The research defines sustainability as the ability to deliver on a journalistic mission while maintaining financial stability. The report identifies four foundations that underpin success: product and audience, monetization, operational readiness, and financial resilience. Publishers that strengthen these areas consistently outperform peers in profitability, innovation, and adaptability. 

The results show that independent digital-native publishers are thriving in underserved markets, while established regional and national players are modernizing through digital transformation. Across this spectrum, success depends less on scale and more on clarity of purpose, innovation, and culture. 

Small digital natives are rewriting the rules 

One of the report’s most surprising findings comes from digital-native outlets with fewer than 50 employees. They are thriving and most often operate with lean budgets and off-the-shelf technology. Seventy-two percent of these small publishers already turn a profit, and half report margins above six percent. Many focus on local or niche communities overlooked by larger media organizations. Their success challenges long-held assumptions that sustainability requires scale or legacy infrastructure. Instead, agility, efficiency, and community relevance are their competitive advantages. 

In the United States, lean models such as Times of San Diego and 6am City illustrate this shift in action. Both run profitably with small teams, efficient technology, and high engagement. 6am City operates 25 local newsletters reaching one million subscribers with an open rate near 50%, showing how focus and consistency can drive growth. The Post and Courier in South Carolina, meanwhile, illustrates how regional legacy outlets can modernize successfully through audience development and subscriptions. 

Digital transformation accelerates 

Across all markets, digital transformation defines strategy. Digital-forward publishers expect a 9% shift from print and advertising toward digital consumer revenue within three years, while the most profitable anticipate a 13% shift. Even in print-dominant regions such as Latin America and South Asia, publishers plan for double-digit declines in print income offset by digital gains. 

Many legacy publishers still depend on print as a financial bridge. While print revenue continues to generate profit, leaders use those earnings to fund technology upgrades, product development, and newsroom innovation. In effect, they are transforming a declining business line into an engine that funds their digital future. 

Diversification strengthens resilience 

Advertising remains an important revenue stream, but diversification now defines sustainability. Digital natives expect subscription revenue to rise by 5%, and the most profitable forecast at 7% growth. Leading outlets are expanding into donations, events, and information services. The report finds that digital-forward publishers with three or more significant revenue sources record higher average profit margins than those with fewer.  

The report shows profitability rises with direct audience engagement. Among profitable publishers, 41% have logged-in rates above 7.5%, while only 15% of unprofitable publishers reach that level. Logged-in readers are more valuable because they convert more easily to subscribers and enhance advertising through first-party data. As referral traffic from search and social platforms declines, publishers increasingly rely on registration walls, newsletters, and direct sign-ups to build lasting connections. Profit follows the login and publishers that own their audience data outperform those that don’t. 

Technology, editorial investment, and cash discipline 

Profitability also correlates with investment in technology, editorial quality, and cash management. Publishers with robust technology infrastructure and sound financial planning report higher margins and stronger readiness for the future. The data here shows that digital-forward publishers manage costs tightly while investing in customer research and product innovation. In contrast, some publishers cut editorial spending to protect short-term profit. This often leads to a “doom loop,” a cycle where weak products erode audience trust and reduce revenue. 

In addition, most publishers surveyed say AI is a strategic priority, whether to automate workflows, personalize content, or enhance reporting. Local outlets use AI to improve efficiency, while larger organizations employ it to differentiate their products. 

Although AI adoption does not yet correlate with profitability, it signals a growing maturity across the industry. In the United States, experimentation continues to expand, especially around data insights and multilingual publishing. 

The News Sustainability Project 2025 Report delivers a clear message of progress. Media companies are proving that sustainability is achievable when strategy centers on audience insight, purposeful innovation, and disciplined investment in people and technology. Their success depends on strong leadership, smart investment in people and technology, and a continued commitment to local journalism that informs and connects communities.  

The post Small publishers model sustainable media strategies appeared first on Digital Content Next.

He was asked about the macroeconomics of Hollywood, particularly how streaming has affected the subjective quality of content compared to decades ago. Damon explained how DVDs once generated huge revenue, allowing studios to take more creative risks because they could rely on profits from DVD sales after a film’s theatrical release. He shared an example from a studio executive who explained that making a movie would, in theory, cost $25 million, with another $25 million for print and advertising. Gross box office receipts are then split with theater owners, who typically keep about half. This structure means the film would need to earn around $100 million just to break even or beginning to even discuss profit.  

Safe bets versus experimentation and adaptability

This hit me close to home, even though I’m in a different industry. It made me think about how the news media industry has also undergone drastic changes due to technology, shifts in audience consumption habits, and declines in traditional revenue streams like print subscriptions and classified ads. Both industries now take fewer risks in unpredictable environments, arguably leading to a drop in content quality and diversity. While exceptional work is still produced, the shift toward safer, commercially viable content is evident. Yet the evolving landscape hints at a future that demands a more integrated and adaptive approach.  

Hollywood content creation, as Damon suggests, centers on box office hits that drive significant revenue in their theatrical run. In news media, revenue reliance is on digital ads, subscriptions, and paywalls.  

Damon’s discussion of the economics of film made me wonder: What’s the new “DVD-sales” for the news media industry? What will create sustainable revenue beyond conventional methods? As technology advances, I believe the solution is in building new models that effectively leverage current tech and audience trends to offer long-term financial stability. 

While traditional news content remains important, it’s clear that audience expectations constantly evolve. Technology unlocks new possibilities which organizations must experiment with to master. At the same time, communities and influencers are reshaping how audiences connect with news. To stay relevant, news media has to adapt to these changing consumption patterns and provide deeper engagement. It’s time for journalism to meet these evolving demands, focusing on the key areas that will define the future of news and become the industry’s new “DVD-sales.” 

