20200
P
1
20100
R  E
2
2070
D   I   C
3
2050
T   I   O   N
4
2040
S   F   O   R   J
5
2030
O  U  R  N  A  L
6
2020
I  S  M  2  0  2  0
7

A constraint of the reader-revenue model emerges

“Publications whose economic survival depends entirely on giving readers what they want may shy from giving them anything they might not want, or might not like.”

Asking readers to pay has become the go-to answer in digital news. In 2020, I think we’ll start to discover one constraint of that model.

Those of us old enough to have been around at the outbreak of the digital revolution will recall how much resistance there was initially to requiring regular readers to pay for content online. When The Wall Street Journal, where I then worked, started asking digital readers to subscribe and pay shortly after it launched 23 years ago, we were widely derided, told we just “didn’t get it” and that “information wants to be free.” (Even though Stewart Brand had also wisely said it wanted to be expensive.) Even 11 years and hundreds of thousands of online subscribers after that, Rupert Murdoch — who wanted desperately to own the Journal, despite his dislike of the most distinctive things about it — made clear that he would drop the paywall once he got control. When he did, and got a look under the hood at the facts of the business, he promptly reversed himself.

Eventually, the Financial Times developed a better mousetrap with its metering of readers, and The New York Times adopted the FT approach, to its great good fortune (especially in the Age of Trump); The Washington Post eventually followed suit. But what then emerged is that even metered paywalls won’t work unless you have high quality content — high quantities of it. That’s why many metropolitan newspapers haven’t found salvation in paywalls: Their best content is still excellent, but most simply don’t have enough of it.

For those who do — the FT, the Times, the Journal, perhaps a few others — subscribers will save these enterprises from what would otherwise be likely failure as their advertising business continues to evaporate.

In many ways, that’s great news. The worst fears of people like former Shorenstein Center director Alex Jones in his Losing the News won’t be realized. And the resulting transformation of these publications’ business model will make them more responsive to their readers.

But in that very responsiveness, there’s a phenomenon I think we should also view with concern. Publications whose economic survival depends entirely on giving readers what they want may shy from giving them anything they might not want, or might not like.

The first implication of this could be less news of the “eat your broccoli” variety. That’s not good, especially in a society that tends to ignore subjects until they become full-blown crises. (Think climate change, or opioids until fairly recently.) But the next implication is even worse — the part in which you avoid telling your customers about things they might not like.

Consider, for instance, how this might apply to politics. The traditional press justly derogates the head-in-the-sand nature of much of Fox News’ coverage of President Trump’s lies and self-dealing. But when their own business model depends entirely on subscriber renewals, could they withstand the temptation to temper scrutiny of the misdeeds of some subsequent president more aligned with their own audience? And let me hasten to add that I recognize that this same concern could extend to nonprofits, like the one I help run, who depend to an increasing extent on a large number of reader-donors.

A publication more closely aligned with its readers is mostly a good thing, of course, and reader revenue filling some of the advertising gap is one of the most glad tidings we’ve had in a journalism industry era in which very bad tidings are cresting. But new answers eventually pose their own new questions, and the emerging business model of quality news is no exception.

Richard J. Tofel is president of ProPublica.

Asking readers to pay has become the go-to answer in digital news. In 2020, I think we’ll start to discover one constraint of that model.

Those of us old enough to have been around at the outbreak of the digital revolution will recall how much resistance there was initially to requiring regular readers to pay for content online. When The Wall Street Journal, where I then worked, started asking digital readers to subscribe and pay shortly after it launched 23 years ago, we were widely derided, told we just “didn’t get it” and that “information wants to be free.” (Even though Stewart Brand had also wisely said it wanted to be expensive.) Even 11 years and hundreds of thousands of online subscribers after that, Rupert Murdoch — who wanted desperately to own the Journal, despite his dislike of the most distinctive things about it — made clear that he would drop the paywall once he got control. When he did, and got a look under the hood at the facts of the business, he promptly reversed himself.

Eventually, the Financial Times developed a better mousetrap with its metering of readers, and The New York Times adopted the FT approach, to its great good fortune (especially in the Age of Trump); The Washington Post eventually followed suit. But what then emerged is that even metered paywalls won’t work unless you have high quality content — high quantities of it. That’s why many metropolitan newspapers haven’t found salvation in paywalls: Their best content is still excellent, but most simply don’t have enough of it.

For those who do — the FT, the Times, the Journal, perhaps a few others — subscribers will save these enterprises from what would otherwise be likely failure as their advertising business continues to evaporate.

