Category results for "Audiences"

- Thumbs up sign with Youtube play button -

From reach to relationship: unlocking value on YouTube

January 19, 2026 Claire Tavernier – Media and Technology Adviser

YouTube is now the biggest TV platform in the world. In the US it accounts for over 20% of time spent watching streaming apps on television screens, and in the UK it sits second only to the BBC for viewing. But for years, media executives dismissed YouTube as a platform you used, not one you built on. That misunderstanding cost some companies millions OK so that’s and handed others a generational advantage. While traditional media focused on reach, creators focused on return visits. While brands polished campaigns, creators bonded with people. And while executives debated algorithms, loyalty quietly became the most valuable currency on the platform.

YouTube rewards speed over polish, feedback over control, and consistency over campaigns. Results aren’t simply about reach, but something harder to manufacture later: audience trust and habitual viewing. For organizations accustomed to control and predictability, capitalizing on the true value of YouTube has been challenging to say the least.

These dynamics came into sharp focus during a panel I moderated at the Content London conference in December on the Secrets of YouTube Success. The panelists were Patrick Walker, Senior Advisor at Electrify Video Partner and founder of Nowherian, Luke Hyams, co-founder of Pangaea and former Head of Originals at YouTube, James Loveridge, Co-Managing Director of Little Dot Studios, and Sam Glynne, Head of EMEA, Entertainment and Culture Marketing at UTA. Between them, they represent some of the deepest institutional memory the platform has, people who were there before YouTube knew what it was going to become.

The topic of our discussion was straightforward: What lessons from YouTube’s evolution can be applied today to build audience loyalty, sustainable monetization, and long-term relevance in a rapidly shifting video landscape? For executives, it’s not just about understanding history; it’s about recognizing the behaviors, relationships, and creative choices that will determine who thrives on the platform in the next few years. Many media companies and brands still treat YouTube as a bolt-on distribution channel rather than what it actually is, a direct and ongoing relationship with audiences.

Media leaders have seen this movie before

I first encountered YouTube professionally in 2007, when I was Global Head of Digital at Fremantle. At the time, the idea that a user-generated platform could be a serious commercial partner was controversial, if not seditious. Despite that skepticism, we signed one of YouTube’s earliest global partnerships, which went on to generate tens of millions of dollars for the group. Not because the content was radically different from what we were already making, but because the relationship with the audience was.

Later, as Managing Director of ChannelFlip (one of the early YouTube creator studios), I saw the same pattern repeat. Creators who understood their audiences deeply, published consistently, and responded to feedback in real time routinely outperformed far better resourced traditional media brands. The lesson then, as now, was simple: YouTube rewards those who treat viewers as participants, not recipients.

From distribution to relationship

Early in our panel, it became clear that the industry took years to understand what YouTube truly was. For many companies, success was initially measured in uploads and views rather than in loyalty or trust. Creators, by contrast, quickly learned that the real value was in return visits. They read comments, adjusted formats, experimented publicly and often failed in full view of their audiences. That feedback loop made them faster, sharper, and more relevant than traditional media teams working behind layers of approval.

For executives used to broadcast scheduling, YouTube requires a rethink of what drives loyalty and revenue. While formats, devices, and business models have evolved, the principle of building habitual viewing and trust remains as true today as it was in 2007.

The algorithm is not the villain

YouTube is often described as unforgiving. That’s true. However, it is not arbitrary. Luke Hyams, former Head of Originals at YouTube, reminded the audience that many creators learned early to “post first and apologise later,” experimenting quickly and learning from audience feedback. Thumbnails, titles, and pacing are not optional marketing add-ons; they are part of the storytelling. Optimisation, as James Loveridge noted, is a creative act, not just a technical exercise. Patrick Walker framed the challenge another way, describing a “post-algorithm world” where sustainable businesses build audience ownership rather than relying solely on platform mechanics.

Over-reliance on algorithmic growth is a trap. Formats age, platform dynamics shift, and businesses built entirely on rented reach are fragile. Companies that succeed are those that use the algorithm to find audiences, then work deliberately to keep them. Audience ownership, not algorithmic dependence, is where long-term business value lies.

Why brands still struggle

Brand success on YouTube remains uneven, not because audiences reject brands, but because brands struggle with the loss of control. Content cannot be quietly taken down or endlessly revised. Comments accumulate. Audiences talk back. Trust, once broken, is visible.

Sam Glynne highlighted that brands often attempt to behave like creators but underestimate how quickly audiences notice inauthenticity. Our panel agreed that brands perform best when they treat YouTube as a studio, not a campaign channel. This means investing in talent relationships over time, respecting the audience’s expectations, and accepting that authenticity cannot be reverse-engineered. Creators have always understood this instinctively; organizations are still learning it.

Connected TV and the return of long-form

Another strategic opportunity is the growth of long-form viewing on YouTube via connected TV. Audiences may be leaning back, but they still expect creator-led storytelling, direct address, and a sense of intimacy. Companies that assume connected TV automatically validates old commissioning models will struggle. Those that design long-form formats specifically for creator ecosystems will find growth.

YouTube strategy now cuts across content, brand, product, and distribution. It cannot sit in a social media silo. This is an urgent operational and strategic issue for executives responsible for long-term growth and engagement.

Key takeaways for media executives

For media and advertising leaders, the lessons are practical and immediate:

Stop treating YouTube as a distribution endpoint; treat it as a relationship platform.
Optimization is part of creativity; packaging and format matter as much as content quality.
Views without loyalty are not a business; retention and habitual engagement matter more than scale.
Brands succeed when they behave like studios, not advertisers, investing in long-term talent relationships.
Long-term value comes from audience ownership, not algorithmic favor.

YouTube is no longer the future of television. It is part of today’s media infrastructure. Leaders who invest in audience-first thinking, treat creators and talent as strategic partners, and prioritize trust and habitual engagement will find sustainable growth and loyalty. Those who cling to legacy approaches risk irrelevance.

About the author

Claire Tavernier is a media and technology adviser and board chair. She was previously Global Head of Digital at Fremantle and Managing Director of ChannelFlip.

-Puzzling out publishing priorities 2026-

Advertising | Audiences | Diversity, Equity & Inclusion | Featured Post

Trends shaping publishing priorities in 2026

January 19, 2026 Michelle Manafy, Editorial Director – DCN

In 2026, media companies are operating in an environment shaped by multiple, overlapping shifts. Audience discovery continues to fragment as search and social become increasingly unreliable traffic tools, while AI is moving rapidly from experimentation into everyday infrastructure. At the same time, advertisers are demanding greater accountability, markets remain volatile, and long-standing assumptions about scale and distribution are being tested.

Together, these forces are changing what competitive advantage looks like. No longer seeking scale for its own sake, publishers are focused on proof, predictability, and performance.

To gain a high-level view of the industry, DCN gathered perspectives from companies that work with publishers every day across measurement, monetization, infrastructure, workflow, and operations. Their proximity to daily decision-making across media companies of all sizes and types provides insight into the competencies publishers are actively strengthening as they adapt to discovery volatility, evolving advertiser expectations, and the operational realities of AI.

Several capabilities stand out as especially relevant for publishing priorities in 2026.

Authenticated audiences anchor revenue growth

The media industry’s shift from quantity to quality has accelerated. Advertisers are increasingly focused on confidence in who they are reaching, how audiences engage, and what outcomes media delivers.

Rich Murphy, CEO, president, and managing director of Alliance for Audited Media, points out that buying continues to move away from pageviews and impressions toward outcomes. In that environment, independent, third-party verification is foundational. Publishers able to demonstrate authenticated reach and engagement across channels are better aligned with how advertising investment decisions are being made this year.

This change is reshaping how growth is defined. Audience scale still matters, but only when it is identifiable, engaged, and repeatable. Audiences must be respected as business assets rather than traffic streams—assets that need to be cultivated, measured, and maintained over time.

That redefinition is already influencing advertiser behavior. Jack Marshall, head of news at DoubleVerify, points to engagement data showing that trusted news environments outperform non-news content. For advertisers prioritizing attention and impact, proof and performance are increasingly intertwined.

Cross-platform adaptation reflects audience discovery

As search and social referrals become less reliable, publishers are rethinking how content travels and how value is captured beyond owned-and-operated environments.

John Nardone, CEO of JWX, says publishers are strengthening their ability to adapt content across platforms rather than rely on a destination-first model. With referral dependency declining, publishers can no longer wait for audiences to arrive. Instead, they need systems that allow high-integrity journalism to meet audiences in the formats each platform favors—whether vertical video, audio, or short-form social expressions—while still reinforcing the core brand.

That shift turns content operations into an adaptive engine. The goal is not simply wider distribution, but more relevant, context-aware presentation of journalism across platforms. This enables audiences to experience content in ways that feel native to where and how they are engaging.

From the demand side, Sean Dean, vice president of media owner development at Criteo, notes that clearer signals around context and engagement make it easier for adapted content to be understood, valued, and discovered as it moves across platforms.

And from an audience perspective, Naomi Owusu, CEO and co-founder of Tickaroo, emphasizes that relevance is built through formats that invite participation and transparency. When audiences feel content is timely, understandable, and connected to their needs, cross-platform presence reinforces trust and habitual return behavior rather than fragmenting it.

In 2026, brand presence across platforms is increasingly tied to audience loyalty and repeat engagement, not just reach.

Modern media infrastructure is about signal quality and orchestration

In 2026, modern media infrastructure is less about adding tools and more about connecting systems that have historically been siloed.

From the demand side, infrastructure quality shows up as signal quality. Dean at Criteo says accurate, complete bidstream and bid-response data allow buyers to understand context, pricing, and performance with greater clarity. When those fundamentals are in place, innovation and premium demand tend to follow.

In premium video and streaming environments, infrastructure also needs to support consistency and accountability across screens. Nicolas Mignot, vice president of publisher sales and strategy at FreeWheel, emphasizes that modern infrastructure increasingly connects ad exposure to business outcomes such as sales and conversions. As advertisers expect video to behave more like digital channels, infrastructure becomes a growth enabler rather than background plumbing.

From the content side, JWX’s Nardone describes modern infrastructure as an orchestration layer, which collapses the divide between the newsroom and the ad tech stack. When a single piece of content can be automatically optimized for reach, engagement, and yield across platforms, publishers are better positioned to monetize attention wherever it occurs.

Engagement becomes the key to unlock monetization

As reach fragments and acquisition costs rise, sustainable monetization in 2026 depends less on volume and more on depth of engagement. It’s also critical to understand how clearly that engagement translates into advertiser value.

Ginny Hunter, vice president of publisher client development at DoubleVerify, says one persistent inefficiency is treating performance, media quality, and revenue as separate conversations. Publishers that unify these signals can proactively package and price premium opportunities around advertiser-favored KPIs, shortening the path to investment and strengthening trust.

In video environments, engagement is also reshaping how inventory is valued. Nicolas Mignot, vice president of publisher sales and strategy at FreeWheel, notes that advertisers increasingly look beyond content metadata to signals such as attention and ad interaction. These indicators help distinguish passive viewing from moments when ads are more likely to resonate and perform.

This year, monetization strategies that treat engagement as a secondary outcome face growing pressure. Approaches that design for engagement as a core input to pricing, packaging, and measurement are proving more resilient.