Diverse and individualized identity in media 

As audience preferences evolve, identity and self-representation are becoming central to media consumption. People no longer want just content—they want content that reflects their values and creates a sense of belonging. Subscriptions, affiliations, and donations have become extensions of personal identity, allowing individuals to support causes, movements, or news platforms that align with who they are or aspire to be. This shift is empowering. It fosters deeper connections between the audience and the media. However, it requires representation and relatability.  

Audiences increasingly seek a voice in the content they engage with. Community-led journalism and immersive experiences meet this demand by offering behind-the-scenes access, deeper insights into investigative reporting, and platforms for expressing concerns and successes within communities. These media-driven town halls—both in-person and virtual—create spaces where passion and substance shape the conversation. Historically, community-led journalism has also empowered underserved groups. It gives them ownership of their stories, fosters empathy, and reinforces a sense of identity as individuals see themselves reflected in the content. 

Mission-driven partnerships 

As audiences seek media that reflects their authentic selves, corporations and philanthropic organizations are aligning with news outlets that share their values to forge impact-driven partnerships that open new revenue opportunities for news media. These partnerships—particularly with philanthropic foundations, renewable energy companies, and organizations focused on health and sustainability—fund journalism with shared societal goals. Rooted in corporate social responsibility, they empower journalism to deliver objective reporting while driving meaningful social change.  

 By supporting investigative journalism, documentaries, and projects that resonate with consumers’ values, these partnerships enhance engagement and create a sustainable, mission-driven funding model. And companies that invest in media that align with their core values forge deeper connections with consumers who see these efforts as an extension of their own identities. This trend could shift news revenue models from short-term advertising to long-term, scalable partnerships, offering a significant and exciting opportunity for the future of news media. 

Transformative role of technology 

While sticking with the tried-and-true tactics may seem like the safe bet, the industry will need to reinvigorate its spirit of innovation and risk to best connect with ever-evolving audience expectations.  Technology has empowered today’s audiences to be more authentic by providing quicker access to information and more immediate ways to explore their interests. Information access helps people understand themselves and the world around them with greater speed and depth.  

Newsrooms can harness this shift by embracing immersive reporting through interactive experiences like AR and VR, which allows individuals to step into different perspectives, fostering empathy and engagement. These immersive technologies, from placing reporters on the front lines to using interactive learning platforms, enable audiences to connect more deeply with content, helping them refine their views and consider how they want to contribute or enact change.  

The real breakthrough, however, is in AI’s role in driving personalized engagement. AI allows news organizations to deliver hyper-personalized content based on individual habits and preferences, a process once manual and time-consuming. With AI-enhanced data insights, organizations can understand their audiences at a granular level, offering timely, relevant, and highly customized content. This deeper connection with consumers anticipates their needs and creates impactful experiences, potentially transforming how news is consumed and delivered. 

The road ahead for media revenue

So where is this all leading, and how does this become the new “DVD-sales” for news media? The answer lies in a transformative, identity-driven, community and tech-powered ecosystem where audiences help shape the content. This approach will foster loyalty and create scalable, sustainable revenue beyond traditional ads and subscriptions. By leveraging the combined power of community and technology, news organizations can form partnerships with purpose-aligned entities, redefining how journalism is funded and experienced. 

I envision a digital platform where users actively participate, voting on story ideas or contributing content in an environment that tackles local and global issues. With AI and data-driven personalization, users can receive tailored content and news organizations can create high-demand immersive experiences like virtual town halls. 

 If you’re wondering how these ideas translate into reality, take a look at City Bureau in Chicago, which is already putting some of them to work. This journalism lab is reimagining local media by equipping communities to address information inequity. Their Documenters program trains and pays residents to cover local government meetings, boosting transparency and citizen involvement.  

This concept upholds journalistic integrity, ensures accuracy and drives meaningful community involvement. It integrates the community into the editorial process without compromising professional standards. The approach builds authentic connections and strengthens trust, which is crucial for attracting corporate sponsorships and philanthropic partnerships. No, it does not come in a handy book-sized package like the DVD. However, this is a model that puts the audience at the center to build a sustainable model through experimentation in how the news is made, delivered, and funded.  

The post Redefining media revenue: the search for new ‘DVD sales’ appeared first on Digital Content Next.

Some people believe that news companies are increasingly compromising their integrity by prioritizing profit and financial gain, even as the industry struggles to improve its public standing and economic sustainability. Journalism scholars Jacob L Nelson, Seth C Lewis, and Brent Cowley explore factors influencing the perceptions of news trustworthiness. Their research, Money is the root of all evil.’ How the business of journalism shapes trust in news examines how perceptions about news funding influence trust and engagement with news content.

Trust, bias, and skepticism of the news

The authors interviewed 34 news consumers, using the folk theory—a generative approach to uncovering the narratives people construct on any given topic. The root causes of trust understandably vary among individuals. Some respondents attribute their distrust of the news industry to the rise of populism, others to the influence of digital technology, and some to the lack of diversity in traditional newsrooms.

However, despite these varied perspectives, many perceive news reporting as biased. While discussions on bias typically focus on political leanings, economic bias can play an equally significant role. Economic pressures influence public trust; many today believe news organizations prioritize profitability over accurate reporting.

Skepticism toward journalism also stands as a barrier to trust. Respondents highlighting their skepticism and concerns often feel compelled to fact-check and corroborate news stories. They view the news as ideologically biased rather than objective, leading them to consume it critically and avoid accepting journalistic perspectives as entirely truthful.