In many ways, that’s great news. The worst fears of people like former Shorenstein Center director Alex Jones in his Losing the News won’t be realized. And the resulting transformation of these publications’ business model will make them more responsive to their readers.

But in that very responsiveness, there’s a phenomenon I think we should also view with concern. Publications whose economic survival depends entirely on giving readers what they want may shy from giving them anything they might not want, or might not like.

The first implication of this could be less news of the “eat your broccoli” variety. That’s not good, especially in a society that tends to ignore subjects until they become full-blown crises. (Think climate change, or opioids until fairly recently.) But the next implication is even worse — the part in which you avoid telling your customers about things they might not like.

Consider, for instance, how this might apply to politics. The traditional press justly derogates the head-in-the-sand nature of much of Fox News’ coverage of President Trump’s lies and self-dealing. But when their own business model depends entirely on subscriber renewals, could they withstand the temptation to temper scrutiny of the misdeeds of some subsequent president more aligned with their own audience? And let me hasten to add that I recognize that this same concern could extend to nonprofits, like the one I help run, who depend to an increasing extent on a large number of reader-donors.

A publication more closely aligned with its readers is mostly a good thing, of course, and reader revenue filling some of the advertising gap is one of the most glad tidings we’ve had in a journalism industry era in which very bad tidings are cresting. But new answers eventually pose their own new questions, and the emerging business model of quality news is no exception.

Richard J. Tofel is president of ProPublica.

Kathleen Searles   Pay more attention to attention

Nathalie Malinarich   Betting on loyalty

Jake Shapiro   Podcasting gets listener relationship management

Jasmine McNealy   A call for context

Richard J. Tofel   A constraint of the reader-revenue model emerges

Cristina Kim   Public media stops trying to serve “everybody”

Kevin D. Grant   The free press stands against authoritarians’ attacks on truth

Linda Solomon Wood   Everyone in your organization, moving toward a common goal

Carrie Brown-Smith   Engaged journalism: It’s finally happening

S. Mitra Kalita   The race to 2021

Michael W. Wagner   Increasingly fractured, but little bit deliberative

Craig Newmark   Formalizing newsrooms’ battle against disinformation

Sarah Alvarez   I’m ready for post-news

Christa Scharfenberg   It’s time to make journalism a field that supports and respects women

Millie Tran   Wicked

Jeff Kofman   Speed through technology

Laura E. Davis   Know the context your journalism is operating within

Barbara Gray   Join local libraries on the frontlines of civic engagement

Tonya Mosley   The neutrality vs. objectivity game ends

Sarah Marshall   The year to learn about news moments

Logan Molyneux and Shannon McGregor   Think twice before turning to Twitter

Greg Emerson   News apps fall further behind

Alfred Hermida and Mary Lynn Young   The promise of nonprofit journalism

Irving Washington   Leadership isn’t something you learn on the job

Ståle Grut   OSINT journalism goes mainstream

Talia Stroud   The work of reconnecting starts November 4

Whitney Phillips   A time to question core beliefs

Margarita Noriega   The platforms try to figure out what to do with single-subject newsrooms

Steve Henn   The dawning audio web

Rachel Glickhouse   Journalists get left behind in the industry’s decline

Beena Raghavendran   The year of the local engagement reporter

Elizabeth Hansen and Jesse Holcomb   Local news initiatives run into a capital shortage

Rick Berke   Incoming fire from both left and right

Cory Haik   We’re already consuming the future of news — now we have to produce it

Adam Thomas   The silver bullet

Seth C. Lewis   20 questions for 2020

Fiona Spruill   The climate crisis gets the coverage it deserves

Nicholas Jackson   What’s left of local gets comfortable with reader support

Don Day   Respect the non-paying audience

Anthony Nadler   Clash of Clans: Election Edition

Sara K. Baranowski   A big year for little newspapers

John Keefe   Journalism gets hacked

Heather Bryant   Some kinds of journalism aren’t worth saving

Mike Caulfield   Native verification tools for the blue checkmark crowd

Heidi Tworek   The year of positive pushback

An Xiao Mina   The Forum we wanted, the forum we got

Elizabeth Dunbar   Frank talk, and then action

Juleyka Lantigua-Williams   A changing industry amps up podcasters’ ambitions

Simon Galperin   Journalism becomes more democratic

Cindy Royal   Prepare media students for skills, not job titles

John Garrett   It’s the best time in a century to start a local news organization

Jeremy Gilbert and Jarrod Dicker   A call for collaboration between storytelling and tech