Trust and inclusion support long-term audience value

In a market saturated with automated and commoditized content, differentiation increasingly hinges on whether publishers can deliver journalism that audiences perceive as credible, relevant, and trustworthy.

Tickaroo’s Owusu believes that inclusive, audience-first journalism is closely tied to trust. Audiences no longer grant publishers the benefit of the doubt; they want to see their communities and lived experiences reflected authentically in coverage. That requires more than hiring practices. It depends on editorial, technical, and product systems that allow a broader range of voices to shape storytelling.

Trust also depends on accountability beyond the newsroom. Marshall from DoubleVerify points to engagement data showing that trusted news environments consistently outperform other content categories, reinforcing that credibility is not just a values issue—it is measurable and meaningful for advertisers. When trust is supported by transparent signals and outcomes, it becomes a durable source of audience and revenue value.

Owusu emphasizes that transparency is of particular importance as publishers adopt new tools. In the context of AI, audiences want clarity about what is human-led, what is assisted, and where accountability sits. Trust, once lost, is difficult to regain. And in 2026, it is increasingly visible in retention, engagement, and willingness to pay.

AI becomes operational infrastructure, with limits

This year, AI has moved beyond the experimental phase for many publishers. As media companies increasingly work with AI, it has started to function as infrastructure, shaping how inventory is forecast, priced, packaged, and sold.

Unni Kurup, director of client consulting and strategy at Theorem, describes AI’s real impact as emerging in commercial and operational decision systems—forecasting demand, optimizing yield, planning inventory, and coordinating decisions across teams. In volatile markets, AI can be used to forecast demand more accurately and align decisions across sales, pricing, and operations, reducing costly missteps.

At the same time, leaders are clear that not every application is appropriate. Murphy from Alliance for Audited Media emphasizes that, as AI becomes more deeply embedded in media operations, strong governance is essential. Without transparency, human oversight, and clear data-privacy protections, AI can introduce bias and opacity in the push for efficiency.

In 2026, effective AI adoption is less about speed and more about judgment: applying automation where it sharpens decisions and operational clarity, and restraint where trust and accountability are at stake.

Looking ahead: partnerships, execution, and what matters now

As publishers navigate 2026, decision-making has become more deliberate. An environment defined by uncertainty has sharpened the consequences of choices about audiences, investments, and partnerships. That execution depends not just on internal capabilities, but on the partners publishers choose to work with and the standards those relationships reinforce.

From a business perspective, performance, flexibility, and transparency have become baseline expectations. Tina Pautz, chief business officer at Raptive, says publishers have less tolerance for partners who underdeliver or fail to evolve alongside changing business models. Sustainable growth depends on alignment, clarity around tradeoffs, and a shared focus on long-term outcomes rather than short-term gains.

Supply-chain integrity is also receiving greater scrutiny this year. Bill Wheaton, CEO and co-founder of Symitri, believes that complexity and opacity (particularly the spread The of MFA inventory) are diluting value for both publishers and advertisers. Direct connectivity, clearer supply paths, and reduced waste are increasingly part of how publishers demonstrate accountability and rebuild confidence in the digital marketplace.

Taken together, these perspectives point to a broader shift. Publishing partnerships and priorities in 2026 are less about maximizing scale at any cost and more about reducing uncertainty, protecting trust, and enabling consistent performance over time.

The publishers in the strongest position this year aren’t trying to do everything. There’s less appetite for new-for-new’s-sake, and more focus on capabilities that actually move the business forward. That means understanding and authenticating audiences, adapting content strategy to the new rules of discovery, improving signal quality, and tying monetization more directly to engagement.

-2 content creators who partner with media brands for travel coverage-

Audiences | Featured Post | Industry-Research

From skepticism to strategy: media adapts to the creator economy

December 18, 2025 Damian Radcliffe, Carolyn S. Chambers Professor in Journalism – University of Oregon

The relationship status between traditional media players and members of the creator economy can best be described as complicated.

Publishers have often viewed influencers with skepticism, dismissing them as “YouTubers” or “TikTokers” in much the same way they once talked about bloggers. At the same time, there is growing recognition that this new wave of creators commands the attention of both audiences and brands. Goldman Sachs estimates it is already worth $250 billion annually, while IAB projects U.S. advertising spend alone will reach $37 billion in 2025. That’s up 26% year-on-year, and a growth rate four times faster than the overall media industry.

Given this, it’s no surprise that media companies are now waking up to the power of this sector and seeking to learn from, and partner with, it. As a result, we are (finally) seeing a shift in how traditional media views this sector, with an emphasis on partnerships, talent development and a mimicking of content styles.

Here’s what media companies need to know:

State of play: five models for collaboration

Publishers are increasingly taking the creator trend seriously, according to Nic Newman, Senior Research Associate at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. “They want to learn from creators but at the same time they need to maintain their editorial control and independence and that is not always an easy line to tread,” he told me.

The approaches vary significantly by vertical. “It is clearly much easier in lifestyle areas such as fashion and sport and much harder to collaborate around hard news and politics,” Newman notes.

George Montagu, Head of Insights at FT Strategies, shared with me a handy typology for understanding how these types of partnerships can work in practice, and examples of what this can look like:

▶ The In-House Creator Model sees news and media organizations nurture internal talent to become quasi-creators. John Burn-Murdoch at the Financial Times, specializing in data visualization, exemplifies this approach.

▶ The Creator Hire Model brings successful external creators into an organization. ESPN’s signing of Katie Feeney (a former Snapchat star) as their “Sports and Lifestyle Content Creator” demonstrates this strategy.

▶ The Creator Contributor Model engages creators on a per-content basis. Der Spiegel’s work with Tara-Louise Wittwer as a columnist illustrates this selective collaboration approach.

▶ The Creator Roster Model sees publishers building a portfolio of creators who, Montagu says “are given full creative freedom to pursue their own career, while feeding back to the “mother org” by virtue of audience.”

He cites Morning Brew’s hiring of Emma Chieppor (Excel Dictionary), as one such example, noting that Chieppor “is allowed to continue her work on her own channels,” at the same time as helping to enhance the Morning Brew brand.

▶ The Creator Licensing Model sees publishers license specific content from established creators. The Athletic’s licensing deal for Pablo Torre Finds Out, exemplifies this approach. The titular show, named one of TIME’s 100 Best Podcasts of All Time, is hosted by Torre, a Murrow Award winning journalist, and a former staff writer ESPN and Sports Illustrated.

What this looks like in practice

As Montagu notes, “it’s interesting to see all the different types and how they work in practice.” What these, and other examples, demonstrate is a growing convergence between traditional media and the creator economy, showing how they can align around key strategic goals and important points in the content calendar.

NBCUniversal’s strategy for the 2024 Olympics in Paris featured the work—and audiences—of content creators as a cornerstone of its coverage. The company embedded 27 creators into its Olympics output and generated over 300 million views across social platforms during the Games. NBCU has since announced it will adopt a similar approach for the 2026 Milan Cortina Winter Olympics.

As Gary Zenkel, President of NBC Olympics, explained at the time, the goal was to “bring a unique perspective to fans of the Olympic Games,” while also reaching younger audiences with “the personalities, content, and voices they consistently engage with in their daily lives.” Capitalizing on established creator brands and giving them access to NBC’s platform helped the company reach new audiences.

Capitalizing on existing creator brands, and giving them access to NBC’s platform, helped NBCU reach new audiences. Moreover, they didn’t try to turn their journalists and broadcasters act like TikTokers or other online creators, instead they partnered with TikTokers and creators and brought them into their digital fold.

In a further sign of the times, in July 2025, Dotdash Meredith rebranded to “People Inc.”, reflecting a strategic emphasis on a “distinctly human legacy.” The move places “people” front and center in its output, aligning with a broader desire for audiences to engage more authentically with brands and creators.

Meanwhile, at the grassroots level, the American Press Institute has documented how local newsrooms can bridge trust gaps with communities through creator partnerships.

Factchequeado, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, partnered with Latino content creators to counter disinformation among Latino and Hispanic communities in the United States. They worked with established creators who already have loyal audiences, enabling those creators to help spot—and push back against—false online narratives.

Alongside this, THE CITY, a non-profit local news outlet covering New York recently collaborated with Gerrie Lim, a comedian and host of “The Pigeon Post,” to create explainer videos for the 2025 New York mayoral primary. Lim posts videos on TikTok and Instagram that use a comedic delivery (think The Daily Show) to unpack local NYC news stories. Videos produced via this collaboration were up 147% on THE CITY’s average reach for this type of content.

What’s prompting the shift in publisher-creator relationships

These examples demonstrate some of the ways that media companies are partnering with creators as part of their broader strategies to reach new audiences, deepen engagement, and stay relevant in a fragmented media landscape.

And it’s not hard to see why they are making this shift. IAB-backed research cited by Axios found full-time equivalent digital creator jobs grew from 200,000 in 2020 to 1.5 million in 2024. In the process the sector has attracted audiences, investment from brands and platforms, as well as interest from traditional media companies.

Moreover, as noted in 2025’s Digital News Report (DNR), “personalities and influencers are, in some countries, playing a significant role in shaping public debates.” Their data found that in France, the news creator Hugo Travers (HugoDécrypte) reaches 22% of under-35s, predominantly across YouTube and TikTok. Closer to home more than one-fifth (22%) of the DNR’s U.S. sample had come across news or commentary from Joe Rogan in the week following Donald Trump’s inauguration.

The Institute explored some of these themes further in a recent report on news creators. They found that mainstream organizations often struggle to compete for attention on visual platforms, with news creators especially dominating on YouTube and TikTok.

As the Indian magazine Creative Brands put it, “the report is the most formal recognition to date by a leading journalism institution that news is being redefined by TikTok explainers, YouTube commentators, Instagram teachers and solo Substack journalists.” “The authority of the news is no longer assured by tradition of reputation.”

Moving forward: from experimentation to intentional strategy

Although there are clear synergies between media companies and creators, this relationship is still constrained by structural, cultural, and editorial obstacles. For those, on both sides, interested in working together more closely, these issues need to be overcome if this potential is to be realized.

Here are three of the most important:

1. Adopt the right model for your organization

Montagu’s typology offers a number of different models that media companies can pursue. Not every approach will work for every organization, and certain verticals – such as sports and lifestyle – will find this easier to embrace than hard news, where editorial norms around impartiality and control are deeply embedded.

As Nic Newman notes, “the issues of editorial control loom large, and impartiality and objectivity are deeply challenged in a creator world where point of view is part of the proposition. That will not sit easily with some publishers,” he observes.

Vox Media’s podcast network offers another model, providing infrastructure and ad sales for creators in exchange for a share of revenues. This model, whereby creators retain control while companies handle the business side, offers another way for media companies to manage their reputation while still dipping their toes into creator economy.

The opportunity for publishers lies not in abandoning standards, but in allowing trusted creators to help stories travel in platform-native ways, and to finding the right way to make this work for your company.

2. Build this into your structure

The American Press Institute stresses that partnerships must hinge on mutual trust, creative freedom, and respect for how audiences connect. Ideally this is built over time, not as a result of one-off collaborations.

Creator collaboration cannot sit on the margins of the newsroom. It must be built into workflows, incentives, and leadership structures, in line with FT Strategies’ argument that newsrooms require “bridge roles” between editorial, audience, product and external talent.

