Invest in tools and talent, and newsrooms can finish the job

“The furniture industry seems able to invest in its future. Maybe we can, too?”

The news industry is a technology- and talent-based industry that has for decades neglected investment in both.

It has taken its tools for granted, relying on others to develop the technologies it relies on. It’s surrendered a long history of being technology makers (in print, in broadcasting) and effectively resigned itself to being technology takers (adapting general-purpose technologies, relying on third-party platforms).

It has taken its people for granted, with little investment in lifelong training and professional development, and with the confidence — even arrogance — of having always been an attractive destination for editorial talent. It has obscured how many (and who) are leaving, as well as the fact that it increasingly needs excellent data, product, and tech talent to succeed — talent it often struggles to attract and retain.

Having invested so little in its future, much of the legacy news industry is now finding that it may not have one.

In 2022, I think the gap will grow between the titles willing to break with this tradition — to make serious investments in tools and talent — and everyone else. That’s especially clear in a context characterized by very strong winner-takes-most dynamics at every level of the media economy.

Those who invest are more likely to be among the few winners in an unforgiving market. Those who don’t are more likely to be among the many losers.

It’s up to news media executives and owners whether they will make these investments. Whether they do or not will reveal a lot about how they see the future of their companies.

The difference between resigning oneself to managing decline and actively investing in the future is not about peppering presentations with mentions of AI, big data, and blockchain, or appointing a head of talent with no budget or power. It’s about committing real resources to drive real change.

So let’s follow the money. Tools and technologies first. Detailed statistics aren’t available, but aggregate numbers make clear that the news media invests far less in R&D than most other industries. OECD research puts R&D investment in the publishing industry at 0.57% of gross value added, broadcasting at 0.32%. The furniture industry invests more than twice that (1.17%) and textiles more than three times (1.73%). The average R&D share across all industries is estimated at 5%. That’s almost ten times publishing’s investment.

What about training then? Looking at formal training, another OECD study suggests that average investment across all industries in a range of countries is 2.6% of gross value added and that 18% of employees join formal training programs each year. I don’t know of any statistics on news media specifically, but would love to hear about publishers who believed so much in their teams and the future that they invest that kind of resource in helping them constantly develop. I can’t say I know of many who do.

Let that sink in. For all the talk of digital transformation — and decades into a huge transformation in how people access information and use media, a profound disruption of inherited business models, and faced with the fiercest competition for attention in human history — much of the media industry has basically not invested a meaningful percentage of still significant revenues in figuring out what the future might be, or in developing the tools and talent they need to find carve out their place in it.

If the global newspaper industry alone invested just 5% of revenues in R&D and 2% in formal training (the industry averages mentioned above), that would be billions of dollars dedicated to figuring out the future of journalism every year. The furniture industry seems able to invest in its future. Maybe we can, too?

The main actors who have the power to drive that change are news executives and media owners. Some of them, quite rationally, won’t want to because they don’t believe there will be a short-term return. This, of course, is why there is one of the reasons that there has been so little investment. But however understandable that may be, from the point of view of journalists — and in terms of journalism’s long-term prospects for delivering public value — that’s not going to cut it.

So I hope news executives will consider their priorities, and that journalists will examine their company’s long-term commitment to the business of news by finding out what percentage of revenues they are investing in R&D and in training and professional development.

It’s not about throwing money at absent-minded boffins in a remote lab. It’s about making serious, sustained investments in developing the tools and the talent that the news industry needs to succeed.

Executives and owners may protest that only big successful titles like The New York Times, national market leaders like Sweden’s Dagens Nyheter, or publicly funded media like the BBC can afford to invest.

But that’s simply not true. Malaysiakini, an online newspaper in Malaysia, invests significant resources in product development. The Daily Maverick in South Africa is committed to professional and personal development. These aren’t huge, lucrative companies; they operate in very challenging markets — and yet still they invest. It’s a question of priorities, and of whether executives and owners believe in a long-term future.

Without investment, what are you going to have in the end? A newsroom consigned to rewriting wire copy and press releases for a generic website bloated with programmatic ads and pushed across whatever formats the big platforms are offering up?

With investment in tools and talent, on the other hand, journalism can and will be so much more. I think 2022 will further demonstrate that if we give newsrooms the tools and invest in the talent, they can finish the job by delivering editorially as well as commercially.

Rasmus Kleis Nielsen is Director of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism and Professor of Political Communication at the University of Oxford.

The news industry is a technology- and talent-based industry that has for decades neglected investment in both.

It has taken its tools for granted, relying on others to develop the technologies it relies on. It’s surrendered a long history of being technology makers (in print, in broadcasting) and effectively resigned itself to being technology takers (adapting general-purpose technologies, relying on third-party platforms).

It has taken its people for granted, with little investment in lifelong training and professional development, and with the confidence — even arrogance — of having always been an attractive destination for editorial talent. It has obscured how many (and who) are leaving, as well as the fact that it increasingly needs excellent data, product, and tech talent to succeed — talent it often struggles to attract and retain.

Having invested so little in its future, much of the legacy news industry is now finding that it may not have one.

In 2022, I think the gap will grow between the titles willing to break with this tradition — to make serious investments in tools and talent — and everyone else. That’s especially clear in a context characterized by very strong winner-takes-most dynamics at every level of the media economy.

Those who invest are more likely to be among the few winners in an unforgiving market. Those who don’t are more likely to be among the many losers.

It’s up to news media executives and owners whether they will make these investments. Whether they do or not will reveal a lot about how they see the future of their companies.