Is the news profit-driven with an economic bias?

The research participants assume news organizations primarily make money through advertising, leading to a focus on attracting large audiences. They believe this economic pressure results in sensational and often ideological biases in news coverage. The perception of journalism as profit-driven contributes to consumer distrust of news, as they view the news media as prioritizing profit over accurate reporting.

Further, respondents frequently point to journalism’s pursuit of profits as a reason for their deep skepticism. They observe news organizations striving to secure advertising deals and attract large audiences, thinking this will influence the journalists’ reports. Those who see ideological bias in the news perceive it as economically motivated rather than ideologically driven.

Perception controls reality

Audience distrust stems not necessarily from the news media’s actions but from the perception that news organizations prioritize profits above all else. While skepticism towards commercial influence is justified, this study indicates that audiences overwhelmingly view economic interests as dominating journalistic integrity. The respondents’ perception suggests that audiences believe profit-driven priorities significantly compromise journalistic quality.

News without profit-motivations: Non-profit or publicly-funded

The authors believe journalists will not restore public trust solely by maintaining objectivity and avoiding political bias. They recognize the need for news organizations to have revenue goals. However, they recommend addressing the economic model of journalism and demonstrating a clear separation between financial motives and journalistic integrity.

They also see options in non-profit or publicly funded models, which can reduce perceptions of profit-driven motives in the news. While trust in publicly funded outlets like the BBC dropped, a structural shift across the could improve trust. Public funding could especially benefit local newsrooms, which are perceived positively but are financially vulnerable.

It is essential to understand public perceptions of newsroom economic motivations and their impact on trust. Further examination of the assumptions that journalism’s commercial interests shape people’s trust in news is key to understanding the nuances of the industry’s credibility challenges. Meanwhile, increasing transparency can help address audience concerns about revenue and profits influencing journalistic work.

The post Financial motivation impacts the public’s perception of news appeared first on Digital Content Next.

A report into the state of local news in the UK from Enders Analysis and the News Media Association pulls no punches. It is clear about the extent to which local news publishers did not benefit from advertising spend moving from print to digital. It’s also candid about the likelihood of titles foregoing print entirely in the near future.

However, the report goes well beyond rehashing the impact of technology on the news media business. While it clearly sets the stakes for the industry, the report, “Signs of local life: a new phase for local media” also focuses on opportunities and collaborative strategies for local publishers as we move forward.

The authors note that “publishers have done very little to transition habitual paying print readers—or the next generation—into habitual paying digital audiences”. It also points out that local media have lost the war on digital classifieds and have no realistic path back to reclaiming that revenue.

That is exacerbated by other challenges facing print media. From higher production costs to the “effective monopoly” of the two major distributors, the ability to print and disseminate dailies and weeklies is becoming strained. The report states it expects the number of titles that go digital-only in the next decade will be greater than the previous 10 years.

As a result of that—and the absolute dominance of tech giants in digital advertising—the report states that appetite for external investment is limited: “No one in the industry would deny all this decline has driven investment sentiment away from the sector, and consequently depressed the value of local and regional media.”

Green shoots

But rather than being solely self-flagellation, the report highlights some of the irreplicable strengths of the UK local news industry. Owen Meredith, chief executive of the NMA explains that, “while clearly everything isn’t rosy, there are some positive signs of life. There is innovation there; DC Thomson [for example] is really good at building a membership model and subscription model that genuinely works in local news.”

As the report makes plain, the greatest strength of the local news industry is the direct relationship it has with its audience, and the trust that flows from its original journalism. It states: “At one time all of these distinctions were obvious because they were visible in the physical world: print was plainly different from other content and consumption. Online, these distinctions evaporate.”

So, the report argues that the local media industry needs to “shout these distinctions from the rooftops” particularly in the emerging era of generative AI-created content. Local news has provenance and personality. The report makes the argument that it will be difficult if not impossible for AI-generated content to take its place. In an age where the amount of noise online is to grow exponentially, local news media can provide the signal.

Meredith says local publishers like Newsquest are already set-up to take advantage of that trend: “We’ve got these huge scale audiences… there’s been a perception that a lot of that was driven by non-core local news.

“Actually, there is more data coming to light now… that you really do have deep engagement, multiple pageviews, reasonable penetration and good scroll-through. People are actually coming to local news sites for the local news product.”

That is in line with the recommendation by the report that local publishers move from pursuing digital advertising based solely on scale: “Too much revenue today is reliant on low-yield programmatic advertising” which has diminishing returns—particularly for the newspapers.

Show me the money

In order to survive to take advantage of that strength, however, local news organizations need time and investment, particularly around tech. Meredith says: Tech is a big-ticket item for a lot of smaller publishers. You can’t therefore do everything you might want to do at once. But I think you can do phased-based tech and there’s a lot of off the shelf solutions, frankly, that provide publishers with answers without massively excessive investment required.”

Given the long-term forecasts for ad spend and a lack of philanthropic support in the UK, the report suggests a number of alternative sources of funding.

In line with earlier recommendations from the Cairncross Review, the Enders report points out that direct government funding is basically impossible for any independent press that seeks to hold the government to account. Instead, it suggests alternatives that include more government advertising (already the largest single source of local advertising revenue across its many departments) with the local press.

Meredith concurs with this assessment, stating: “We think a genuine commercial exchange on advertising is fundamentally different to subsidy. We firmly believe that there is a long-term sustainable future for local news in a commercial way.

“We’ve been talking about the digital markets bill for ages. It’s not a silver bullet, but it will certainly help. There’s lots of elements but you [can] combine that commercial vitality without government subsidy or intervention, as well as the Competition and Markets Authority getting out of the way and allowing market consolidation to happen”.

Meredith is also keen to point out that the BBC has a key role to play in the future of the local press. It is a wholly unique organisation by any media standards, and Meredith argues that if it were proposed today its free-to-access nature means it would be immediately shot down by competition authorities. He advocates for a resetting of the relationship between the local press and the BBC, both through the BBC Local Democracy Reporting Service and other means.

Ultimately, the conclusion of the Enders Analysis report is that local news in the UK needs to make itself attractive to investment from outside the industry. That will be like ripping off a sticking plaster, as it has been resistant to change for years – for a variety of reasons. Executives at the major publishing houses have been accused of riding the slow decline of tested revenue sources in service of their payouts, for example.

True change in order to attract investment will require, as both Meredith and the Enders report advocate, collaboration and collective agreements in order to reach sustainability.

The post Change, lots of it: Enders Analysis on saving local news in the UK appeared first on Digital Content Next.

Just as we are progressing from web2.0 to web3, the editorial newsletter has moved to the next level, driven in part by the emergence of integrated platforms. While the email inbox is still the destination for the final product, the ability to integrate sign-ups across social platforms and dedicated newsletter ad tools have propelled the medium to its next stage.

Between the development of those new tools and the recognition that completable, digestible news formats have value in the constantly updating nature of digital news, it’s small wonder that so much time and effort is being poured into newsletter strategy. And, driven in part by the pandemic, last year saw a raft of newspapers and magazines doubling down on newsletters for community development and revenue purposes.

The revenue models

Paid subscriptions to Substack’s newsletters exploded to more than one million late last year. Mid-2019, that number was closer to 50,000. And it isn’t just the newsletter platforms that have reaped the benefits of a bumper year for sign-ups.

The New York Times, which has around 17 million subscribers to its newsletters, announced last year that it is to make a third of those subscriber-only. Its decision around which were to be paid-for products was based largely on which newsletters it saw as being better for discovery and which had revenue potential. Its editorial director of newsletters Adam Pasick attributed that potential to growth in newsletter sign-ups from people desperate for news about the pandemic and the U.S. election.

Of course The New York Times is not alone. Organizations like The Financial Times and Axios also so their investment in newsletters pay off during the pandemic.

Perhaps the best measure of the maturation of the space is the level of experimentation that has gone into newsletter revenue strategies. Mel Magazine, buoyed by subscription success, launched a trio of paid-for newsletters in March 2021. In January of this year, the newsletter Dirt launched DirtDAO which allows its subscribers to use branded NFTs to vote on and commission stories for its writers.

On the other end of the scale, the Manchester Mill is a local newsletter published to a few thousand people in a Northern UK town. Its founder Joshi Hermann told me that 2020 and 2021 outpaced his expectations for signups: “In the first year, we’ve picked up just over 1000, which is really promising, probably slightly more than I expected given the notorious difficulty of building up subscriptions in the first place for massive content and stuff. So, I’m really delighted with that.”

Beyond paid-for newsletters, ad-supported formats are increasingly popular. Andreas Jürgensen, CEO and co-founder of newsletter ad platform Passendo, said: “There’s… a whole resurgence of publishers who are email first, and are basically building strategies around email. Then web becomes secondary, or might not even exist in the mix for them. These guys have seen the light, in regards to this as a trusted channel of the future.”

But that gold rush can’t last forever. There is increased competition amid a range of newly launched newsletters from individuals and newspapers alike. With a potential impending economic crunch, sponsors and advertisers will have to cut spend, and the public won’t necessarily prioritize newsletters. So while publications might be looking to newsletters for post-Covid revenue growth, they will have to contend with growing headwinds.

However, as bad as that might be for major publishers, it will be far worse for individual newsletter creators.

Squashed by the giants

Larger publications have the resources to keep newsletters going through a slump or take the time to transition the strategy, such as for discovery over direct revenue. Individuals who have launched newsletters will be first to feel the pinch.

Neal Freyman is managing editor of Morning Brew, which preempted much of the discussion around newsletters as an editorial product when it launched in 2017. He explains: “I think it was a bit of a pandemic blip kind of thing, as we’re seeing a lot of the pandemic winners kind of fall back to Earth.

“It’s an insane amount of work to put out a newsletter every day. So, I do think you’ll see the level of individual newsletter creators fall back down to earth and realize that you know, a support system is really needed. You might see some of these writer collectives start forming, but then you’re basically looking back at a media company, again, with sales and all that.”

One early piece of evidence for that was the closure of a long-running freelancer-focused newsletter in the UK. In the announcement, the sole creator Anna Codrea-Rado noted: “There are lots of reasons for this difficult decision, but they can be summed up quite simply: it’s just not working. Most pressingly, the maths doesn’t add up anymore. The number of paying subscribers isn’t high enough to make this one-woman newsletter business sustainable anymore.”

Some of that pressure comes from the fact that the majority of consumers who choose to be informed through newsletters signed up via major publications rather than individuals. According to the latest Digital News Report only 16% of that cohort are signed up to newsletters run by individuals. Meanwhile, 53% are signed up via “mainstream media organizations.”

The Report also notes that, to some extent, the newsletter boom is a US-centric trend: “The ‘Substack revolution’ for news is still primarily a U.S. phenomenon and it is not guaranteed to catch on elsewhere, especially given the difference in market size and context.” It is notable that most of the non-U.S .publications that launched paid-for newsletters did so with modest aspirations in terms of subscribers: Mel Magazine’s three paid-for newsletters had a goal of 10,000 subscribers within their first six months.