Similarly, more publishers are developing their own staff as creators. Think about the trend to put star journalists front and center in newsletters and podcasts (including in the title), as an example of how this trend has been bubbling away for some time. It’s now accelerating, a recognition that some audiences are drawn more to individual voices than the wider media brand that they work for.

3. Redefine what success looks like

Traditional metrics such as page views and time on site, tell only part of the story in creator-led environments. Engagement, loyalty, and community strength increasingly matter more. As a result, publishers shouldn’t always default to working with creators who have the highest follower count. Niche, deeply engaged, audiences may be more valuable than large passive ones.

Similarly, as Nic Newman notes, “collaboration with creators for distribution—tapping into networks to help promote stories or coverage,” is an underutilized approach. “Communications teams and politicians have done this successfully (Trump/Rogan/Nelk Boys), but journalists have done this much less,” he says.

Final thoughts on publisher creator collaboration

The creator economy is forcing traditional media to adapt and evolve. Publishers that successfully can combine their institutional strengths (e.g. editorial standards, legal safeguards, and production capacity) with dynamics inherent in the creator economy (such as authenticity, platform fluency, and audience engagement) are best set to prosper in the coming years.

Ignoring the lessons from the creator economy, and overlooking opportunities for partnership, means opting out of the spaces where younger and more diverse audiences increasingly encounter news and information. That’s something few media companies can afford to do.

Importantly, this dynamic is not just one way. Research from the Reuters Institute shows that while audiences are increasingly reliant on creators for news, they also recognize these channels can be sources of misinformation. Moreover, many creators depend heavily on original reporting from established outlets, repackaging it with added context or personal perspective. That means there’s still a place for traditional media, both in terms of original reporting, and in the vigorous standards that underpin it. Working together can extend the reach, relevance, and impact of credible journalism.

Greater collaboration can also help address some of the major challenges faced by many creators, including burnout, platform dependency, shifting audience tastes, and relentless competition. Publishers, meanwhile, can potentially benefit from reaching new audiences, revitalizing their brand, and unlocking new commercial models.

This closer alignment will not happen overnight, and both sectors will continue to march to their own beat. But they can potentially be stronger together. For publishers wanting to capture part of the $37 billion creator marketplace, that means treating creators as partners rather than threats, building structured collaborations rather than one-off experiments, and maintaining their standards while at the same time embracing more personality-led content.

A failure to do this effectively means opting to become increasingly irrelevant to a growing number of audiences. And no one wants that.

-colorful individuals connected by lines to show consolidated audience data-

Audiences | Supporter Spotlight

Your audience isn’t in silos. Your data is.

December 15, 2025 Erika Kalar, Senior Manager, Digital & Content Marketing – Omeda

If you’re running a modern media business, you’re probably managing more platforms than staffers who know how to use them. It’s not your fault. Unfortunately, the last decade rewarded speed over coherence. Need email? Add a platform. Need events? Another platform. Need subscriptions, podcasts, video, community, advertising workflow, revenue analytics? Platform, platform, platform.

The result: audience data scattered across seven… nine… 12 systems, depending on how honestly your teams tally it.

And that fragmentation is more than annoying. It’s costing you growth. In fact, if you haven’t started consolidating your tech stack, you’re already behind the media companies who have.

This article makes the case plainly. If you stick with me for the next few minutes, you’ll walk away with one uncomfortable realization and one big opportunity: Consolidation isn’t a cost-cutting exercise. It’s a competitive advantage hiding in plain sight.

The illusion of scale: When growth introduces chaos, not clarity

At the A Media Operator Summit, Anne Marie O’Keefe of Mansueto Ventures, publishers of Fast Company and Inc., captured something media executives rarely say on stage but often say behind closed doors: Your audience doesn’t experience your brand in silos, but your systems do.

She described the reality for most publishers: event attendees, newsletter readers, subscribers, podcast listeners, and site visitors are often the same people, but the data lives in isolated systems that don’t talk to each other. That forces teams to do what she jokingly called “human API work.” This includes tasks like exporting lists, cross-referencing spreadsheets, manually stitching together audience profiles, and hoping nothing breaks.

It’s the media-industry equivalent of rebuilding your car’s engine every time you want to drive it.

And if you’re honest, your organization might be doing the same thing.

The activation gap no one wants to talk about

Here’s where the numbers get uncomfortable: Publishers love to say they’re “data-driven,” but the wheels tend to fall off the moment execution begins.

In our Omeda State of Audience Report 2025, an overwhelming 85% of publishers said that audience data is a competitive advantage. Yet only 9% rate their approach as very effective. It’s not a data shortage. It’s an activation problem.

Most teams analyze data (64%). A fast-growing share even has a defined strategy (57%, up from 35% last year). But when it’s time to act?

Only 45% update strategy based on audience insights.
And just 36% use data to personalize experiences or develop new offerings.

That gap between what publishers know and what publishers do is precisely where consolidation becomes a competitive divider. That’s because:

You can’t activate data you can’t see.
You can’t personalize when your systems don’t talk.
And you definitely can’t innovate when your audience identity lives in a dozen places.

The cost no one calculates: Lost time, lost precision, lost revenue

Media leaders tend to underestimate what fragmentation steals from them because it’s not a single line item. It’s death by a thousand inefficiencies.

Here’s what’s typically hiding in the operational fog:

Time lost to manual data stitching: Most teams spend dozens of hours per week reconciling lists instead of building products.
Missed precision in marketing and monetization: When you “spray and pray” because you don’t trust your data, you burn your list, annoy your audience, and weaken revenue performance.
Redundant systems that quietly compound costs: Many publishers duplicate functionality across 5+ tools, often paying twice for capabilities they can’t fully use.
Slow product iteration: You can’t launch new programs quickly when everything requires yet another data transfer, integration, or workaround.