Kristen Muller   The year we operationalize community engagement

Rasmus Kleis Nielsen   The business we want, not the business we had

Bill Adair   A Nobel Prize, a Brad Pitt film, and a Taylor Swift song

Alice Antheaume   Trade “politics” for “power”

james Wahutu   Western journalists, learn from your African peers

Zizi Papacharissi   A president leads, the press follows, reality fades

Joe Amditis   Collaborative journalism takes its rightful place at the table

M. Scott Havens   First-party data becomes media’s most important currency

Francesco Zaffarano   TikTok without generational prejudice

Pablo Boczkowski   The day after November 4

Jakob Moll   A slow-moving tech backlash among young people

Masuma Ahuja   Slower, quieter, more measured and thoughtful

Joni Deutsch   Podcasting unsilences the silent

Ben Werdmuller   Use the tools of journalism to save it

Sonali Prasad   Climate change storytelling gets multidimensional

L. Gordon Crovitz   Fighting misinformation requires journalism, not secret algorithms

Bill Grueskin   Our ethics codes get an overhaul

Candis Callison   Taking a cue from Indigenous journalists on climate change

Ernie Smith   The death of the industry fad

Carl Bialik   Journalists will try running the whole shop

Madelyn Sanfilippo and Yafit Lev-Aretz   News coverage gets geo-fragmented

Matt DeRienzo   Local broadcasters begin to fill the gaps left by newspapers

Eric Nuzum   Podcasting finally creates another mega-hit show

Tom Glaisyer   Journalism can emerge newly vibrant and powerful

Rachel Schallom   The value of push alerts goes beyond open rates

Joshua Darr   All that campaign cash will make the media’s problems worse

Meredith Artley   Stronger solidarity among news organizations

Helen Havlak   Platforms shine a light on original reporting

Victor Pickard   We reclaim a public good

A.J. Bauer   A fork in the road for conservative media

Julia B. Chan   We 👏 take 👏 breaks 👏

Sue Robinson   Campaign coverage as test bed for engagement experiments

Brian Moritz   The end of “stick to sports”

Nushin Rashidian   Are platforms a bridge or a lifeline?

Catalina Albeanu   Rebuilding journalism, together

Tamar Charney   From broadcast to bespoke

Hossein Derakhshan   AI can’t conjure up an Errol Morris

Brenda P. Salinas   Treating MP3 files like text

Errin Haines   Race and gender aren’t a 2020 story — they’re the story

Logan Jaffe   You don’t need fancy tools to listen

Jim Brady   We’ll complain about other people living in bubbles while ignoring our own

Stefanie Murray   Charitable giving goes collaborative

Kourtney Bitterly   Transparency isn’t just a desire, it’s an expectation

Knight Foundation   Five generations of journalists, learning from each other

Doris Truong   The year of radical salary transparency

Lucas Graves   A smarter conversation about how (and why) fact-checking matters

Dan Shanoff   Sports media enters the Bronny era

Raney Aronson-Rath   News deserts will proliferate — but so will new solutions

Alexandra Borchardt   Get out of the office and talk to people

Lauren Duca   The rise of the journalistic influencer

Jennifer Brandel   A love letter from the year 2073

Mario García   Think small (screen)

Jeremy Olshan   All journalism should be service journalism

Felix Salmon   Spotify launches a news channel

Moreno Cruz Osório   In Brazil, collaboration in a time of state attacks

Mira Lowe   The year of student-powered journalism

Imaeyen Ibanga   Let’s take it slow

Josh Schwartz   Publishers move beyond the metered paywall

Monica Drake   A renewed focus on misinformation

Sarah Stonbely   More people start caring about news inequality

Dannagal G. Young   Let’s disrupt the logic that’s driving Americans apart

Rachel Davis Mersey   The business of local TV news will enter its downward slide

Colleen Shalby   Journalists become media literacy teachers

Joanne McNeil   A return to blogs (finally? sort of?)

Alana Levinson   Brand-backed media gets another look

Peter Bale   Lies get further normalized

Kerri Hoffman   Opening closed systems

Annie Rudd   The expanded ambiguity of the news photograph

Emily Withrow   The year we kill the news article

Nico Gendron   Make better products if you want to reach Gen Z

Marie Gilot   This is fine

Nikki Usher   All systems down

Tanya Cordrey   Saying no to more good ideas

Monique Judge   The year to organize, unionize, and fight

Mary Walter-Brown and Tristan Loper   Power to the people (on your audience team)

Mariana Moura Santos   The future of journalism is collaborative

Sarah Schmalbach   Journalist, quantify thyself

Meg Marco   Everything happens somewhere

Matthew Pressman   News consumers divide into haves and have-nots

Geneva Overholser   Death to bothsidesism

Jonas Kaiser   Russian bots are just today’s slacktivists