The outlook for individual-based newsletters, then, is iffy and exposed to volatility in the wider economy. But for bigger publications, newsletters are set to retain their primacy as a tool to entice readers into their ecosystems. There might the massive market for subscription newsletters the industry might hope fore. However, newsletters still offer unmatched value as a way to connect with audiences and add value for subscribers.

The post One year later: Who won the pandemic newsletter boom appeared first on Digital Content Next.

As a result, few accusations raise hackles in digital news like the suggestion someone’s paywall strategy is wrong. We’ve seen that discussion play out many times between adherents of hard paywalls and the advocates for metered models. Now, though, there is growing sentiment that there may only be two or three big subscription players in any one niche. Consequently, rather than focusing on the terms of access, we are now talking about points of differentiation between what is included in each package.

Paywall packages

At some titles, non-news products round out the subscription bundle, making it more appealing overall. For example, The New York Times’ Crosswords and Cooking products have long driven subscriptions. And they actually appear to be growing in importance to the company’s subscription strategy. In its latest earnings call, CEO Meredith Kopit Levien also confirmed that the Times’ plans to build a subscription service around its review site Wirecutter.

Few outlets have the funds or the products to be able to bundle additional products into their news subscriptions, however. The points of differentiation for most have to come from their core content. For regional publishers making a play for subscription revenue, that uniqueness comes from the fact that they are the only provider of local news in the area.

However, national titles must differentiate in other ways. That might be a star columnist, or an edition-based publishing method as we’ve seen employed by The Times of London. Or it could even be putting the core product – the news – outside the paywall itself. And that’s where we get back to the accusation that people are doing paywalls wrong. Indeed, putting news outside a paywall is a grievous, unforgivable sin to some in the industry.

High value, no cost

We saw that with the reaction to news sites like The Financial Times and The Atlantic making their coronavirus coverage free-to-access. That was despite arguments from some of us that doing so would benefit their subscription businesses in the long-term. Even so, putting critical news outside the paywall is hardly unprecedented. But what if a national title were to put all of its rolling news outside the paywall, and instead rely on old content to convert people to subscribers?

That’s exactly what the Daily Nation, Kenya’s largest national title, is planning to do. Per Nieman Lab’s write-up: “To read Nation articles more than seven days old … users will have to pay up.” Essentially, the value proposition shifts from free-to-access to paying for content that, in the world of digital news, is practically ancient. Subscriptions start at 50Ksh for one week, 150Ksh for one month, or 750Ksh for one year. (50Ksh is about 45 cents USD.)”

So, can an approach like this work? Can you effectively sell a “news” subscription where the content you’re charging for isn’t, well, new?

Deep dive archive

To answer that question, we need to look at other types of publications that have made access to archives the core tenet of a subscription.

National Geographic, for instance, recognizes that its back catalog is hugely appealing to potential subscribers. In fact, it made a separate landing page for those who are primarily interested in its archives as opposed to jumping in via a new issue. Esquire sells access to its back issues dating back to the early 1930s, as a standalone service, as does Motorsport with issues back to 1924.

The New Yorker includes transcribed versions of its old articles in its metered model. In addition to its own plans for a paid-for archive Playboy is launching a podcast series based on its historic interviews.

Exact Editions operates a business that runs specifically on offering access to back-catalogue bundles, and a few years ago its managing director Daryl Rayner said: “A large proportion of our partners’ magazines are earning more from institutional subscriptions than they are from app sales in iTunes. It is an important market, not to be neglected.” I can’t imagine the propensity to pay for archives has fallen even as more people become willing to pay for digital subscriptions.

If not strictly news, these are news-adjacent articles, hopelessly out of date and yet hugely valuable. They are snapshots of a given time in history; small wonder that people will pay for access.

Beyond the back issue

Beyond the appeal to the consumer of archived feature writing, however, there is undoubtedly still inherent value in news archives. If there weren’t, there would never have been a drive to collect microfiches of old editions in libraries.

While it has done so with no eye to charging for access, the Internet Archive has digitized “almost the entire back catalog” of the Editor and Publisher. As Joshua Benton writes: “Newspapers’ archives are an incredible storehouse of information about the history of our country. And too many of those archives are, as E&P’s were, left crumbling in some storage facility or hidden away on unindexed rolls of microfilm.”

It’s a social service to archive these old stories, and doubly so at a time when digital news is frequently ephemeral. The half-life of news is infinitesimal. This was a concern as far back as 2009. And it’s only become more important as audiences wise up to the nature of digital news publishing. They appreciate having resources like this to the point that they will pay for it, as the British Library found when it began selling access to its archive of newspapers.

Value proposition

So, why is there reluctance to make these archives the core tenet of a news subscription as the Daily Nation has done, rather than hitching our future to up-to-the-minute coverage? It’s partly due to a discrepancy between what journalists and editors value versus what audiences consider worth paying for. I recently spoke to Ramus Kleis Nielsen, the director of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, about that dissonance. He argues:

“When news organizations who are turning to reader revenues are trying to sell subscriptions, that light is very focused on us and not very focused on the public that we aim and claim to serve. They are the ones who have to convince. You don’t need to convince me or journalists that what we do is important, or that we want more people to engage with it and even pay for it. You need to convince the people who aren’t doing it.”

