Publishers understand what they’re up against. They’ve done the math. They know they need to engage audiences across social video, YouTube, audio platforms, and emerging AI interfaces, environments where discovery is driven by algorithms, not direct visits. Every day they work to balance maximizing short-term revenue while maintaining the user experience that builds and keeps an audience over time.

But execution is hard. And it’s getting harder.

To operate across more platforms and environments requires people and know-how that most publishers no longer have. Short-staffed teams can’t juggle dozens of disconnected tech vendors. Data doesn’t flow where it needs to flow. And the operational debt from years of patching together point solutions is making it harder to move fast.

Create. Transform. Distribute. Engage. Monetize.

To compete in a market now dominated by platforms, creators, and AI-driven discovery, publishers need to reorganize their operations around a clear set of functions: creating content, transforming it for different environments, distributing it effectively, driving engagement, and monetizing it across channels.

Create

Every successful content creator–from influencers to the best known media brands– has their secret sauce; their unique style or point of view. Many are rightly concerned that unconstrained use of AI will commoditize quality content, or that a torrent of AI slop will drown out the good stuff. This is why publishers have to be maniacal about quality and authenticity to create real consumer engagement. 

Transform

But how do you scale that quality content across today’s fragmented consumer landscape?  Here is where AI finds purpose. It turns out that AI is really good at taking content and adapting it to different environments and formats. With some expertise and guidance, it can maintain brand standards of quality, trust, and authenticity across many surfaces. 

Today, the words “publisher” and “website” cannot be synonymous. Content has to be created to meet the consumer where he/she lives. That includes the social platforms where the goal to drive traffic back to the publisher’s website is in opposition to the platforms’ imperative to keep the audience within their walled garden. The content then has to do double duty; yes drive traffic, but also maximize monetization programs that encourage customer engagement within even if the audience is experiencing your content outside of your site or app. 

Distribute

Once you’ve got content that’s tailored and transformed, the next problem is getting it everywhere it needs to be really fast. You cannot brute-force this. There aren’t enough hours in the day and there aren’t enough people on your team.

The market for consumer attention shifts constantly. The lifespan of a piece of content is finite: hours or days for news and longer for evergreen, explanatory, or enthusiast content. You need a real-time feedback loop telling you what’s still relevant, what’s gaining traction, and what’s already dead. Without that, you’re flying blind. And a piece of content that could have driven real revenue at hour two is worthless by hour six.

Speed isn’t a nice-to-have. It’s the whole game.

Engage

The goal of distribution is to drive engagement, because engagement drives revenue. The challenge is that the best format to engage with you may not be the same as what’s needed to engage with me. Some in your audience will prefer long-form video, some will prefer audio, some still prefer reading, and others will opt for short-form video. Other consumers will respond to more interactive experiences, like community boards, polls, quizzes, and games. Getting that right, at scale, for each individual is the engagement opportunity. And the publishers who solve it  are rewarded with more content consumed, more time spent, and more frequent repeat visits. 

Monetize

Let’s be honest about something. The platforms were not designed to make publishers rich. They were designed to keep audiences inside their walls, and they’re very good at it. For years, the monetization math outside your owned-and-operated properties was ugly, and most publishers knew it.

But something has shifted. Not because the platforms suddenly became generous. But because the pressure on them to attract and retain quality professional content has forced them to open doors they used to keep firmly shut.

YouTube now offers monetization models that generate real revenue for creators who treat their channel like a full-scale media business, not an afterthought. Its dynamic ad insertion tools give serious content owners the ability to operate more like TV networks, swapping sponsored segments in and out, extending the lifespan of sponsorships, and unlocking new monetization opportunities within existing content. Last year, Facebook made meaningful changes to its creator program, and publishers who wrote it off are quietly revisiting that math.

None of this is a windfall. The platforms will always take their cut. But “the platforms take a cut” and “there’s real revenue to be captured” are not mutually exclusive statements. The publishers extracting value from these channels aren’t doing it because the platforms are benevolent. They’re doing it because they’ve built the operational infrastructure to move fast, transform content for each environment, and actually work the monetization programs available to them.

That’s the opportunity. 

Shifting Thinking

While most publishers know they need expertise to help them extract value from their content wherever it is experienced, most are looking at the current moment with a clear-eyed view to extract as much value as they can. They are adapting to the current circumstances and are seeking out new partners who help them succeed. The partners who can consolidate data flows, simplify workflows and harness AI to automate processes will be their best friends. 

The post The new publisher challenge appeared first on Digital Content Next.

Most publishers now accept that AI licensing will become part of future business models. The challenge is operational. Converting content usage into revenue requires infrastructure that connects traffic signals, pricing frameworks, and payment workflows into a cohesive system.

AI licensing is moving from policy to execution

Early conversations about AI and publishing focused on access rights, attribution, and platform accountability. Those debates still matter. But publishers are now entering a more practical phase of the market centered on execution.

This shift requires answering several basic questions:

• Who is using the content?
• What are they allowed to do with it?
• What is that usage worth?
• How does the publisher get paid?

Today, these answers are often scattered across tools and teams. Analytics platforms may identify bot activity. Legal teams negotiate licensing terms. Commercial teams structure agreements. Finance teams handle billing and reporting. Without integrated workflows, AI monetization strategies remain fragmented and difficult to scale.

The need for usage-based AI monetization infrastructure

For AI licensing to become a durable revenue stream, publishers will need systems built around usage-based economics. In practice, this means enabling workflows that can:

Identify and classify AI traffic.

Publishers need visibility into how AI systems interact with content, including frequency of access, depth of engagement, and types of material consumed.

Apply flexible licensing models.

AI agreements are unlikely to follow a single template. Some will involve flat-fee partnerships, while others will rely on usage-based pricing or dataset licensing. Infrastructure must support experimentation without requiring new operational processes for every deal.

Convert usage signals into billable events.

Operationalizing AI monetization requires translating content access into economic transactions. This includes assigning rate cards, tracking consumption, and generating revenue statements that support negotiation, compliance, and financial reporting.

Settle payments and route revenue.

Once pricing is applied, publishers need systems that can manage invoicing, revenue allocation, and partner payouts across multiple licensing structures.

Emerging solutions are beginning to address parts of this workflow by bringing usage measurement, pricing logic, and settlement processes into a unified environment. The goal is not to replace existing systems, but to create an operational layer that allows publishers to run AI licensing as an ongoing business function rather than a series of bespoke agreements.

Flexibility will define the next phase of AI monetization

The AI market is evolving quickly, and publishers will need optionality. Direct licensing agreements, collective negotiations, and marketplace models may all coexist. Some organizations will prioritize strategic partnerships with major AI platforms. Others will focus on monetizing specialized datasets, archives, or real-time information.

Infrastructure that supports experimentation will be essential. Publishers must be able to test pricing models, analyze usage patterns, and refine commercial strategies without rebuilding workflows each time the market shifts. This mirrors earlier transitions in digital publishing, where scalable advertising and subscription technology enabled new revenue streams to grow.

AI content monetization will only become meaningful if publishers move from fragmented signals to repeatable revenue systems. Visibility into AI usage is the starting point. The real opportunity lies in building the infrastructure that makes licensing measurable, manageable, and financially actionable, turning content consumption into a predictable commercial engine.

The post Turning AI content usage into revenue appeared first on Digital Content Next.

Before a deal ever reaches order management, it moves through pricing validation, proposal construction, revisions, and internal approvals. That process shapes how quickly deals close, how accurate they are, and how well they hold up in execution.

In many media organizations, this stage is still managed through manual coordination across systems and teams. Unfortunately, this can make pre-sales a structural tax on revenue capacity rather than a marginal annoyance.

Our survey of 500 media professionals revealed that teams pour significant effort into pricing validation, proposal revisions, and approvals. 77% of respondents reported recurring pricing or deadline errors and 44% say those mistakes derail work entirely. However, deals still close, which makes the system feel like it works.

The work no one sees: advertising pre-sales

It’s the normalization of that friction, where 92% describe themselves as satisfied with their tools despite the risk, tells a different story. Friction that doesn’t show up in one place, it’s built into the day-to-day work of advertising pre-sales.

It shows up as repeated, low-value work across the process. Teams check pricing across multiple systems that don’t fully align. They rebuild proposals as inputs change or feedback comes in. Approvals move through email threads where context is incomplete or buried. Details are re-entered or reformatted as work passes between teams.

In interviews with media leaders, teams consistently described working across CRM platforms, shared drives, spreadsheets, and email to assemble deals. Information is fragmented, and finding the right version is often part of the effort itself. As one leader put it, “email is my CRM.”

Taken together, this creates a system where progress depends on continuous coordination rather than a defined, structured flow of work.

Why it feels like existing processes work

If this level of effort is built into presales, why hasn’t this been addressed?

The answer is simple. The system still produces results.

Deals move forward. Revenue comes in. From the outside, the system appears to work.
But what’s hidden is the level of effort required to sustain that performance. Over time, that effort becomes part of the operating rhythm. It’s expected, absorbed, and rarely measured directly.

This is where perception starts to diverge from reality. Organizations report high levels of satisfaction with their current tools, even as manual errors and rework remain common.

Success is measured by whether revenue comes in, not by the cost or effort it takes to produce it. As long as deals continue to move forward, the underlying inefficiency remains largely invisible.

Where ad deals actually slow down

That gap in perception also shapes how delays are understood.When deals lose momentum in pre-sales, the instinct is often to attribute it to sales execution or responsiveness. In practice, the causes are overwhelmingly operational.

The data reinforces this. Survey data revealed that 32% of respondents cited client input delays, while 22% pointed to data and system issues and 21% to stakeholder coordination.

Each step depends on inputs from other systems and teams. When those inputs fall out of sync, progress stops and work must be rebuilt to reflect the latest information. Because that reconciliation is constant, delays tend to repeat rather than resolve, directly affecting time-to-revenue and the predictability of pipeline conversion.

Where scale starts to break

This model holds at lower volumes but becomes difficult to sustain as deal flow increases. More deals introduce more revisions, dependencies, and coordination across teams, and the workload grows with that complexity instead of being absorbed by the system.

As volume rises, inconsistencies become harder to contain, delays increase, and execution risk rises. At that point, the constraint is no longer demand, it is the organization’s ability to convert that demand into revenue efficiently.

Why this is an operating model problem

Advertising pre-sales is not managed as a system. It operates as a series of disconnected tasks. Information moves across email, spreadsheets, and multiple platforms, where it is gathered, reconciled, and updated by hand. There is no mechanism to keep pricing, proposals, and approvals aligned as deals evolve.

When inputs change, work has to be rebuilt. When approvals stall, teams compensate. The process holds together through effort rather than design, which makes revenue capacity a function of how much coordination teams can absorb.

Some organizations are starting to restructure this as an orchestrated workflow, where pricing, proposals, and approvals remain synchronized as deals change, reducing the need to rebuild work at each step.

What changes when pre-sales doesn’t break

When pre-sales is structured as a connected, orchestrated workflow, the nature of the work shifts. Instead of being rebuilt at each step, work progresses with continuity. Changes stay aligned as deals evolve, rather than triggering rework across systems and teams.

Coordination doesn’t disappear, but it becomes part of the process rather than something teams have to manage manually. Dependencies are handled within the workflow, not across disconnected tools and handoffs.

