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
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
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
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