Catalysts of Change: Technological Innovations Shaping Spanish Public Proximity Media

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study can well be taken as a reference for comparisons of the same direction in public television stations in America and their participation in OTT platforms, because the Spanish models were applied in public television stations in Latin America.

1. The research question is well posed as it seeks to learn about how the administrators of regional television stations consider and conceptualize audiovisual innovation and how they reflect it in the programming and construction of content on OTT platforms. 2. The interviews are important, since most studies focus on audience metrics and not on the conception that the television station administrators have regarding the proposed topic, in this way you can understand how they assume innovation and technology in programming and in the proposals of new content on OTT platforms. 3. The comparison between regional television stations is important, since the Spanish model is one of those that has been imposed in Latin America and therefore, this analysis is complementary to improve OTT services in South American networks, mainly. 4. For subsequent studies, it is important to measure online audiences on the OTT platforms themselves to have real-time data on satisfaction, participation and conversation. 5. The conclusions are relevant in accordance with the objectives set, and with the methodology developed, since being of a qualitative nature with the administrators of the television stations it is possible to appreciate the concepts they have about innovation in the audiovisual field for their audiences, which It is reflected in the grill. 6. They are appropriate and current.

 

7. They are appropriate.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your feedback and the detailed evaluation of our work

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I would like to congratulate the authors for this works, as I consider it covers a research gap: the intersection between innovation in journalism and regional public service media. In my opinion, this gap should be stated more clearly and explicitly in the introduction and the conclusions, as it is a great value in the paper.

Although the realtionship between technology and innovation is treated in lines 57-59, I believe that some more elaboration on this topic is necessary. The theoretical section delves into the concept of innovation (Schumpeter, incremental VS radical, object of the innovation...) but the main focus of the paper (technological innovation) remains underexplained. I recommend this work, which also deals with Spanish cases of study (https://revistascientificas.uspceu.com/doxacomunicacion/article/view/1834) to add inputs on this relationship.

The research method is appropriate. The only thing I miss there is a quantification of how many of the interviewees belong to each group (production, innovation, digital transformation and technological support), and how many of them belong to each company.

There should be more homogeneity in the spelling of departments. While is some cases the departments are preceded by capital letters, in some others they are not (line 199). 

In section 3.1, I miss more critical assessment of the performance of innovation departments according to interviewees, as only the lack of committee meetings is underlined for one case.

In 3.2, more explaination of the initiatives is nedeed. For example, the author(s) mention "cutting-edge mechanisms and capabilities that allow it to respond immediately to the needs of its audiences", but they don't explain what sort of mechanisms these are. Another example: What is the Dalet Galaxy five system? The sections has to be updated with more explainations.

No limitations are mentioned in the conclusions area. There are always limitations. 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please refer to the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf