing.”

A move toward offering subscription ‘solutions’ 

Unsurprisingly, though, platform companies have continued to develop a range of products and services to insert themselves into every step of publishers’ newest focus: reader revenue. The Google News Initiative website has a page dedicated to showcasing how Google’s “set of technologies and solutions is designed to help news publishers engage users across the funnel,” promising to “Expand reach,” “Drive conversions,” and “Engage subscribers and members.”

At the bottom of the funnel, the big three (Apple, Google, and Facebook) all claim their solutions can take “friction” out of the final step of “conversion.” Apple has rolled out Apple News+, a subscription service through which participating publishers split what’s left of the 10 dollars a month users pay once Apple takes its 50 percent, based on readers’ dwell time; Google rolled out Subscribe with Google (for which it takes a 5 to 15-percent cut); and Facebook has launched a paywalled version of Instant Articles. 

In a June 2019 blog post, Facebook product manager Sameera Salari announced the company’s Instant Articles paywall product had been opened up to “all eligible publishers.” Salari’s post, titled “Supporting Subscriptions-Based News Publishers,” outlined numerous ways in which Facebook products could be used throughout the process of converting readers into paying supporters. One new product being tested, named News Funding, was said to be “focused on helping publishers build closer relationships with their readers” and “designed for local and niche publishers interested in using a Facebook-based membership model.”

Summarizing, Salari wrote that “Facebook Analytics can be particularly insightful for publishers because it provides omni-channel, people-based insights throughout the funnel—from an article read to a subscription sign-up. This means publishers can measure the behavior of their audiences, with multi-surface users de-duplicated, across Facebook, Instagram, and publishers’ mobile apps and websites.”

Platform news strategies mature

Big tech platforms have have run into major issues around distributing and moderating news content on a product-by-product basis, often without top-down strategies. Recalling an incident in 2015, one platform representative told us, “I remember being in the room with 200 people and they were from all over different bits of [the company]. Someone said, ‘Everyone who works with The New York Times, put your hands up.’ There were like 20 people on different teams and none of them had spoken to each other.” A representative from a different platform said, “It wasn’t a centralized news team. Pre-election, it was fragmented.” 

In the last two years, platforms have made efforts to concentrate their news efforts under cohesive overarching strategies. In 2017, Apple hired its first editor-in-chief and Facebook appointed a new head of news products (who has since left the company). In January 2017, Facebook introduced the Facebook Journalism Project, a program said to be built around three broad pillars: collaborative development of news products, training and tools for journalists, and training and tools for an informed community. In 2018, Google announced the Google News Initiative (GNI), an umbrella program under which all of its news-related efforts would live. Google’s claim that it would commit 300 million dollars to journalism via GNI was matched by Facebook in January 2019. These transitions have had mixed results, with one former platform employee lamenting “a top-down entity that wasn’t there.” She said of the platform’s news efforts, “There was broad commitment absolutely. Do I think that there was consistent commitment from everybody on a specific point of view? Absolutely not.” 

As teams that focus on journalism products and initiatives have grown, platform employees with newsroom experience have helped their companies develop better approaches to publisher relations. As one such employee said, “If you’ve always worked in news, it’s hard to understand all of the knowledge that you’ve built up that people who don’t work in news don’t have. I think that maybe being able to give that context earlier to senior people would have helped us a lot.” 

Many of the platform representatives we interviewed described productive conversations with members of senior management eager to learn more about the inner workings of journalism organizations, a potentially positive sign for publishers. Others however described the missions of news teams as being at odds with those of their companies at large. As one interviewee said, “There’s a small group of people that have all come out of journalism that see themselves as almost like Robin Hood.” In general, top-level interest in journalism seemed to be tied to how much it related to each platform’s mission and bottom line. 

The tricky task of categorizing news 

Platforms on which publisher content coexists with brand- and user-generated content have long struggled with defining who counts as a publisher and what counts as news. Describing her past experience on a news product team, one former platform employee said, “No one knows what news is. Is it defined by something that a top 50 publisher has marked [as such]? Is it anything from The New York Times? They have a recipe section that’s obviously not news. Your mom writes some crazy thing about Donald Trump, that’s not news. But if a public figure on [the platform] then writes a post about Donald Trump or they write policy posts, is that news? No one really knew, and that definition shifted wildly over time.”

Platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Google continue to struggle with defining news—not to mention the even more elusive “high-quality” news, for those platforms that use this barometer when curating. When Facebook introduced its News tab in October 2019 the company was immediately criticized for including Breitbart in a section that Mark Zuckerberg had said would be a destination for “high-quality” and “trustworthy” news.

The rise of influencers—social media users with large and devoted followings who often act like one-person publishers—on platforms like YouTube and Instagram only makes such distinctions more difficult. Multiple interviewees were taken aback by the question of whether their platform treats publisher content differently from influencer content. After noting the importance of “authoritative information” for people seeking news, one platform executive told us that ultimately “anybody can be a creator and anyone can be a publisher.”

As the information landscape becomes more complex, optimism around automated approaches to content moderation and curation is waning. Largely inspired by Apple, platforms now see human editors as vital members of their editorial teams rather than temporary fixes to be eventually replaced with scalable alternatives.

One platform representative whose work focuses on curating both news and user-generated content told us, “What we’re trying to do is . . . use algorithms to . . .  get as far as possible in terms of the identification of useful information and then have the [human] curators layer that makes the final decision.” Another interviewee said, “I think it’s the combination of human editorial and algorithmic curation working really closely together and aligned behind the same principles that actually produces the best quality.” 

The realization that AI will not be a panacea for platform woes has also led to a resignation that platforms will never get everything 100 percent right. As one representative told us, “If I came on and told you we are going to be able to identify all truth and all lies and accurately reflect the entire populations belief about a topic . . . I would definitely be lying to you. This is not scientific. It has to be about some level of judgment and some level of reflection of what we’re seeing on the platform.”

Facebook still takes the most heat 

Most platforms agreed that Facebook has the most strained relationship with publishers due to its many broken promises, inconsistent messaging around journalism, and “move fast and break things” approach to product development. As one platform representative said, “I would way rather be working here than Facebook partly because Facebook made such a deliberate move into the news industry and to the flow of information and then kind of screwed it up as royally as they did.” 

In 2017, Facebook’s mission changed from “make the world more open and connected” to “give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together.” This led to an influx of company resources to Facebook Groups and to the News Feed algorithm favoring content from people rather than publishers. 

One reason many cited for Facebook’s mixed record with journalism is the fact that publisher success is not tied to its bottom line or even its mission. As one interviewee said, “Google has done I think a very clear job of aligning their business incentives with this stuff. They know that the more people search for news the more that it supports their bottom line. If you look at Facebook, what actually drives the core business is the strength of its social grasp. That really relies on people sharing information about themselves to their family and their personal network. So news is a really important piece but it is not something that actually drives core usage or retention . . . News is something that feels like an active responsibility but it’s not necessarily tied to a strict business line.” 

One former platform executive told us she thought the Facebook relationship will “get worse for larger-scale publishers who are very vocal and drive the narrative” and “better between Facebook and local publishers,” given that the platform has “pledged and committed to” funding initiatives particularly aimed at offering what we would have once referred to as “have-not” publishers money to flourish outside of the information ecosystem that Facebook itself controls. Though referring to Facebook’s 300 million-dollar journalism pledge, she jokingly added, “I think you need more like 30 billion dollars.”

What’s next?

Platform representatives were cautiously hopeful about the future of the platform-publisher relationship, while staying away from any specific predictions. One former executive summed up the tone of many of our interviews: “I am broadly optimistic but it might be more painful in the interim before we actually get to some alternatives that actually work.”

A few of our more candid interviewees on the platform side shared the sentiment expressed by publishers that the last year felt like the end of an era. One described the future as “highly dependent on whether platforms figure out how to reconcile their needs from publishers with how they incentivize publishers. I think they’re still a bit confused about that and still working that through.” 

She added, “I never want to walk into a journalism conference again and see people going, ‘Oh, Facebook Live, we’re all going to pivot to Facebook Live and make lots of money off of it, and it’s all going to be brilliant, and this is the best thing ever, let’s talk about Facebook Live. Or whatever the new thing will be. I think the publishing industry has hopefully got to a point where they are comfortable with putting their needs first rather than having a sense of FOMO.”

For the moment, the “new thing” appears to be platforms’ willingness to directly pay for the journalism they host in their ecosystems. The longevity and success (or failure) of new products like the Facebook News tab will be barometers to watch as the next “era” unfolds. 

Conclusion

By Emily Bell

As the first decade of the social, mobile web draws to a close, it is clear that the influence of large-scale technology platforms has disrupted but not reformed the field of journalism. Publisher and platform employees interviewed for this report were in overwhelming agreement that it is the end of an era of hopeful exploration and to the fallacy that scale alone will help create sustainable models for journalism.

