Findings from an  Internet snapshot from June 18, 2009:

• Wikipedia emerges within the top two search results for 4/5 of the leading topics.
• At least one social media source emerges within the top 10 search results for every term. In most cases, the social media sites emerge directly above a traditional, major news source, such as WSJ.com.

In a follow-up snapshot on June 24, a marked shift takes place, reaffirming the Iran election story as a watershed moment for online news and communications:

• YouTube emerges within the top 10 search results for all search terms in the second week.
• Wikipedia remains within the top three search results in the second week for four of the five search terms.
• Twitter emerges within the top 20 search results in week two – specifically, the Twitter results for Moussavi and Ahmadinejad. Of course, traditional news sources such as the BBC (and CNN, in week two) bubble to the top of search results, as do general information sites such as Yahoo.com and Infoplease.com.

What this means is that general human curiosity is driving people to look to all available sources for information.  The conflict in Iran presenting the latest and perhaps most sophisticated example of how the world has changed for journalists, the media and increasingly active media consumers alike.

So what else do the search results signify? Is consumer generated media (news by the people, for the people) eclipsing traditional sources? Are people more frequently linking to Wikipedia than the New York Times for information about Iran? What does it mean that Mashable is among the top three search results for “Iran Election?” What role does Twitter play? As major events break (Iran, Health Care, Michael Jackson) we will continue to dive into the data and present answers to these questions, both through our own analysis and through feedback and opinions of others. After all, if weve learned anything in the last few weeks, it’s that the power is in the hands of the people… What do you think?

Although 40 percent said that the media did a poor job of informing them of the issues that led to the crisis, 52 percent say that the media is now helping them to better understand the issues at play while 23 percent said that they were let down by the media.  Another 25 percent were ambivalent.  A similar number (53%) thought that they were getting good information from the media about the steps governments were taking to address the economy, while 20 percent thought that more information was needed.

The views of New Zealanders largely echoed those of others in the Asia Pacific region, which were generally less critical of the media than Europeans and Americans.  In North America, 51 percent of those surveyed said that media coverage leading up to the crisis was inadequate, while 48 percent of Europeans thought the same.  The Swiss were the most fatigued by media coverage – 42 percent were tired of reading about gloom and doom – followed by the Dutch (41%) and the Irish (38%).

It might seem strange for a company promoting online to caution against claims that digital has killed print when it comes to news, but in the search for tasty and attention-grabbing headlines I do feel the industry overestimates the so-called “death of the newspaper” and the adoption of digital technologies that will potentially replace them.

Whilst digital has major advantages over print in terms of immediacy and depth of content, there are some things that it simply can’t replace in the minds or lives of consumers. We saw a similar story a couple of years ago when it came to the effect of the digital industry on music sales. The predictable “death of the CD” headlines followed and whilst there is little debate that traditional CD sales have been hit hard, the format is by no means extinct.

Nielsen ran a large survey looking at why consumers still planned to buy CDs and reasons included: liking to physically own something (rather than an “abstract” mp3 file), having a physical collection that included the artwork, and being easier to port the music to other areas. For the majority, is there anything as simple as just grabbing a CD from the living room and taking it with you into the car? The industry has always had a tendency to over-estimate people’s technological familiarity and competency.

Of course, CDs are a different media from newspapers, but the themes of physicality, practicality, familiarity, and convenience for the masses are consistent themes. Digital can’t replace the traditional walk to get the morning papers, reading the Sunday papers in bed, or an impulse purchase of a newspaper for a train journey – not everyone has the desire or the access to a portable electronic device at every moment of the day.

Whether it’s habit, touch and feel, familiarity, techno-illiteracy or convenience, a significant chunk of the population will still require a physical version to hold in their hands.

The Internet played an important role in the 2008 election campaign, so it’s no surprise that on Election Day, people used multiple news sources to follow results.  By combining television and Internet samples through a process known as fusion, Nielsen provides new data showing how the two media worked together to meet the demand for election news updates.

A total of 163.6 million adults sought election coverage from either television or the Internet — or both. This shows the unduplicated or cumulative audience that used one or the other medium for at least one minute.

158.3 million watched Election Day coverage on television. Of those, 134.8 million only watched TV coverage.

28.8 million used the Internet to get Election Day coverage from major news websites. Of those, 5.2 million only used the Internet for election coverage.

23.6 million got Election Day coverage from both TV and the Internet. Of these, 48% of these accessed online Election Day coverage only while at work; 42% got their online coverage only at home; and 10% checked online coverage both at home and at work.

Demographic Breakdown
From an overall reach perspective, adults aged 50+ were more likely than younger adults to seek Election Day news from TV or Internet — 80% of these adults were reached by one or the other medium, compared to 60% for 18-34s and 76% for 35-49s.

The demographic difference between the TV audience and the online audience wasn’t “younger” versus “older” — but rather, “middle-aged” versus “older.”

Younger adults between the ages of 18-34 made up about a quarter of the audience for both television and the Internet, but from there online coverage skewed younger than television:

-Adults 18-34 were 24.8% of the TV audience and 24.4% of the online audience.

-Adults 35-49 made up 40.7% of the online audience, but only 29.5% of the TV audience.

-Adults over the age of 50 made up 46% of the TV audience and accounted for 35% of the Internet users.

In addition, there are decided differences in demographic composition, based on whether people accessed election coverage online only, on TV only, or both on TV and online:

-Internet Only Users were the youngest: 34.5% were aged 18-34, compared to 34.0% for 35-49 and 31.5% for 50+.

-TV Only Users were the oldest: 25.3% were aged 18-34, 27.3% were aged 35-49, 47.4% were 50+.

-People who accessed Election coverage on both TV and online skewed 35-49: 22.2% were aged 18-34, 42.2% were 35-49, 35.6% were 50+.

Convergence Panel Results
A new Nielsen sample tracks both Internet and television usage with a single sample, making it possible to see how people used the two media simultaneously to check Election Day results.  This “convergence panel” shows that while simultaneous use of TV and Internet for Election Day coverage was limited, TV and online news outlets drew larger than average audiences:

-Only 1% of TV viewers on Election Night were simultaneously searching news websites — three times greater than the prior Tuesday night.

-On the other hand, 25.5% of news website visitors on Election Night were also watching TV election coverage — 2.5 times greater than the normal simultaneous traffic.