As deal volume increases, that difference shows up in how revenue moves. Deals progress with fewer interruptions, timelines become more predictable, and execution holds more consistently against what was sold.

Because advertising pre-sales defines the terms of the deal, it ultimately defines the quality of the revenue itself—how quickly it converts, how reliably it delivers, and how much effort is required to sustain it. When the process depends on coordination, growth requires more effort to keep pace. When the system maintains alignment, revenue grows, and with far less friction.

The post Why pre-sales determines how well revenue will scale appeared first on Digital Content Next.

As many readers will know, Gingras spent nearly two decades as Google’s head of news and still appears to hold an internal quasi-advisory role. Gingras now also serves as Chair of Village Media, a company Google routinely holds up as its model “publisher success story” before parliaments and regulators.

Just last week, I happened to see Gingras across the room at the International Center For Journalists (ICFJ) annual awards dinner. Not insignificantly, Google, and Gingras personally, have generously supported them with tens of thousands of dollars. So I was grateful to see him there; journalism certainly appreciates the financial support.

Later that same night, I listened to a new episode of the Future Media podcast, in which Gingras shared his assessment that serious news has “no value to consumers,” and that “the economic value of a news query” is so negligible that, if rounded, “would be zero.” It was jarring to say the least.

Few people have had more influence over the digital distribution of news and premium content than Richard Gingras. Yet here he was, Google’s longtime news advisor, perpetuating the false narrative that serious journalism has almost no value simply because Google’s preferred metric – its pay-per-click search text advertising monopoly – generates the least revenue from a news query.

An actual journalist holds big tech accountable

Two weeks ago, a different sort of Gingras interview appeared. In the Coda Story, fearless, independent interviewer, Natalia Antelava did something that almost no journalist does when facing a senior big tech executive: she directly challenged him on his role in helping create the mess.

She also pressed him as he repeatedly slipped into a collective “we” when describing Google’s relationship to the news business. The subtext was unmistakable: Google sees itself as the arbiter of news value, even as its public talking points and industry actions deny that value even exists.

Rewriting failure as generosity

When she asked Gingras what he considered his biggest mistake in his nearly two decades with Google, his answer was telling: “I would say the biggest mistake, honestly, was in our work with the industry, the Google News Initiative. We spent over a billion dollars over eight years, a billion and a half dollars trying to drive innovation.”

This is where I am obliged to note Google’s revenues over the last 10 years approximate to $2 TRILLION. So Gingras, Google’s chief evangelist to the news industry, would like us to know his biggest mistake in his 18 years at Google was sharing less than one tenth of one percentage of Google’s revenues with the news industry.

It’s astonishing how casually he rewrites failure as generosity.

The real “mistake” wasn’t spending too much on the Google News Initiative; it was believing that sprinkling what equates to less than 0.1% of Google’s revenues at the industry could offset the damage Google inflicted on the economics of media. Google’s chief evangelist for their news efforts believes serious news has no economic value and his biggest mistake was sharing a pittance of their revenues with the very companies it used to help maintain its adjudicated illegal monopolies in search, ad exchanges and publisher ad servers.

Yet, in their spare time, these same publishers provide one of the few remaining checks on power: scrutinizing leaders, governments, institutions, and abusive companies. But in Google’s calculus, “economic value” is whatever its ad system can monetize, and the civic value of news simply doesn’t register.

But here’s the irony: AI companies are now proving, more clearly than ever, that news and premium content are among the most valuable resources in the world. Not just culturally. Not just civically. Economically.

AI exposes what Google denies about news

Across the AI ecosystem, the most advanced large language models were trained disproportionately on the very materials Silicon Valley once dismissed as “legacy media”: reported information, fact-checked analysis, archives, scientific journals, books, documentaries, and professionally produced entertainment content. Their capabilities come from absorbing narrative, structure, relevance, serendipity, ground truth and cultural cornerstones created by expert journalists, television and film professionals.

This professionally crafted work is not interchangeable with memes, scraped Wikipedia summaries, or social media and user posts.

The value of news, entertainment and vetted information

Laundering professional content through Reddit or Common Crawl (the profile of which is a must-read in The Atlantic) doesn’t strip its economic value; it merely reveals that protections have not yet been duly enforced. High-quality training data is scarce, slow to produce, and expensive. It requires human expertise, legal standards, editorial judgment, and public trust in the sources, whether individuals or the brands that employ them. These are the exact qualities that distinguish premium publishers.

And this isn’t theory.

The law is catching up

A growing list of court cases and disclosures shows the same reality: AI companies rely on publishers’ journalism while avoiding paying for it. In Thomson Reuters v. Ross, a federal court confirmed that training AI requires licensing copyrighted content, recognizing a real market for high-quality data. In the Kadrey v. Meta case, unsealed documents showed Meta employees downloading pirated books and skirting licensing. And in U.S. v. Google, we learned that Meta pays Google for an API into its daily scraping to ground its own AI.

Yes, that means that Meta is apparently paying Google for access to publishers’ work.

Penske Media’s recent lawsuit argues that Google’s AI Overviews scrape and replace news directly in search results; a practice publishers cannot realistically opt out of because Google controls search through an illegal monopoly. When Google ingests news, sports and entertainment and places AI summaries above it, that is not “zero value.” It is extracted value.

Extracted value is an extinction level event

If we find ourselves in a world where AI replaces the need to click through to trusted journalism and premium content by using that same content to train its responses without compensation, the entire economic infrastructure – advertising, subscriptions, licensing – collapses. You cannot build sustainable media when distribution intermediaries extract the full economic value upstream.

DCN’s position is clear: premium content is the most valuable resource on the open web. Not only because of the cost of creating it, but because of the trust signals behind it. It is the core asset that fuels AI’s predictive capabilities and factual grounding on the most recent events. And publishers cannot and should not continue to allow it to be scraped, ingested, repurposed, and monetized without specific and freely given consent – not the kind coerced by a company already found to hold an illegal monopoly.

The future of AI relies on premium content

The future of AI should and will not be defined by who has the best model or the cheapest compute. It will hinge upon access to the highest-quality data, and whether that data is lawful, licensed, accurate, original, and kept current.

Publishers sit on the motherlode. This should be their moment. Unlike synthetic content and scraped user forums, premium content has enduring value because humans create it with standards.

This is why DCN has warned policymakers and the copyright office that improperly scraped training data threatens the economic foundation of news and entertainment. That’s why licensing must be the rule, not the exception.

The industry must align around three principles:

1. No free training. High-quality content cannot be scraped without permission for search, training, or grounding.
2. AI cannot substitute for news without fair value. AI Overviews and similar features must not cannibalize traffic using the very journalism they ingest.
3. Licensing markets must continue to be built. Early negotiating will set the pricing floor; platforms that acknowledge fair value should be the greatest allies.

Gingras may claim that news has no value. But Silicon Valley’s behavior proves the opposite. In the AI era, premium content isn’t just valuable; it’s the most valuable input in the entire system.

Publishers must stop giving it away.

The post What AI reveals about premium content: It was valuable all along appeared first on Digital Content Next.

This report captures a market full of promise but constrained by fragmentation. It paints a picture of an industry with surging audience demand, growing ad spend, and accelerating experimentation, but also one struggling to speak a common language. Publishers must respond to the need to more clearly define and align terms, metrics, and more for podcasting to realize its full potential.  

The leaders find clarity amid fragmentation 

Oxford Road describes podcasting today as “a new kind of chaos.” Definitions are blurred, ownership within marketing teams overlaps, and measurement standards vary by platform. Even basic questions, what qualifies as a podcast, or how to count impressions, remain unresolved. 

Despite this, leading publishers are finding stability through consistency and alignment. The report highlights the tension between open RSS distribution and platform-specific shows, noting that this confusion hinders advertiser confidence. Those offering clear definitions and uniform reporting stand out as trusted partners. 

Podcast ad spending in the U.S. is expected to reach $2.55 billion in 2025, up 47% since 2022. But “inconsistent ROI frameworks” still slow advertiser confidence. Organizations that define podcasting clearly, both internally and externally, maintain steadier revenue and stronger brand trust. Clarity is becoming a competitive advantage. 

Video drives discovery and reach 

Audio remains the medium’s core, but video is transforming how audiences discover and consume shows. Oxford Road cites Edison Research data, which shows that YouTube now accounts for 25% of all U.S. podcast listening, making it the single largest platform by reach. 

Oxford Road calls this “video-led listening,” where video extends reach and awareness even when audiences ultimately engage through audio. Video boosts discoverability and monetization but complicates measurement. Pixel tracking is unavailable on YouTube, and attribution remains inconsistent across platforms. 

The most successful publishers integrate video strategically, using it to complement, not replace, the intimacy, credibility, and depth of spoken-word audio. 

Measurement-minded publishers attract investment 

Measurement remains podcasting’s biggest obstacle. Oxford Road’s What Brands Want 2025 survey found that nearly half of marketers cite limited performance data as their top barrier to investment. More than three-quarters said they would increase spending if YouTube offered measurement comparable to pixel-based attribution. This lack of consistent insight continues to hold back growth in podcast investment. Even more striking, 76% say they would increase investment if YouTube podcasts offered measurement comparable to pixel-based digital attribution. 

The report details the industry’s current “metric mayhem.” Advertisers juggle promo codes, vanity URLs, and clean-room data that rarely align. The result is wasted time, conflicting results, and suppressed investment in what remains a high-potential medium. 

In response, Oxford Road is convening an Alliance for Measurement in Podcasting (AMP) task force. The group includes leading brands, platforms, and agencies working to standardize performance attribution and audience measurement. The report suggests that those engaged in this type of collaboration are laying the groundwork for scalable and repeatable growth. Clearly, alignment on metrics equals acceleration in investment. 

Credibility drives podcast performance 

Oxford Road calls 2024 “The Podcast Election,” pointing to the moment when the medium transitioned from a niche format to a major force in shaping public opinion. During the campaign cycle, candidates and advocacy groups leaned into long-form, host-led, trust-based media to reach audiences that traditional advertising struggled to engage. 

That shift highlights podcasting’s central strength: credibility. Listeners see hosts as trusted sources, and the relationships they form translate directly into advertising effectiveness. The report notes that this trust-based environment is attracting new categories of advertisers and more direct response spending. 

The broader takeaway is that influence and authenticity define podcasting’s commercial value. Publishers and creators who understand the emotional connection between host and audience are better equipped to maintain brand-safe environments and drive measurable outcomes. Credibility is a key differentiator. 

Definition and alignment unlock scale 

Oxford Road’s call to action for the industry is clear: define, align, and scale. The agency urges consensus around a shared definition of a podcast as “an audio-driven, on-demand program rooted in the spoken word, typically episodic, conversational, and distributed via open RSS or other platforms, often supplemented by video.” This definition bridges the gap between the medium’s origins and its evolution toward multimedia formats. It creates space for innovation while preserving the integrity of audio-first storytelling. 

Once definitions are established, alignment on measurement and performance can follow. Oxford Road believes that this clarity will unlock a “wildly undervalued channel,” positioning audio as an efficient and trusted form of digital engagement. 

Podcasting continues to grow. But its next phase depends on shared standards for definition, data, and performance. The momentum is real, but so are the constraints. Only through collective clarity can podcasting realize its full commercial and cultural value. 

The post Podcasting’s next stage of growth begins with clarity appeared first on Digital Content Next.

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.

In response, effective subscription strategies have become increasingly critical. Growing the percentage, and volume of income, that publishers receive directly from their readers is essential to revenue diversification. 

As a result, the past decade has seen paywalls become mainstream. This has been accompanied by the emergence of diversified reader revenue strategies that include membership programs, event strategies, and e-commerce. 

There have been some notable success stories during this period. By drawing more money directly from audiences, and reducing dependence on advertisers, many media companies have broadened their revenue base and reduced their reliance on volatile advertising markets. 

However, subscriptions, the cornerstone of most reader revenue strategies, are now at something of a turning point. As the Digital News Report noted, “Over the last 10 years, ongoing subscription levels across our basket of 20 countries have more than doubled but they now look to have hit a ceiling.”

Given this, it is important to ask, how we got here, why this leveling off matters and what can be done about it. 

The ad squeeze

Research from WARC in late-2023, clearly demonstrates why publishers must reduce their reliance on advertising. Despite advertising markets growing year-on-year, these additional monies are seldom finding their way to traditional publishers, whereas spend on search, social networks and retail media has continued to grow.

WARC’s data showed that more than half of global advertising spend was already going to five companies: Alibaba, Alphabet (Google, YouTube), Amazon, ByteDance (TikTok), and Meta (Facebook, Instagram).  

That trend line has only continued with advertisers attracted by the targeting offered by these platforms. And when advertisers are spending their dollars with publishers, it is increasingly focused on creators and non-hard news verticals such as lifestyle and sport. 

Professionally created media now receives only 51% of content-driven ad spend. That’s down from 72% in 2019. GroupM forecasts this will fall below 50% in 2026, as influencers and creator-journalists continue to attract a great share of advertiser budgets. These monies aren’t coming back. So that makes revenue diversification – with subscriptions serving as a cornerstone – essential.

Surveying the subscription landscape

More than three quarters (77%) of commercial publishers said that subscriptions are an area of key focus in 2025. 

This emphasis, according to a sample of nearly 300 industry leaders published by the Reuters Institute, is some way ahead of traditional display advertising, which is seen as “important or very important” in 2025 by 69% of their sample. It’s also well ahead of native advertising (59%).

Yet growing subscription income is not easy. As the Digital News Report’s authors note, “Publishers have already signed up many of those prepared to pay and in a tight economic climate it has been hard to persuade others to do the same.” 

Furthermore, across a basket of 20 wealthier countries, the study found that the share of users paying for news has levelled out at 18%.

With most households enjoying only one or two news subscriptions, that typically means that large, established, players like The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, dominate. Smaller publishers, such as local news providers, can struggle to punch through to enjoy their share of the subscription spoils. 

Alongside this, as the Pew Research Center recently observed, the ability to access news for free elsewhere is also a deterrent to taking out a subscription. 

Willingness to pay is further diminished by insufficient interest (32%). Pew notes that “Americans who don’t pay for news say the main reason is that it’s too expensive (10%) or that the news provided isn’t good enough to pay for (8%).”

If publishers are to grow the subscriber revenues, they need to do more than just double-down on their existing subscribers. They also need to broaden their reach, and that means addressing these issues. 

To do that, media companies must provide more content that audiences feel is high quality, relevant, accessible and beneficial to them. This has to be complemented by the availability of different pricing and payment structures, especially in the face of free to access AI snippets and other readily available content.  

Without this, the subscription needle is likely to remain static, stuck at fewer than one in five news consumers. In the face of diminishing returns from advertising, the status quo – when it comes to reader revenues – will not cut it.

3 strategies for counteracting stagnant subscriptions 

Although subscription growth has stalled across the industry, there are proven strategies and approaches that media companies can deploy to retain and develop their subscriber base. Here are three of them.

1. Bundling 

Bundling strategies are becoming increasingly creative and diverse, promising consumers value for money and access to a cornucopia of content. 

The market leader for this approach is The New York Times. It offers a range of digital packages, including an all-access subscription as well as separate non-news subscriptions covering games, recipes, audio, sport, and product reviews. They also offer two Family subscription models, offering up to four individuals access to either all NYT content, or its Games.

This approach encourages daily habits through non-news content, while also creating an environment for non-new consumers to “bump” into your current affairs coverage. 

For media groups with multiple titles, bundling can be used to offer access to content from across their stable. 

In Europe, an early pioneer of this strategy, +Alt from Amedia, now reaches 16% of Norwegian digital news subscribers. Subscribers can access over 100 newspapers and websites in Norway, as well as exclusive and ad-free podcasts on its Untold app, and sports coverage via Direktesport.no. It’s success has encouraged other Nordic publishers, such as Schibsted and Bonnier, to follow suit. 

Bundling isn’t just confined to your in-house products. As Greg Piechota, Researcher-In-Residence at the International News Media Association (INMA), told me earlier in the year, some companies are  “increasingly partnering with other publishers, even competitors, to engage broader audiences.” 

Nieman Lab’s Hanaa’ Tameez reported in March that the Gray Lady has these type of deals with more 20 publishers, including leading European brands such as Politiken, The Irish Times, El Pais, and FAZ. Nic Newman and Federica Cherubini at the Reuters Institute believe we can “expect to see these deals extended to more publications as a way to reduce churn or differentiate a more expensive product.”

2. New products 

Alongside packaging existing offerings, or those of their partners, publishers are also actively investing in new products and services to attract and retain subscribers. 

Podcasts are an area which continue to hold some promise. According to the Digital News Report, 42% of news podcast listeners, across 20 countries, indicated that they would be prepared to pay for news-related podcasts. 

This interest, which also applies to non-news shows, is driven by the connection listeners form with show hosts and a sense that podcasts can provide a deeper understanding of issues. Podcast monetization is further driven by exclusive content, early access, add-free listening, or separate podcast subscriptions at lower price points. 

The Economist’s Podcast+ package is billed as $41.30 for first year, then auto-renews at $59 annually. Schibsted Media’s podcasting platform, Podme, has over 350,000 paying subscribers.

Elsewhere, media companies are expanding into areas such as games, newsletters and lifestyle verticals like food. 

In an era of profound news fatigue, they are also playing around with different formats and presentation styles. Svenska Dagbladet (SvD), a Swedish newspaper, has found success with its Kompakt app, offering short, digestible summaries of the day’s most important news. Its accessible tone is supported by the tagline “Read less, know more.”  

Similarly, in the UK, The Independent launched “Bulletin,” a service for time-poor readers, which uses Google Gemini, to create article summaries. “A new team of (human) editors will oversee all content and sign off before publication, solving the problem of attribution and fact-checking in many other AI initiatives,” the publication said. 

We can expect to see more outlets follow in their footsteps of SvD and The Independent, creating new products and harnessing AI tools, to reach audiences in a style and time-efficient manner which speak to their needs. Afterall, as Kompakt’s leaders contend, “journalism is too important to be boring.”

3. Flexible payment models 

To attract audiences that may be interested in your paid content, but who are resistant to high prices or long-term financial commitments, publishers are once again experimenting with greater flexibility in payment. Examples include day passes, week passes, or cheaper, more limited subscription propositions. 

Last year, the Torstar newspaper chain in Canada launched a pay-as-you-go model. Accessing a single article cost 75 cents, with daily payments capped at CAN$1.50 for full access.

In Finland, the launch of Uusi Juttu (New Story) by the Danish news organization Zetland included a dedicated membership tier for people on low incomes. Readers could access the site for €25 in the first year, rather than the reduced annual membership of €100 offered more widely to early supporters, journalism.co.uk reported. 

In addition to these approaches, dynamic paywalls are also continuing to become more common place. INMA’s Greg Piechota observes that usage has quadrupled to 22% since 2020 among news brands participating in their benchmarking program.

The benefit of this approach, as The Audiencer’s Madeleine White explains, is that because “every visitor to a publisher’s website is different, this strategy allows for adapted and targeted paywall messaging, subscription offers, and engagement journeys to optimize conversion rates for each ‘type’ of reader.” 

As AI tools behind this personalization continue to improve, expect even more publishers to adopt this paywall model, as well as some of the other tactics designed to make content more accessible and equitable.

Subscriptions today: the takeaway

At first glance, subscription levels appear to be stalled. However, this masks a more complex picture. Publishers are being creative through their use of bundles, partnerships, new and expanded products, as well as innovative pricing models. 

There remain real challenges in terms of overcoming willingness to pay for content, especially news, as well as the very real financial pressures many households are under. Nevertheless, subscription stagnation is not universal. Innovating in both product, and distribution, can make a difference. 

Emphasizing quality and utility, as well as highlighting non-news content, and the wider value proposition, can all play a pivotal role in addressing user needs, thereby helping companies retain subscribers and reduce churn. 

Subscription strategies aren’t failing. Rather, they are reaching a new level of maturity. 

Publishers need to balance deepening relationships with early adopters and their most loyal audiences, while at the same time broadening their appeal by demonstrating value and creating new pathways for reluctant readers. The providers who can navigate this tightrope will be the ones most likely to succeed with their subscription strategies in 2025 and beyond. 

The post State of subscriptions 2025: pushing past the paywall plateau appeared first on Digital Content Next.

This shift is more than a change in formats. It reorders the industry’s growth engines. Some media businesses are already reshaping how they create value through advertising and streaming, while they are exploring AI’s potential and new gaming models. PwC’s Global Entertainment & Media Outlook 2025–2029 identifies agility as the defining trait of success. The U.S. is still in the lead. However, its future position depends on how effectively companies adapt to new business models and consumer expectations. 

Connectivity is the backbone of the media & entertainment industry 

Connectivity remains the backbone of the industry, providing the infrastructure for everything from streaming to gaming. According to PwC, U.S. spending in this category will reach $1.3 trillion by 2029, with mobile internet services leading the way. Some companies are leveraging this foundation to reach broader audiences and enhance engagement. As advertising accelerates, the balance between connectivity and ad spending is reshaping how value is measured across the sector.  

Advertising emerges as the revenue growth engine 

With connectivity as the foundation, advertising has become the primary driver of industry revenues. Internet advertising in the U.S. will increase steadily over the next five years, fueled by connected TV, retail media, and mobile video. With connectivity as a base, advertising continues to drive much of the sector’s revenue growth.  

Some U.S. companies are expanding into connected TV, retail media, and mobile video, and globally, advertising revenue is on track to surpass consumer spending. In the U.S., digital formats already capture the majority of ad dollars, and companies that are leaning into these channels are seeing the benefits of monetizing engagement over subscriptions. 

Streaming shifts to hybrid models  

Streaming remains central to media consumption, and many companies are already leveraging hybrid models that combine subscriptions and ad-supported services. While subscriptions are essential, much of the growth now comes from ad-supported services.

By the end of the decade, ad-supported video-on-demand will account for more than a quarter of total streaming revenue. Leaders like Netflix and Amazon are embracing hybrid models that combine subscriptions with advertising, which reflects consumers’ appetite for more affordable options. This balance between cost and value is driving the next phase of streaming growth. 

Gaming is becoming an entertainment industry powerhouse 

Gaming is one of the fastest-growing segments of the entertainment industry, but some companies are still experimenting with monetization strategies, especially in mobile free-to-play formats. Global gaming revenues should rise sharply, outpacing both movies and music.  