The difference between resigning oneself to managing decline and actively investing in the future is not about peppering presentations with mentions of AI, big data, and blockchain, or appointing a head of talent with no budget or power. It’s about committing real resources to drive real change.

So let’s follow the money. Tools and technologies first. Detailed statistics aren’t available, but aggregate numbers make clear that the news media invests far less in R&D than most other industries. OECD research puts R&D investment in the publishing industry at 0.57% of gross value added, broadcasting at 0.32%. The furniture industry invests more than twice that (1.17%) and textiles more than three times (1.73%). The average R&D share across all industries is estimated at 5%. That’s almost ten times publishing’s investment.

What about training then? Looking at formal training, another OECD study suggests that average investment across all industries in a range of countries is 2.6% of gross value added and that 18% of employees join formal training programs each year. I don’t know of any statistics on news media specifically, but would love to hear about publishers who believed so much in their teams and the future that they invest that kind of resource in helping them constantly develop. I can’t say I know of many who do.

Let that sink in. For all the talk of digital transformation — and decades into a huge transformation in how people access information and use media, a profound disruption of inherited business models, and faced with the fiercest competition for attention in human history — much of the media industry has basically not invested a meaningful percentage of still significant revenues in figuring out what the future might be, or in developing the tools and talent they need to find carve out their place in it.

If the global newspaper industry alone invested just 5% of revenues in R&D and 2% in formal training (the industry averages mentioned above), that would be billions of dollars dedicated to figuring out the future of journalism every year. The furniture industry seems able to invest in its future. Maybe we can, too?

The main actors who have the power to drive that change are news executives and media owners. Some of them, quite rationally, won’t want to because they don’t believe there will be a short-term return. This, of course, is why there is one of the reasons that there has been so little investment. But however understandable that may be, from the point of view of journalists — and in terms of journalism’s long-term prospects for delivering public value — that’s not going to cut it.

So I hope news executives will consider their priorities, and that journalists will examine their company’s long-term commitment to the business of news by finding out what percentage of revenues they are investing in R&D and in training and professional development.

It’s not about throwing money at absent-minded boffins in a remote lab. It’s about making serious, sustained investments in developing the tools and the talent that the news industry needs to succeed.

Executives and owners may protest that only big successful titles like The New York Times, national market leaders like Sweden’s Dagens Nyheter, or publicly funded media like the BBC can afford to invest.

But that’s simply not true. Malaysiakini, an online newspaper in Malaysia, invests significant resources in product development. The Daily Maverick in South Africa is committed to professional and personal development. These aren’t huge, lucrative companies; they operate in very challenging markets — and yet still they invest. It’s a question of priorities, and of whether executives and owners believe in a long-term future.

Without investment, what are you going to have in the end? A newsroom consigned to rewriting wire copy and press releases for a generic website bloated with programmatic ads and pushed across whatever formats the big platforms are offering up?

With investment in tools and talent, on the other hand, journalism can and will be so much more. I think 2022 will further demonstrate that if we give newsrooms the tools and invest in the talent, they can finish the job by delivering editorially as well as commercially.

Rasmus Kleis Nielsen is Director of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism and Professor of Political Communication at the University of Oxford.

Mike Rispoli

Matt Karolian

Wilson Liévano

Candace Amos

Gabe Schneider

Whitney Phillips

Jennifer Coogan

Janelle Salanga

Tony Baranowski

Doris Truong

Kendra Pierre-Louis

Victor Pickard

Tamar Charney

Gonzalo del Peon

Eric Nuzum

Alice Antheaume

Catalina Albeanu

Izabella Kaminska

Raney Aronson-Rath

Jessica Clark

Jennifer Brandel

j. Siguru Wahutu

Don Day

Richard Tofel

David Skok

Nikki Usher

Matthew Pressman

Amara Aguilar

Cindy Royal

Cherian George

Jesenia De Moya Correa

Matt DeRienzo

Anthony Nadler

Mary Walter-Brown

David Cohn

Christoph Mergerson

Meena Thiruvengadam

Mario García

Megan McCarthy

Francesco Zaffarano

Paul Cheung

Tom Trewinnard

Jody Brannon

Chase Davis

Michael W. Wagner

Christina Shih

Cristina Tardáguila

Joshua P. Darr

Moreno Cruz Osório

Jonas Kaiser

Kristen Muller

Jesse Holcomb

Sam Guzik

Robert Hernandez

Daniel Eilemberg

Rasmus Kleis Nielsen

Julia Angwin

Gordon Crovitz

Larry Ryckman

Kristen Jeffers

Parker Molloy

Andrew Freedman

Anika Anand

Stephen Fowler

S. Mitra Kalita

Sarah Marshall

Laxmi Parthasarathy

Simon Allison

Stefanie Murray

John Davidow

Shannon McGregor & Carolyn Schmitt

Zizi Papacharissi

Joanne McNeil

Sarah Stonbely

Joy Mayer

Millie Tran

Julia Munslow

Jim Friedlich

Rachel Glickhouse

Joe Amditis

Kerri Hoffman

Chicas Poderosas

Amy Schmitz Weiss

Juleyka Lantigua

James Green

Shalabh Upadhyay

Ariel Zirulnick

Kathleen Searles & Rebekah Trumble

Simon Galperin

Errin Haines

A.J. Bauer

Melody Kramer

Brian Moritz

AX Mina

Joni Deutsch

Anita Varma

Burt Herman

Mandy Jenkins

Natalia Viana

Ståle Grut