You won’t see these costs called out as a single line item on the P&L. But they do show up in slipping speed, sluggish innovation, and missed revenue — all at a moment when the most successful media brands are winning by moving fast.

Consolidation is not shrinking. It’s scaling

O’Keefe made an important distinction: “Consolidation does not mean getting smaller.” If anything, fragmentation is what keeps organizations small (creatively, operationally, and financially).

Consolidation means something very different:

One audience identity instead of 12 competing versions
One workflow instead of a labyrinth of partial solutions
One source of truth that unlocks lifetime value, not one-off transactions

Unified systems don’t limit growth. Rather, they enable it by reducing the friction between your ideas and your execution.

When media companies begin to centralize audience data, they don’t just improve internal coordination. They unlock entirely new revenue pathways: smarter product bundling, better targeting, and a clearer view of which companies were ready for deeper engagement.

For a brand with multiple lines of business such as events, editorial, subscriptions, commerce, communities that’s oxygen.

Why now? Because the stakes just changed

We’re in a moment where the companies that win are those who can activate their audience data the fastest. Not collect it. Not warehouse it. Activate it.

AI, personalization, above-average CPMs, and long-term subscriber value all depend on precision, and precision depends on consolidation. The executives who delay will be overtaken not by bigger competitors, but by more focused ones.

Meanwhile, the cost of inaction is growing: silos get deeper, tech debt compounds, expectations rise, and teams get burned out trying to glue everything together manually.

There’s a reason you keep hearing stories about publishers going from seven systems to one or two. They aren’t chasing minimalism. They’re chasing momentum.

There’s a way out, but you need to lead it

If consolidation were easy, everyone would have done it already. This is where the culture piece matters.

You don’t need to lecture your teams about silos, and you don’t need a reorg to realign incentives. What you need is what O’Keefe described: a shared principle that the audience sits at the center of the business. Once teams rally around serving the same human being (not their departmental KPIs), the path becomes clearer.

From there, consolidation becomes less a technical project and more an operational liberation: Move faster, decide faster, monetize smarter.

Omeda is one platform publishers use to consolidate audience data, and it’s a critical step toward a unified view of their audience. But what matters even more is committing to a consolidation strategy that gives your organization a single engine instead of a garage full of mismatched parts.

Tech consolidation and the bottom line

If your business is still running on disconnected systems, you’re not just maintaining the status quo, you’re losing ground. Consolidation isn’t a trend and it is not optional. It’s the foundation for any media company that expects to grow audience value over time.

And whether you choose to tackle it this quarter or this year, the companies that already made the shift have one thing in common: They stopped letting their tech stack dictate the pace of their ambition.

You can too.

Audiences | Diversity, Equity & Inclusion | Featured Post

The hidden business risks of pulling back on media DEI

December 4, 2025 Chris M. Sutcliffe – Independent Media Reporter

Even for publishers who feel fatigued by DEI debates (or see them as politically risky) the industry’s quiet retreat carries consequences far beyond internal culture. Diverse leadership and reporting teams are strongly linked to trust, credibility, and the ability to reach younger and underserved audiences. For publishers already fighting audience stagnation and revenue pressures, stepping back from DEI may seem easier in the moment, but it risks undermining long-term growth, relevance, and sustainability.

Five years ago, in the wake of the murder of George Floyd, many major businesses in the US announced their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. It was meant to be a period of reckoning with social inequality, one that would have a long-term impact on culture in general.

That was the case at many news outlets, whose coverage had been blinkered by a lack of minority representation. However, half a decade later, we have seen those initiatives stall–or even backslide.

Dr. Amy Ross Arguedas is a Postdoctoral Researcher Fellow at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, with a particular specialism in trust. She is co-author of the report ‘Race and leadership in the news media 2025: Evidence from five markets’. She describes the situation saying, that “where we saw some improvements during the past five or six years… we just see that things are pretty much back to where they were at the very beginning of all of this.”

Retreat on diversity

The Reuters Institute study found that “in the US, the percentage of top editors of colour also decreased – to 15%, compared with 29% last year”. While causality is difficult to establish, similar trends were also observed in the UK: there are “fewer top editors of colour.” Precisely zero major outlets in the Institute’s sample had a minority editor.

Those trends have been exacerbated by a number of job losses across the industry that disproportionately impact minority journalists. For example, Vibe magazine, a rap and R&B-focused magazine originally co-founded by Quincy Jones, was acquired by Penske Media in October. In the immediate aftermath, many of its journalists were laid off, leading to a fundraiser organized by Vibe reporter Mya Abraham to help the eliminated staffers.

Abraham says: “I’m not sure there’s one or several ways to “ensure” that minorities aren’t disproportionately impacted by layoffs. Several of us have already worked twice as hard to gain half – or less than – a non-minority.

“It’s unfortunate that we’re often the first to be discarded when media companies restructure or fold completely. It would be great if job security was based on actual merit as opposed to someone just blindly making a decision without knowing your true value.”

Similarly, the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) called out the dismantling of minority-focused teams at NBC after a number of job cuts in October. At the time, Errin Haines, NABJ president, said: “the decision to eliminate these diversity teams goes beyond a line item on a budget, executed at a time when accurate and inclusive storytelling is needed most.”

Similarly, the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) has noted the preponderance of job losses among its members. Errin Haines, president of The National Association of Black Journalists, said: “When our industry catches a cold, journalists of color catch the flu, because newsroom cuts always disproportionately impact us. Diversity is too often the casualty of media consolidation, downsizing, or layoffs; we are frequently the last hired and first fired. This is not a new phenomenon, but what is new in this climate is political rhetoric that minimizes the value of diverse perspectives and representation across a range of institutions — including journalism.”