A growing share of gaming revenue is expected to come from advertising, particularly in mobile free-to-play games where consumers are embracing ad-supported experiences. Companies that blend gaming with social media and e-commerce are exploring entirely new pathways for monetization and audience engagement. 

Cinema and live events remain resilient

Even with the rise of digital platforms, live experiences continue to hold significance for audiences – and the bottom line. Cinema, concerts, and other events still capture a majority share of U.S. consumer spending, underscoring the enduring appeal of shared experiences.  

Box office revenues are predicted to climb in the coming years, bolstered by demand for locally produced films. Studios that diversify storytelling and innovate distribution models are positioning themselves to remain competitive even as global competition increases. 

AI drives reinvention in the entertainment industry 

Some companies are investing heavily in generative AI to enhance content creation, personalization, ad targeting, and production efficiency. In advertising, AI helps deliver more precise campaigns; in streaming, it improves recommendations and pricing strategies; and in gaming, it enables dynamic, adaptive experiences. These early adopters are uncovering new revenue streams and operational efficiencies. 

PwC’s outlook makes one point clear: agility is the key to success. Many media companies are already combining hybrid models with AI-driven innovation and emphasizing a sharp focus on consumer needs. Their long-term growth will come from rethinking revenue strategies, building stronger connections with audiences, and moving quickly when new opportunities emerge. 

The post For the entertainment industry, agility is key to growth appeared first on Digital Content Next.

On publisher websites, this shows up as tag bloat. Scripts and widgets accumulate, dragging down performance and complicating analytics. An analysis of the top 200 marketing websites found an average of 12 tags per site. Some publishers reported 60–80 tags as typical, and in extreme cases the number of tags ran into the hundreds. Each additional tag adds latency, increases vendor management overhead, and compounds compliance risk.

The Reuters Institute’s Journalism, Media, and Technology Trends 2025 warns that technical debt is a growing concern. Site quality and personalization are “difficult, expensive, and time-consuming” when stacks are bloated. For publishers on lean margins, these inefficiencies are unsustainable. The solution, increasingly, is consolidation—streamlining vendors and functions into unified platforms that bring data, workflows, and visitor journeys together.

Why consolidation is gaining momentum

Economic pressures

The downturn in digital advertising and ongoing cost-cutting in media have forced publishers to scrutinize every contract. Across industries, SaaS spending shrank by 11% in 2023, with companies cutting their tool counts by an average of 8%. Redundant vendors are something few can afford.

Integration and compliance

Marketers report that after cost, integration is the top reason they replace tools—cited by 51% of respondents. Fragmented data not only limits insights but also complicates compliance with GDPR and CCPA. Larger, integrated platforms are often better equipped with consent management and privacy features built in.

Industry consolidation

The adtech ecosystem itself is shrinking. Publishers use an average of 19 SSPs. However, the ANA recommends cutting that number to about seven for efficiency. At the same time, standalone ad exchanges have been absorbed into broader supply-side platforms, leaving publishers to navigate fewer, but larger, partners. 

As Admiral CEO Dan Rua observes, “We’re seeing top publishers actively moving from six separate tags and vendors to a single consolidated stack, not just to cut costs, but to speed page loads, simplify vendor management, and optimize the entire visitor journey.”

Benefits of a consolidated ad tech stack

Cost savings

Eliminating overlapping licenses and contracts delivers immediate savings. HubSpot customer Liquidity Services cut software costs by 50% after replacing eight different tools with one platform, while also improving pipeline visibility by 80% and boosting email deliverability by 70%. Salesforce’s Total Economic Impact study found companies that consolidated saw more than $13M in net benefits, from lower tech costs to productivity gains.

Revenue growth

Ultimately, cohesion drives monetization. HubSpot clients reported 36% more deals closed after moving to the platform. In publishing, integrated content packages across consolidated media groups generate 30% higher audience engagement than siloed campaigns.

Admiral’s CEO emphasizes the performance angle. He says that, “Turning five or six disparate tags into one doesn’t just simplify operations—it directly improves site performance. That speed boost translates into higher conversions and more revenue opportunities for publishers.”

Unified data and analytics

Consolidation creates a single source of truth for audience interactions. Publishers can connect data from consent, engagement, and monetization touchpoints to see the full visitor journey. That kind of holistic view is impossible when data lives across half a dozen systems.

User experience

Fragmented stacks create jarring, redundant prompts—a consent banner from one vendor, a newsletter pop-up from another, a separate subscription wall later. Operating in silos, these tools often trigger targeting conflicts, overlapping pop-ups, and inconsistent styling—borders, fonts, and formats that don’t match, resulting in a disjointed, unprofessional user experience.

A consolidated platform coordinates these touchpoints into a seamless journey, where consent flows into registration and then subscription offers, all timed and styled consistently. The result is smoother interactions that reduce annoyance, build trust, and lift engagement and conversion.

Compliance, security, and vendor management

Fewer vendors mean fewer vulnerabilities and simpler consent recordkeeping, reducing the compliance burden for publishers under constant regulatory pressure. Just as important, consolidation streamlines vendor management: instead of juggling multiple contracts, account managers, dashboards, and data exchanges, publishers work with a single point of contact and unified support team. That efficiency saves time, cuts administrative overhead, and frees lean teams to shift focus from maintenance to innovation.

Challenges to Consider

However, consolidation isn’t without challenges. Publishers must weigh:

• Vendor lock-in: Fewer vendors can mean greater reliance on one. Choosing platforms with open APIs and strong data portability is key.
• Transition costs: Migrating off legacy systems takes planning. A phased approach, starting with a tech stack audit, helps minimize disruption.
• Team adoption: Departments may resist losing familiar tools. Leaders need to frame consolidation as a win for everyone. Focus on the advantages of faster work, better insights, and less manual effort.
• Publisher focus: Not every vendor understands the nuances of digital media. Some platforms are built for ecommerce or generic websites, but publishers need partners who know the demands of ad operations, audience engagement, subscriptions, and consent.
• Customer service. A consolidated partner takes on more responsibility. Great customer support is essential when one vendor is handling multiple critical parts of the stack.