This is another way of saying that both parties in this experiment recognize that growth in digital advertising is not realistic, and that if the relationship is to be a productive one it will have to deliver more direct subsidy or a clear path to monetize audiences. 

The first five years of developing integrated relationships between news organizations and platform companies has been largely unsuccessful. Newsrooms have not found sustainability, and platforms, particularly Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, have become synonymous with misinformation and abuse rather than high-quality news and entertainment. 

Even in the past year, we witnessed a litany of failures: closures and cutbacks in newsrooms that pivoted to video on the back of false Facebook projections about increasing revenues; a raft of algorithm changes which left news organizations disoriented and platforms scrambling to fix rampant problems with misinformation; and the inescapable fact that while digital advertising revenues boomed for Google and Facebook, they continued a precipitous decline for publishers. Even at the most successful digital publishers such as The New York Times, in late 2019 the percentage of digital advertising as a whole was actually declining, as well as declining in real terms by as much as 14 or 15 percent year on year. 

Many of the concerns outlined by publishers in our very first research published in 2016 were not only borne out by events, but often surpassed the imagined worst-case scenario. Access to user data owned by the platforms has become harder to obtain, the technical debt of servicing platform innovations is often higher than expected, and the financial returns from products have been disappointing. 

From a platform perspective, their suitability to act as gatekeepers to the information commons has been tested to its breaking point. Practices in online content moderation have been exposed as unethical and exploitative, while algorithmic curation has too often been applied in an opaque and chaotic manner. The relationship between platforms and their role in the provision of news services remains ill governed and poorly defined, lacking clear and consistent terms of trade and well-defined ethical standards. 

As publishers put audiences first—and platforms second—those platforms must start to flex to both business and civic concerns over the role they play in an informed society. One of the clearest trends we observed in the past year was the slow acceptance that more human intervention is necessary in shaping the kind of content that circulates across platforms. We heard promises about large increases in moderation teams, although it is hard to know if these promises have yet been met. We also saw the steady growth in platforms developing internal “newsrooms.” Apple and LinkedIn both employ established editorial teams of tens of journalists actively editing and commissioning material for the platforms. 

The implementation of the News tab within Facebook will see the company follow this route, too. The new initiative has already paid certain publishers significant funds for taking part—both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal received multi-year deals of millions of dollars for their participation—even though Facebook already theoretically has access to all the news stories either organization publishes to the web. News Corporation chief executive Robert Thomson characterized this new pact as “exactly what the publishers have been asking for,” as he happily chatted with Mark Zuckerberg on stage at the launch of the product in November 2019. But while it might serve a handful of incumbent companies well, it is unlikely to resolve the broader crisis of how high-quality reporting can be sustained at all levels.

Meanwhile, Google and Facebook have also already started to distribute money to journalism and journalism-adjacent organizations as “support” and “grants.” Each organization says it will invest a very modest 300 million dollars (on a global basis) into journalism between 2019 and 2022, with a declared focus on initiatives for local news in the US. Google, in launching local news experiments, is already funding the Compass Project, supporting McClatchy in the creation of three new newsrooms across the country, albeit with “no editorial control.” This new type of direct support carries with it opportunities, but also risk.  

This patronage will define the next phase for platforms and publishers, one where the journalism that appears on social platforms does so as part of a remunerated strategy. This means, then, that those left outside this circle of payment and promotion will have to pay an increasing amount for their own work to be seen. In the very first phase of this research, news organizations told us they were worried that the platforms were “picking winners” among journalism organizations. This is still happening. 

One of the most significant changes over the past 18 months has been both the decline of organizations fashioned to build businesses inside social platforms and the relative stability of legacy or non-digital organizations that cultivated owned and operated sites. This shift is showing up in the staffing and design of newsrooms. Revenue-creating content is not the same as viral content; the listicle is dead for news. It will be worthwhile to track the speed with which social media teams are replaced with “audience growth managers” and other roles which fall under audience and engagement. Here the task is not to distribute all content as widely as possible, but to understand how distribution might bring readers into the news organization’s own properties or convert them into paying subscribers.

The new era of technology companies reshaping journalism will be defined by how each company develops news practices. Their products and relationships with organizations that produce or support journalism will continue to mold journalism in a way that suits the agenda of platform companies. The effect of much more direct involvement in news support takes the platform companies into new territory, and presents publishers with a clear ethical dilemma around how to represent that relationship and safeguard their journalism from corporate influence. 