Revenue short-termism

Regardless of the motivations for the job cuts, the question is whether they will deliver any tangible benefit in the long run. As the saying goes, you can’t cut your way to growth.

That calculation becomes even more precarious when the potential audience upside of diverse coverage is considered. Many media organizations are now relying on reaching new audiences and media companies across the board must prepare for generational turnover. Some, including the LA Times, have launched sub-editions dedicated to reaching minority audiences, which are predicated on being able to speak to that community knowledgeably and authentically. Doing so requires representation in terms of journalists.

Jendella Benson is head of editorial for Black Ballad. She explains that “Audiences are not ‘locked in’ to heritage/mainstream media brands as they once were with so many options out there. They will go wherever they feel their values and concerns are reflected. Even in digital media, we are already seeing some of this happening with audience fragmentation. People are moving away from established media brands for various reasons, and moving towards more ‘niche’ or highly specific outlets that either share their interests or political perspectives.”

It’s a position backed up by the Reuters Institute’s research. Where there isn’t representation, there is a lack of an ability to spot the opportunities to speak to new communities. Dr. Arguedas explains: “As we note in the fact sheet there can be an argument made in terms of your ability to speak to certain kinds of audiences, to understand their needs.

As the report states, “Failing to address these disparities… can also potentially erode trust, particularly among marginalized and under-served groups that have for a very long time expressed their discontent and grievances around how their communities are portrayed in the news media.”

That is especially important given that a lack of trust in the news media is frequently cited as one of the main reasons for a lack of financial support for news, particularly among young audiences. Cutting back on diversity, then, leads to a less diverse audience profile in turn, stunting opportunities for audience growth.

Ethical and commercial synergy

A number of the biggest US-based publications declined to share their future DEI plans for this article. In the UK, where the political situation is perhaps less fraught, national publisher Reach plc cited a number of its ongoing initiatives, including its work with The Prince’s Trust to encourage young people from underrepresented backgrounds to get into journalism:

“Through that program we now have 8 young people in our newsrooms on training contracts who might have otherwise found it more difficult to break into the profession. This year we have renewed the program with a focus on regional newsrooms.”

Notably, much of the messaging around the DEI initiatives that do still exist, such as those at Reach plc, is predicated on the idea that it is the right thing to do. Increasing equity is the end in itself for some news organizations, rather than a path to profitability.

However, the two aims are not mutually exclusive. Benson says: “Media platforms who are offloading ‘the diversity’ within their newsrooms and editorial departments are essentially accelerating their decline in my opinion. They might be able to keep treading water for now, but when more of Generation Alpha start to age into media consumption, they will find an audience that will not have the inclination to engage with a brand that doesn’t match their expectations when it comes to basic representation.

“And as we know, advertisers go wherever the audience is.”

It would not be fair to single out the media industry for that backslide. Companies including Amazon, Disney, Google and Meta have abandoned DEI policies, which the Guardian attributes to pressure placed upon them by the Trump administration. It cites research from law firm Freeths, which found that 22% of respondents said profit motivations came into conflict with ethical and moral concerns at their organization “very regularly”. 32% said regularly, and 37% said sometimes.

The difference is that, for an industry that is predominantly based on audience trust, journalism cannot afford to become any less diverse. Abandoning DEI might be more palatable to the powerful right now, but in the long-term it risks making media outlets less appealing to the young and minority audiences that their future depends upon.

-teen girl staring unhappily at phone to show distrust in news-

Audiences | Industry-Research | Research

Teens and the news: navigating distrust and defining what’s next

December 2, 2025 Rande Price, Research VP – DCN

Teens have grown up in an always-on information environment. They scroll through feeds that mix news, entertainment, opinion, advertising, and misinformation. They live inside a swirl of voices that compete for their attention and reward reaction over clarity. As a result, today’s teens approach news with deep skepticism and strong emotion, according to a new report from the News Literacy Project.

The report underscores how valuable this audience is for news organizations and how important it is for news organizations to understand their expectations. The latest U.S. Census data shows 69.31 million Gen Z individuals living in the U.S., totaling more than 20% of the population. Their spending power is projected to reach $2.7 trillion in the next few years and as much as $12 trillion by 2030, according to NielsenIQ. However, this large and influential audience brings new challenges, interests, and expectations for the news media.

Negative impressions

The News Literacy Project report shows that teens hold overwhelmingly negative impressions of the news media. When researchers ask teens for a single word that describes news media today, 84% choose a negative one. The most common responses include “Fake,” “Crazy,” “Boring,” “Biased,” and “Sad.” A word cloud in the report fills with these terms, bold and unavoidable. Teens also describe the news environment as chaotic, overwhelming, inflammatory, and stressful. They form these views long before they develop steady news habits. They live in an information ecosystem that presents news as noise instead of a tool for understanding. They experience news as something that interrupts rather than one that informs.

Mixed views on journalists

Teens are also skeptical about journalists themselves. When teens think about what journalists do well, 37% offer a negative response. Many say journalists lie, deceive, exaggerate, or push an agenda. These reactions show how deeply teens mistrust the content they encounter. At the same time, teens also point to traits they admire about media pros. They highlight informing the public, uncovering the truth, and creating strong storytelling. The report suggests the mix of frustration and hope implies something deeper. They understand journalism as an ideal separate from the sloppy, crowded feeds they scroll through every day.

Teens want honesty, accuracy, and fairness

Teens care most about accuracy and honesty. When researchers ask how journalists could improve, teens focus first on getting the facts right. Their strongest cluster of feedback centers on truthfulness. They want reporting that includes multiple perspectives, explains the full story, and offers fairness and clarity. They want journalism that informs rather than inflames. Teens do not reject the idea of news; they challenge the versions they see most often.