Because those of us who work in journalism focus on the now, on being first. And, therefore, we can lose sight of what audiences actually need: context. It’s natural that we should fear putting our most valuable content out there for free. This is why hackles raise whenever someone brings it up. But if what we value isn’t what audiences value? How can we know what they think is really worth paying for?

More crucially, those archives offer perhaps the most valuable point of differentiation from rivals. “Breaking” news is easily replicable online. And, while it’s important it isn’t necessarily uniquely valuable. What is valuable is the analysis – the context – built around that news. As with the viral “Who is the banana republic now?” column that the Daily Nation found drove subscriptions, that evergreen content – abundant in newspapers’ archives – is both differentiator and draw for audiences.

The post Capitalizing on context: What if the value of news isn’t what’s new? appeared first on Digital Content Next.

Key findings:

Renewed consumer focus

Businesses across different sectors are reporting negative financial impact due to Covid-19. The most significant revenue declines to date, according to WARC, are travel and tourism (-31%), leisure and entertainment (-29%), finance services (-18%), and retail (-15%).

Within the entertainment sector, the media business is showing financial declines for the year. GroupM expects the US advertising market performance to decline 13% this year (excluding political advertising for 2020’s presidential and other elections). WARC estimates advertising growth for three specific media platforms: social media, online video and search. The hardest hit medium will be newspapers. PwC’s Global Entertainment and Media Outlook 2020-2024 report estimates newspaper advertising (print and online) in the U.K. will register a decline of 27% over the next five years Global Entertainment and Media Outlook 2020-2024 report estimates newspaper advertising (print and online) in the U.K. will register a decline of 27% over the next five years.

With a downturn in advertising, publishers see the importance of a renewed focus on the audience. By doing so, they can accelerate their efforts to establish new revenue streams to lessen their dependency on advertising — an industry imperative that has come into even sharper focus of late. Finding the right path to fulfill audience needs can help publisher identify new revenue opportunities.

Audience-first directs path to new revenue

By all reports, consumption of content increased during the pandemic. In part, working from home during Covid-19 offered the audience more opportunities to consume content. There were marked rises in internet usage and streaming video viewing. Even local news publishers are benefitting from consumer interest in information relating to Covid-19 in their neighborhood.

Further, record traffic metrics and increased subscriptions illustrate a strong and trusted relationship between publisher and consumer. Publishers are also experiencing churn improvement according to Piano, a digital analytics company. Piano’s data analysis shows that U.S. publishers’ churn rate is flat and European publishers’ churn rate declined 34%.

Unfortunately, increased media usage alone does not equate to increased revenue. However, an engaged audience, producing less churn, can help direct a path to subscriptions, new product launches, and other monetization opportunities.

Getting back to normal

Even amidst the ongoing pandemic, consumers are trying to return to some sense of normal. According to a GlobalWebIndex (GWI) survey of more than 17,000 internet users in 20 countries, consumers no longer want to see Covid-related ad messaging. Further, Pew Research reports that 71% of US consumers say they need to take a break from news about the coronavirus. A full 43% report that news leaves them emotionally drained. Consumers are seeking out new content as a pathway to escapism.

Without a doubt, the pandemic has profoundly impacted consumer media habits. The increase in content consumption and subscriptions, cannot be taken for granted. Consumer boredom and discretionary income can easily change given today’s social and economic vulnerabilities. By renewing their audience-first strategy allows publishers will be able to focus on avenues for new revenue.

The post Covid-19 presents opportunities for audience-focused publishers appeared first on Digital Content Next.

However, as the old decade folded into the new year, national news outlets confirmed that they weren’t giving up on Spanish-language news. In the past two months, The Washington Post launched its first Spanish-language news podcast, El Washington Post, and USA Today started Hecho en USA, its series on Latino communities. As the new decade begins, the future of Spanish-language news in the U.S. remains a puzzle, difficult to piece together.

Revenue review

The reason for the failures of 2019 largely boil down to money. The Times, for instance, initially launched NYT en Español in early 2016 as a way to grow its international audience. This was part of an optimistic goal to generate $800 million in digital revenue by 2020. At the time, Donald Trump’s racist rhetoric was in full force. So, putting the Times’ journalism stamp on important issues south of the border was meant to be a significant step towards the outlet’s lofty aims.

The plan was to support NYT en Español with advertising revenue, along with the hope of turning readers into subscribers. But a little more than three years later, NYT en Español closed its Mexico City bureau. Despite a potential audience of 80 million people, the advertising dollars weren’t coming in, a Times spokesperson said when the website shut down in September. Nor were these readers subscribing. But according to NYT en Español’s founding editorial director Eli Lopez, the Times lacked a credible plan to monetize his team’s content.

In the wake of these ill-fated efforts, Spanish-speaking communities pay the price. More than 8,000 English-speaking news organizations currently serve approximately 250 million English speakers in the U.S. However, for the almost 59 million Spanish speakers – 10 million of whom don’t speak English well – only approximately 624 news outlets serve them.

When Tribune Publishing shut down Hoy Media, their Spanish-language newspaper in Chicago, in November, reporter Laura Rodríguez lamented the news that would no longer be reported for Chicago’s Latino and Hispanic communities.

Markets in need

“I’m seriously so angry and frustrated at the fact that the company decided to get rid of such an important platform for the Spanish-speaking community in Chicago,” Rodríguez tweeted. “I wrote so many stories no one else did — we had our space! Our Latino, Spanish-speaking community counted on us to tell their stories. Those that are often not told.”

While some of the nation’s largest outlets can afford to experiment, the same can’t be said for smaller organizations across the country. Statewide and citywide newsrooms have already faced crushing layoffs and decimated revenues in one of the hardest decades ever for journalism. And Spanish-speaking communities are among those that will suffer the most.