Arguably companies such as Apple, Facebook, Google, and even Amazon are already in charge of the next phase of newsroom development as they lead on the development of artificial intelligence applications. Given the potential conflicts of interest, we see it as important that this new phase of interaction between the two fields is carefully scrutinized.

We are moving into an era where platforms will have to change internal culture and external policies to account for their publishing role, and during which they will face stricter penalties and regulation around their activities. As the advertising revenues ebb away and newsrooms are cut to the bone, the diminishment of journalism as a business force is creating a stark imbalance in resources and power between those that are left as reporting organizations and those that are the publishing and distribution platforms of the future. This imbalance makes it even more pressing that policy changes reflect on how to build and sustain robust reporting institutions that are both technically and ideologically independent of such large and diverse companies. 

For policy makers ahead of the 2020 US election, there remains the challenging question of whether or how to draw regulation which positively supports reporting organizations while curtailing the concentrated power of technology platforms. Democratic candidates including Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have both identified the power of platforms as an urgent concern, but have as yet underdeveloped plans for how this will support journalism. Nevertheless, it could be that the 2020 election will be as significant for platforms as was the one in 2016 in terms of altering their trajectory and relationship with the information commons.

Has America ever needed a media watchdog more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.

Nushin Rashidian, George Tsiveriotis, and Pete Brown — with Emily Bell and Abigail Hartstone —are the authors of this report. Nushin Rashidian is the research lead on the Center’s Platforms and Publishers project. George Tsiveriotis is a senior research fellow at the Tow Center. Pete Brown is the Center’s research director. Emily Bell is Tow’s founding director, and a leading thinker, commentator, and strategist on digital journalism. Abigail Hartstone served as lead editor on this report.

https://ift.tt/34lF6RT via Columbia Journalism Review November 25, 2019 at 02:34PM

[pratikshame-blog]

Zinc-Air Batteries Market will Reflect Significant Growth Prospects during 2018-26

The global zinc–air batteries market was valued at US$ 1,414.45 Mn in 2017 and is anticipated to expand at a CAGR of 8.2% from 2018 to 2026, according to a new report titled ‘Zinc–Air Batteries Market: Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth Trends, and Forecast, 2018–2026,’ published by Transparency Market Research (TMR). The global zinc–air batteries market is driven by rise in the demand for use of these batteries in hearing aids in the medical industry. Europe accounts for a major share of the global zinc–air batteries market.

View exclusive Global strategic Business report

Rise in demand for hearing aids among geriatric population to drive the global zinc–air batteries market

Increase in the rate of incidence of hearing disorders among geriatric population, typically in the U.S. and Europe, has boosted sales of hearing devices. Rise in the rate of incidence of hearing disabilities among newborns is a major concern in the global health care sector. The need for improved hearing aids is gaining momentum, which is driving the demand for zinc–air batteries. Ability of zinc–air batteries of providing a steady supply of power, by ensuring proper functioning of hearing aids, is likely to augment the demand for zinc–air batteries for use in hearing aids in the next few years. Hearing aids with zinc–air batteries can function under various temperature conditions. All these factors along with cost effectiveness are likely to propel the demand for zinc–air batteries for use in hearing aids in the near future.

Growing number of applications of zinc–air batteries such as traffic signaling and communication to augment the market

Demand for battery systems for use in traffic signaling systems has increased exponentially in the last few years. Zinc–air batteries are used in LED traffic lights, traffic signs, temporary traffic signs, and various warning signals. Features of zinc–air batteries such as quick startup, stable voltage, light weight, and low self-discharge are anticipated to offer lucrative growth opportunities to the global zinc–air batteries market during the forecast period. Demand for zinc–air batteries is high in the railways industry, owing to extreme resistance to vibrations that these batteries provide. Improper functioning of traffic signals led by reduced shelf life of battery backup can lead to accidents. Zinc–air batteries can function well in such conditions owing to their long shelf life. Zinc–air batteries are safe to handle, without any risk of leakage on fixed or moving installations.

Surge in demand for rechargeable zinc–air batteries to act as a growth opportunity for the market

Rechargeable zinc–air batteries are anticipated to be significantly applied in consumer devices, automobile starters, light vehicles (motorized wheel chairs, electric forklifts, electric vehicles, etc.), portable consumer devices, tools, and uninterruptible power supplies. Rechargeable batteries offer a more reliable, ecological, and sustainable replacement for non-rechargeable batteries. Increase in the demand for consumer devices, portable devices (such as music players, digital cameras, camera phones, and portable computing devices), automobiles, and bio-based vehicles is likely to drive the zinc–air batteries market from 2018 to 2026.

Presence of traces of mercury and unstable redox reactions to hinder the zinc–air batteries market

Presence of traces of mercury in zinc–air batteries can cause health hazards. Mercury can leak as the zinc–air battery casing disintegrates. A large number of countries have mandated that zinc–air batteries be mercury-free. This is attributable to risk of mercury poisoning from accidentally ingested batteries. High-performance electrodes are necessary to catalyze the oxygen-reducing reaction during discharge and oxygen production during recharge. In zinc–air batteries, these two reactions are sluggish. However, performance of the anode can be enhanced by using zinc nanoparticles.

Are you a start-up willing to make it big in the business? Grab an exclusive sample of this report here

Small devices segment dominates the global zinc–air batteries market

Among applications, the small devices segment (including watches, hearing aids, pagers, etc.) dominates the global zinc–air batteries market. Light weight is a major factor that drives the demand for zinc–air batteries in the small devices sector. Other advantages offered by zinc–air batteries used in small devices include high energy density, cost-effectiveness, constant voltage rate over a relatively long time, and proven technology.

Europe leads the global zinc–air batteries market

Among regions, Europe accounted for a major share of the global zinc–air batteries market in 2017. According to a report by the European Association of Hearing Aid Professionals, more than 80 million adults in Europe were suffering from hearing impairment in 2015. Growth of elderly population and introduction of appealing technologies in Europe are boosting the demand for zinc–air batteries in the region. Government initiatives to replace the existing railway signaling systems, typically in Denmark and Switzerland, are boosting the market in Europe.

Get a PDF Brochure Detailing about the current size & value of the market with all other necessary information

High degree of competition among established players

Key players profiled in the report include Berkshire Hathaway Inc., Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc., Energizer Holdings, and Panasonic Corporation. These players are forward integrated and they account for a major share of the global zinc–air batteries market, in terms of production capacity. Brand promotions and launch of new products are likely to increase sales of zinc–air batteries in the near future. Market leaders are striving to adopt measures such as strategic pricing and product improvement to gain market share.

About Us

Transparency Market Research is a next-generation market intelligence provider, offering fact-based solutions to business leaders, consultants, and strategy professionals.

Our reports are single-point solutions for businesses to grow, evolve, and mature. Our real-time data collection methods along with ability to track more than one million high growth niche products are aligned with your aims. The detailed and proprietary statistical models used by our analysts offer insights for making right decision in the shortest span of time. For organizations that require specific but comprehensive information we offer customized solutions through adhoc reports. These requests are delivered with the perfect combination of right sense of fact-oriented problem solving methodologies and leveraging existing data repositories.

TMR believes that unison of solutions for clients-specific problems with right methodology of research is the key to help enterprises reach right decision.

Contact Mr. Rohit Bhisey Transparency Market Research State Tower, 90 State Street, Suite 700, Albany NY - 12207 United States Tel: +1-518-618-1030 USA - Canada Toll Free: 866-552-3453 Email: sales@transparencymarketresearch.com Website: http://www.transparencymarketresearch.com Research Blog: http://www.europlat.org/

[patrick-watson]

Freight Slowdown Is a Terrible Sign for the Economy

Just as an army moves on its stomach, an economy moves on ships, trucks, and planes. They carry the goods whose purchase adds up to growth.

Nowadays many goods are digital, delivered electronically. But we still need lots of physical stuff which must travel to the customer.

Fewer goods in motion mean lower growth… and that’s exactly what is happening.

With technology, businesses have grown adept at managing inventory. Goods don’t typically sit on store shelves very long. Retailers stop ordering quickly when demand falls.

Lower freight volume is a symptom of a disease that’s getting worse.

Falling Freight Rates

Last summer, the nation’s overheated highways were crammed. Truckers had all the business they could handle as companies rushed to import Chinese goods ahead of expected tariffs.

I said at the time it would end badly. Sure enough, now truckers are struggling with excess capacity and lower volume. Freight rates have dropped hard this year.

Some smaller trucking companies have declared bankruptcy while bigger ones like Knight-Swift and Schneider have cut their annual forecasts. Several Wall Street analysts have downgraded J.B. Hunt, one of the biggest players.

