To stand out in the “AI-age,” media companies are emphasizing direct relationships with the audience. We’re also seeing the resurgence of the homepage, the emergence of AI-powered editorial workflows, and an increased need for strong data management. As we wrote last month, this is being driven by the fact that quality is of utmost importance as generative AI drives the cost to produce generic content down to zero and Google search shifts to focus on offering “answers” instead of driving traffic. 

Now, we’ll walk through trends we’re seeing in media product management, and how teams are aligning to drive results in this new paradigm. 

The ascendancy of product management

As media organizations refocus on delivering content of the highest quality, combined with an excellent user experience (that people want to pay for), the role of the product manager is changing somewhat as various teams try to institute changes on the digital experience. 

These changes might be editorial teams creating new workflows, revenue teams adding more ads and popups, engineering teams building fancy bespoke front ends—normal stuff that has been part of media forever. What’s changed somewhat is product management’s share of voice. Do product managers just take orders and make it happen, or can they say no? Who is speaking for the user? Who is advocating for a clean content experience? What makes your subscription stand out?

As direct relationships and the homepage get more important, product management is finding itself in a more strategic position. The challenge is in balancing the needs of discrete teams with the needs of their audience—and the needs of everyone with the needs of the business.

Focus on innovation and fundamentals

Organizations are taking an extremely hard look at where they spend their engineering dollars. These organizations are assessing how much of their team’s work is dedicated to maintenance versus creating new revenue-generating features. 

For example, the ability to handle traffic spikes. If they’re doing all the maintenance of keeping the site up for traffic spikes and similar occurrences, leadership are thinking about whether that can be outsourced to a managed platform that specializes in that work and can thus do it more cost-effectively. 

This focus on innovation introduces the drive towards open-source. With open source, you can let the community maintain the software, for free. You just customize on top of it.

Those not using open source are burning money and missing out

If the engineering team is celebrating introducing something like Authors and Permissions to the tech stack, it’s time to ask critical questions. These features have been available in open-source CMSes for more than a decade. Why is anyone reinventing the wheel? “We’ll make it ourselves and it’ll be better” is a common trap. Couldn’t something more productive have been done with those engineering hours?

Besides embracing open source, we’re also seeing more consolidation in tech stacks—a broad organization with many distinct properties might be moving from having four CMSes down to just one. This reduces friction from new feature releases and enhances learnings across publications or business units. 

The most interesting thing we are seeing in this area is a major spike in contribution back to the open source community in terms of code, best practices, and more. This is perhaps a tacit acknowledgement that content, not technology, is the real differentiator for media organizations. 

Headless architecture is losing steam

Headless was all the hotness in engineering for a while. Now we’re seeing media organizations choose monolithic (or “full stack”) implementations. Simply put, the bet on headless hasn’t paid off for many media use cases. 

Frequently, the needs of these sites are pretty simple—serving written content to the end user. Most open-source CMSes can power both the front end and the back end. Choosing to develop their own headless front end is choosing to create costly tech debt—and most media engineering teams don’t have money to spare. This change opens up all the time they spent creating and maintaining basic front-end technology for reprioritization towards revenue-generating engineering. 

The “desire line” we’re walking

A desire line is an “unplanned route or path (such as one worn into a grassy surface by repeated foot traffic) that is used by pedestrians in preference to or in the absence of a designated alternative (such as a paved pathway).” Frequently it’s because this path is simply the most efficient path between points A and B. 

With media products, the desire line is straightforward: the platforms are unreliable sources of traffic, and there isn’t enough money to fund anything but the most efficient paths forward. This is why we are seeing organizations across the industry align on direct, subscriber-based relationships. And, to support these efforts, media organizations are focused on the efficient use of engineering resources via open-source technology. The most exciting part here is that—because we are not all just producers but also consumers of news and media—the reader experience itself is getting better. It has to be better, in order to justify a subscription.