In New Mexico, where slightly more than one million Spanish speakers represent 49% of the state’s population, the Hispanic population is the most underserved. Despite having a long history with the Spanish language that dates back to before the Constitution, the state only has three Spanish-speaking news outlets. And they are all TV stations and all based in Albuquerque. Compare that to neighboring Arizona, home to a Hispanic population around double the size of New Mexico at more than two million. It is home to 17 Spanish-language outlets, more than five times the amount in New Mexico.

Size matters

At a time when local news has already suffered greatly and positive signs are few and far between (it’s estimated that more than 13,000 communities in the U.S. don’t have any local news coverage) is it too much to expect smaller and medium-sized outlets to launch Spanish-language offerings? Given that national outlets such as the New York Times can’t turn a profit from such investments, the answer for many local newsrooms with fewer resources may just be yes. Right now, it is too much.

Scott Brodbeck is just one local news editor who is familiar with the obstacles of running a local news website. Brodbeck is the founder and CEO of Local News Now, a network of hyperlocal news websites he launched in 2010 that serve markets in northern Virginia and Washington, D.C. With the shrinking advertising market for most media companies due to Google and Facebook’s dominance, financial uncertainty is just one reason why local news companies such as Brodbeck’s aren’t able to implement new products specifically for non-English speaking audiences.

“The biggest challenges are recruiting, training and retaining talented people; producing consistently excellent local journalism that attracts a large local audience; and growing sales to keep growing our organization,” Brodbeck said. “Given the challenges of just putting out our current news product, it would be unrealistic to try to do what we’re doing in a second language.”

Demanding demographics

America is undergoing a rapid change in demographic identity. According to Census projections, the Hispanic and Latino population represented just more than 17% of the U.S. population. By 2060, that population is predicted to be roughly 120 million people, or 28 percent. That’s why Brodbeck said that the best solution for local newsrooms in the future could be for them to focus on hiring reporters from diverse backgrounds. That would allow them to serve as many communities as possible.

“Having separate Spanish language brands may make sense for some of the largest news publishers. Smaller newsrooms would be better off putting their energies into developing robust hiring, training, and employee support practices, to cultivate a diverse workforce that can better serve all readers

News outlets continue to wrestle with how to serve diverse audiences. Thus, it might be down to schools and universities to take a proactive approach by preparing the next generation of journalists for the ever-changing media landscape.

One journalism school that’s already doing so is the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at CUNY. The school’s Spanish-language journalism program aims to train bilingual journalists to better cover issues important to Latino communities. This program could be a footprint for other journalism schools across the country to follow. It could also provide news outlets with a new generation of journalists to serve an increasingly diverse population.

Like many other aspects of an industry grappling with profitability and even survival, the future of Spanish-language news remains uncertain. And just as the industry experiments with reader engagement and revenue models, news organizations and universities are now exploring different methods of delivering Spanish-speaking news, such as podcasts and special series. With so many moving pieces, only one projection is relatively certain: the growing population of Spanish speakers in the U.S.

The post In the wake of several big name failures, the industry seeks a solid Spanish language news model appeared first on Digital Content Next.

Suddenly, consumers had access to numerous content platforms. The barriers to entry lowered and smaller, niche publications could reach a global audience, adding multiple views to the same angles. This meant people got used to judging by the story rather than by the publication.

Paywalls should work as a logical solution to monetizing online content. And paywalls do function as a way to pay for content. However, they don’t account for the way the majority of online users actually consume content. They can be an inflexible solution in an environment that changes daily.

That’s why publishers need to consider paywalls as one element of a wider monetization strategy.

Paywalls turn away 98% of users

The formula for consuming content used to be: Seek out a source of content you trust or enjoy—such as a newspaper. Now online content producers have to find, and fight for, audiences. Through media aggregation and search platforms, news competes with other versions of the same story for reader attention. Now users don’t have to choose just one publication and stick with it. Information is everywhere. This has led to to consumers having a distributed, fragmented web of content sources.

For hard paywalls to work as a primary monetization system, publishers must possess (or build) a formidable audience based upon a strong, trusted brand. Many readers will only pay for content they know they can’t get anywhere else. Major media brands have the resources to offer this. But even then, the many readers are going to look elsewhere for content, particularly if they hit a paywall and feel they can find good enough information for free.

Speaking at a publisher conference, Marfeel CEO, Xavi Beumala described the problem of scaling a paywall model. “Even in the US market of 330 million, the total amount of business you have for a subscription model is always capped. You can’t scale it ad infinitum.”

The generations that are loyal to a single media source are dying out.
Subscriptions may work for the New York Times. However, the New York Times is using the fuel of the reputation it took 100 years to build (not to mention a significant investment in its technology and delivery). Without new readers experiencing the quality of their output, some question whether this model continue to sustain the brand for another 100 years.

Other media groups, such as The Guardian, have bucked the trend with a voluntary subscription basis that doesn’t wall-in content. This model relies on readers wanting to support the business and see it continue to operate. Again, brand strength and reader trust and value are big factors here.

Netflix for news

Content aggregation platforms represent a further hurdle for publishers that want to paywall their content. Several big tech companies have announced plans to deliver news and entertainment from multiple sources in their own subscription platforms.

While publishers will be able to negotiate payment rates that allow their paywall-segregated content to appear in aggregated content platforms, these deals will always favor the major tech companies over the publisher. It’s not hard to imagine these companies also downgrading search results or newsfeed positions for any content that has a paywall—that they don’t operate. Facebook, Apple, and Google don’t want to direct users to content or a search query only to have that user bounce back from a hard paywall.