It’s not just trucks, either. Container ship lines, railroads, warehouse operators—the entire logistics industry is starting to contract. You can see it in these recent Wall Street Journal headlines…

Freight Operators Slowed Hiring in May on Weaker Shipping Demand

Union Pacific Says Uncertainty, Harsh Weather Driving Down Rail Shipments

Trade Tensions Worry Ship Operators

Imports at Southern California Ports Fell Sharply Last Month

This was perfectly predictable. The 2018 transport boom didn’t represent higher demand for imported goods. It was future demand, pulled forward in time. President Trump’s tariff threats gave importers incentive to rush, and they did.

Now the future is here. Shelves are full, so traffic is no longer growing as much, and in some segments it’s falling. The widely regarded Cass Freight Index shows declining year-over-year volume for the last six consecutive months.

Chart: Cass Information Systems

Spilling Over

Excess stockpiles of imported goods aren’t the only sign of slowdown. Manufacturing activity is also slowing, both in the US and elsewhere.

This month the IHS Markit Purchasing Managers Index for US manufacturing activity dropped to its lowest level since September 2009, when the economy was in recession. Now it is only a fraction away from signalling an outright contraction.

This might explain an otherwise odd headline I noticed recently: “North American robot orders down in Q1.” The title refers to industrial robots, the kind that have been taking human jobs.

That trend seems to be slowing… which is what you would expect if factories have plenty of capacity to meet current demand.

Worse, the manufacturing weakness is spilling over into the rest of the economy. Here’s IHS Markit chief economist Chris Williamson:

Recent months have seen a manufacturing-led downturn increasingly infect the service sector. The strong services economy seen earlier in the year has buckled to show barely any expansion in June, recording the second-weakest monthly growth since the global financial crisis.

All these comparisons to 2008 and 2009 are more than a little chilling. I remember those years pretty well, and they weren’t fun. To now see similar conditions is, at the very least, not good and possibly very bad.

Meanwhile, Wall Street thinks a magical solution will appear.

Delayed Recession

A lot of this is connected to the ongoing trade war, but not all. The economic expansion would probably be nearing its end anyway. Growth cycles rarely last as long as this one has.

Here’s my theory. The economy should have entered recession a year ago. The late-2017 tax cuts bought a little time by encouraging business investment, while the Fed’s rate hikes made homebuyers rush to beat rising mortgage rates.

Then, the Trump trade fight sparked an import boom that created more activity and jobs. That extended the growth a little more. But those effects were temporary, and now they’re running out.

Some investors think the Fed will pull a rabbit out of the hat by cutting rates again. But access to credit isn’t the problem. Businesses that want to borrow can do so on good terms. The problem is they don’t need to borrow unless they are growing, and they’re not. The Fed can’t fix that.

Shipping weakness is an early warning sign. It doesn’t mean recession is imminent, but the longer it lasts, the more certain we can be that the weakness will spread.

Here’s how Cass says it in its latest report.

“The freight markets, or more accurately goods flow, has a well-earned reputation for predictive value without the anchoring biases that are found in many models which attempt to predict the broader economy.”

“The volume of freight in multiple modes is materially slowing and suggests an increasingly bearish economic outlook for the U.S. domestic economy.”

“With the -6.0% drop in May, we see the shipments index as going from ’warning of a potential slowdown’ to ’signaling an economic contraction.’”

Again, the timing is hard, but it can happen fast. Well into 2008, the economy was already in recession, but we realized it only later. By October, there was no doubt.

Let’s hope 2019 is different.

The Great Reset: The Collapse of the Biggest Bubble in History

 New York Times best-seller and renowned financial expert John Mauldin predicts an unprecedented financial crisis that could trigger in the next five years. Most investors seem completely unaware of the relentless pressure that’s building right now. Learn more here.

[reportsandmarkets]

LED Traffic Signs and Signals-United States Market Status and Trend Report 2013-2023

LED Traffic Signs and Signals-United States Market Status and Trend Report 2013-2023

LED Traffic Signs and Signals-United States Market Status and Trend Report 2013-2023 Access Full Report: https://www.reportsandmarkets.com/reports/led-traffic-signs-and-signals-united-2013-2023-1692546 Report Summary LED Traffic Signs and Signals-United States Market Status and Trend Report 2013-2023 offers a comprehensive analysis on LED Traffic Signs and Signals industry, standing on the…