As one adtech executive told Campaign Asia: “Layered technology, by all means, presents a sustainability issue, and publishers are under pressure to streamline.”

Cohesion as the future

Consolidation has evolved beyond a cost-cutting exercise. It’s how publishers combat digital debt, improve agility, and build stronger relationships with audiences. 

Catherine Beattie, then Director of Digital Ad Operations at Encyclopaedia Britannica, summed up the operational need for consolidation:

“My dev team’s involvement has practically become a critical KPI these days. If they can do something once and be done, then I can iterate, work with product teams, and make adjustments without going back to that queue to beg for resources. That makes everything so much more efficient.”

In a competitive environment where margins are thin and complexity is rising, publishers that simplify and consolidate today will be better equipped to innovate tomorrow.

The post Why publishers are embracing tech consolidation appeared first on Digital Content Next.

Pundits from the broadcast and streaming industries were watching to see whether Amazon’s servers could handle the load (no problem) or whether its production standards were up to snuff (mostly).

The thing that caught my eye?

The QR-codes embedded alongside some traditional 30-second commercials. They explicitly invited viewers to whip out their phones and get early access to pre-holiday deals.

On Amazon, of course. Without ever taking an eye off the game.

In a single moment, Amazon crystallized the changes happening in advertising. They clearly demonstrated how first-party data owned by the tech platforms trumps the decades of experience of those of us in ad-supported media industries.

Buy direct

If those QR codes don’t make your blood run cold – well, they should. They’re one more sign of the need for those of us in traditional media to get serious about understanding our audience members as individuals and build direct relationships with them.

“Amazon’s real advantage is the depth of their first-party data,” says Bill Day, former senior vice president of the media research firm Magid Associates. “Prime Video accounts are directly tied into your Prime shopping account – a seamless integration from video exposure all the way to point of sale activation for endemic categories.”

In other words: Amazon knows who its audience members are (including credit-card numbers), where they live, what they buy. And they can connect them to a one-click purchase system.

Viewers are buying

Up next, Day says: Moving beyond endemic categories to local advertisers.

Amazon even has a fancy product name – “Interactive Video Ads” – a combination of QR codes, remote-control cues and other triggers to allow viewers to research and buy advertisers’ products without leaving the stream.

Last Thanksgiving, Amazon sold out its Black Friday game inventory four months ahead of the games. Even the Super Bowl rarely sells out that early.

Jay Marine, Amazon’s global head of sports, pitched the IVAs thusly as this year’s upfronts telling the Hollywood Reporter, “What we’re able to do, which excites advertisers, is deliver that live event scale, combined with the digital insights, combined with the Amazon shopping capabilities.” He pointed out that “a customer can go from watching the game to seeing an interactive advertisement that they can one-click ‘buy,’ and it’s showing up at their door in a couple hours. … I think we’re really positioned to deliver something that they can’t find in the rest of the market.”

(He doesn’t think. He knows. Can your media outlet do that? Didn’t think so.)

Individual knowledge, and data, is power

It’s not just Amazon, either. Every member of the so-called FAANG club knows more about individual audience members than we do. Meta understands consumers’ content consumption on Facebook and Instagram. They also have deep insight into audience members’ other browsing through their tracking pixel.

Alphabet can build a dossier based on a users Google Chrome browser history and YouTube viewing. Then they can deploy that data through the chunks of the programmatic ad ecosystem that it owns.

Apple has data from iPhones, its podcast platform and, increasingly, Apple TV+. Netflix knows what, when and where you watch video.

Meanwhile, too many of us talk in broad demographic strokes: “We’re No. 1 with women 25-54!”

Know your audience now

Regardless of our industry of origin – newspaper, broadcast, digital native – media companies are severely handicapped compared to the tech platforms, who have decades of first-party data and the expertise to use it effectively.

So what do we do?

Start with a serious commitment to gathering more of your own first-party data – from digital log files, from active outreach like quizzes and newsletters, through value exchanges with our audiences.

We should think, too, about how we might revisit and refresh ideas the industry considered, and rejected, decades ago.

One of my favorites, from Ye Olden Days of the ‘90s: The legacy newspaper industry formed a consortium, the New Century Network, to build collective tools in the then-emerging technologies of the internet. One of those proposed answers was universal registration system (what today we would call a single-sign on attached to a data lake) that would aggregate identity and usage data across the major news sites of the day.

My mentor Owen Youngman – then a senior executive at Tribune Co., later a professor of digital media at Northwestern – loudly advocated for that system (and probably crafted most of the pitch). It was basically laughed out of the room by companies who believed their classified-ads monopoly was divinely granted and immortal. So, why worry about first-party data?

Oops.

Within a decade, Google effectively built out that model. Using tools like Gmail to get users into their ecosystem, then adding in data from search and Chrome to build a dominant position in the programmatic ecosystem.

De-FAANGing the internet

There are glimmers of hope, though: The European Union is aggressively confronting the FAANG companies’ data practices; even the U.S. Justice Department is showing some renewed vigor toward anti-trust enforcement.

However, we can’t afford to complacently hope the regulators will solve all problems. Though we can hope those actions open a small window of opportunity. And it’s time to figure out if your media organization is building the data and skills it needs to make the most it.  

About the author

Tom Davidson is the Bellisario professor of practice in media innovation at Penn State University. He was a longtime reporter turned media executive and product developer at Tribune Co., PBS and Gannett.

The post Capitalize on first party data (like platforms do) appeared first on Digital Content Next.