The arrival of these news platforms also offers further competition to the paywall model, one that has a real chance to further disrupt publisher loyalty. Consumers may hedge their bets, possibly choosing to pay more to see content from multiple sources than tethering themselves to a single subscription.

Easy to get into, hard to get out

Google’s latest Chrome update was an example of how the ecosystem is built around a handful of major technology providers, and small changes can cause major disruption.  The update in question prevented publishers from detecting if users are browsing in incognito mode. 

Intended or unintended, the consequence of closing this loophole meant that many publishers’ metered paywalls were no longer effective. When readers hit their article limit they can switch to incognito mode and instantly reset their meter of free articles. 

Publishers suddenly found that their paywall solution was ineffective, in one single stroke from Google.

Distributing monetization

A lack of resources to build technology means that some publishers bet all of their chips on a single strategy. And, for some publishers, paywalls represent a functional option with a guaranteed level of revenue. 

But paywalls can be a blunt and imprecise tool. They cut off the majority and work for a minority. With a paywall, you often close the doors to new readers and rely on a core of hyper-engaged users. These readers are effectively paying for the loss in traffic that the paywall creates. It also insulates content in a world where sharing and exposure are the oxygen of publications. 

Using different sources of technology, publishers are now able to deliver a layered monetization strategy that meets the needs of different readers, different content, and different stages of the engagement journey.  Technology that implements programmatic, direct, paywall, subscription, micropayments and more will empower readers to build tailored packages. Like GDPR, readers will be able to select their preferences based on their needs.

A small percentage of readers will want (and pay for) a dedicated, personalized, ad-free experience. For these readers, a hard paywall with a personalized experience is the perfect solution. A far larger subsection of the audience will accept advertising in return for content that is free at the point of purchase.

Broad multitudes within this grey-area will sometimes pay, sometimes won’t. They won’t accept recurring transactions or fees and will need the process to be frictionless. For the first time, mid-size publishers will be able to out-pace major media groups that are forced to develop bespoke solutions, banking on only the most profitable. 

More technology and monetization platforms are being democratized and made available to mid-sized publishers. With a sliding scale of monetization options, they will finally have the ability to reflect readers’ stage in the process, capture new traffic, and give readers options that will build a longer-lasting connection with their brand. 

The post Build paywalls, and people will dig holes appeared first on Digital Content Next.

While few details are available at this point (particularly about Apple TV+), it appears Apple News+ will cost $9.99 per month with Apple taking a hefty 50% cut and distributing the remainder to all of the participating publishers. Tim Cook did not announce a price point for Apple TV+ but it seems likely to have similar characteristics as Apple News+, including a similar revenue split and distribution structure. 

A Lopsided Relationship

With these news services, Apple will control not only the relationship with the consumer, but will also control the data about the consumer.  It’s hard enough to build a subscription business without having another company serve as the middleman between the content creator and their audience.   Moreover, as New York Times’ CEO Mark Thompson put it, “Bundles always dilute the brand.”

More troubling is the fact that Apple runs the app marketplace itself via the App Store while simultaneously offering a media consumption app that competes with publishers’ branded apps as well as those of other aggregators such as Flipboard. An example of the inherent conflict of interest is that Apple places its own apps front and center, pre-installed on more than a billion phones worldwide. Beyond a glaring competitive advantage, controlling the marketplace and delivery mechanism of its competitors’ apps gives Apple unprecedented insights into the transactions of those companies (think Amazon selling its own brands while seeing everyone of its competitors’ transactions).

Market Monopoly

Apple forcing the reported levels of revenue splits and data terms underscores larger concerns about the dominance of platforms.  As Senator Blumenthal, who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee has stated, “[t]here is much stronger agreement among me and my colleagues that there needs to be more aggressive enforcement action on tech companies.”  Senator and presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) recently called for the break-up of Apple and the other platforms. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has long voiced concerns about potential bias of big tech firms. Members of Congress are concerned that big tech platforms have too much influence and are harmful to society.  Although Apple has avoided a lot of the privacy gaffes of other tech giants, the fact that Apple can boldly propose such lopsided terms shows how the landscape is perilously tilted in favor of the big platform companies.

Bringing further voice to the concerns raised by policymakers, Spotify filed suit against Apple claiming that Apple “purposely limited choice and stifled innovation.” Spotify claims that Apple uses its platform to disadvantage competitors in the music streaming business, including by taking a 30% cut of subscription revenue.  While Apple is not proposing to get into the news business, the Apple TV+ product sounds like Apple will be both distributor and competitor.

And, considering the fact that Apple has expressed concerns in how digital advertising works, it seems an ironic choice for the company to favor advertising-based business models over subscriptions for publishers.

Quick Fix or Long-term Success?

Publishers are also rightly concerned about whether Apple will maintain a long-term commitment to this initiative. Facebook famously changes their terms, goals and algorithms about every six months, which makes it extremely difficult for publishers to build a sustainable business. Other social platforms have rolled out paid incentives to content producers only to withdraw them as soon as the programs are off the ground.  Publishers have rightly grown wary of purported platform support.

At the end of the day, Apple needs to make a serious commitment to making distribution work for high-quality news and entertainment. As we have seen in Google and Facebook’s own (hardly altruistic) need to invest in the production of content that their business models undermined, building a model that sustains quality content creation is the bedrock of long-term success.

The post Taking a bite out of Apple News+ appeared first on Digital Content Next.