Teens also express clear expectations for journalism. About 41% say honesty and factual accuracy matter most, and another 20% ask for less bias and stronger balance. When teens point to positive actions journalists take, they most often cite informing the public and uncovering the truth. Their expectations align closely with the strongest principles of standards-based journalism. They want reporters who demonstrate credibility, show their work, and respect their audience.

Confusion about journalism

The News Literacy Project also identifies widening confusion among teens about how journalism works. Many teens believe unethical actions take place far more often than standards-based practices. They believe journalists take photos or videos out of context, make up quotes, or give advertisers special treatment.

These beliefs have arisen from the information landscape teens navigate every day. They see content that looks like news but ignores journalistic standards. They see creators who chase attention through tactics that break the rules of credible reporting. Because teens encounter these blended forms of information nonstop, they often treat all content as equal and struggle to distinguish between reporting, entertainment, persuasion, and fabrication.

Teens signal what they need from news

The research reveals serious challenges, yet it also shows momentum. Teens hold the potential to become a significant new audience for news companies. They want reporting that treats them as thoughtful people who seek meaning, not noise.

They express frustration because they rarely see consistent standards in the content that reaches them. Their critiques point to gaps in clarity, confusion about information types, and constant exposure to low-quality or misleading content. Yet even as they voice these concerns, they show a clear appreciation for accuracy, balance, and reporting that earns their trust. Their expectations align with the core principles of credible journalism. This audience offers news organizations not just feedback, but a roadmap for building meaningful, lasting connections with a rising generation of news consumers.

Audiences | Diversity, Equity & Inclusion | Industry-Research

Diversity is an effective business strategy, not a slogan

December 1, 2025 Naomi Owusu, CEO and Co-founder – Tickaroo

As political winds shift and some organizations quietly scale back their DEI commitments, new research suggests this retreat comes at exactly the wrong time. In Tickaroo’s Next-Gen Journalism Report, almost 90% of the 172 journalism students and early-career reporters surveyed said diversity and representation are essential to journalism’s future. Nearly three quarters called for systemic changes in hiring, decision-making, and access to opportunity.

For digital media leaders, these findings offer more than just a temperature check. They provide a strategic warning as well as a roadmap. Embedding diversity into newsroom culture and content is not an HR initiative; it’s a growth strategy. Publishers who embrace this reality will win audience trust, engagement, and establish long-term resilience. Those who don’t face a credibility gap that the next generation of journalists – and audiences – will not overlook.

The risks of DEI pullback

Political and commercial pressures are reframing DEI efforts as expendable. As budgets tighten, organizations scale back hiring programs, pause training schemes, and treat diversity as a “nice to have”. But in digital publishing, this pullback runs counter to key audience trends.

Younger audiences increasingly expect to see themselves represented in the news they consume and quickly disengage when they don’t. Representation has therefore become central to maintaining relevance, building loyalty, and sustaining long-term audience relationships.

In other words, deprioritizing diversity actively widens the gap between publishers and the people they hope to reach.

What the next generation sees

Our survey reveals a profession struggling to reconcile its democratic mission with its internal structures. While young journalists overwhelmingly believe in journalism’s public interest based purpose, their lived experience of entering the industry tells a different story: 74% want improved hiring practices and more inclusive editorial processes, and 72% cite lack of paid opportunities as a barrier to entry. Many describe newsrooms as “exclusive” or “closed to those without privilege.”

In their own words, respondents criticized “surface-level DEI efforts” that fail to impact coverage priorities or shift who gets to tell which stories. This isn’t abstract critique; it is a generation identifying structural weaknesses that directly affect publishers’ ability to innovate, build trust, and grow.

Diversity: Moral framing, or business imperative?

Digital media executives are already familiar with the pressures reshaping the industry: fragmented audiences, advertiser skepticism, rising misinformation, and platform volatility. Diversity is not separate from these challenges: it is one of the most effective levers for addressing them. Newsrooms that reflect a range of lived experiences consistently produce stronger, more accurate journalism because they are less likely to miss important angles or reinforce blind spots that audiences, particularly younger ones, spot instantly.

Diverse teams are more likely to challenge assumptions and create new storytelling approaches that resonate with wider audiences. Just as importantly, representation strengthens trust. When audiences recognize themselves and their communities in coverage, they are far more likely to engage, subscribe, and stay loyal. Without that connection, trust erodes, and with it the revenue models that rely on sustained audience relationships.

Lessons from those getting it right

Luckily, there is a new wave of publishers and organizations demonstrating how embedding representation into workflow, commissioning, and leadership supports audience growth and editorial excellence.

Community-first publishers such as The Mill (UK) and A Mensagem (Portugal) are thriving precisely because they reflect the identities, concerns, and rhythms of their communities. Their growth shows that audiences reward authenticity and representation with attention, trust, and subscriptions.

With a clear global DEI strategy, a dedicated head of editorial standards, and programmes like the New Voices media training initiative, Bloomberg’s structural approach to diversity means it invests not only in who gets hired but also in who gets heard. It is a reminder that inclusion is an editorial responsibility, not a box-ticking exercise.

Bodies such as JournoResources & We Are Black Journos are also building pathways for underrepresented journalists by offering training and support. Their work strengthens the pipeline and ensures that talented reporters lacking traditional access routes can enter (and stay) in the profession.

The commonality across these examples is simple: successful diversity is woven into an organization’s operating system, not pinned to its noticeboard.

What effective integration looks like

Achieving meaningful diversity requires structural integration, not one-off initiatives. It begins with widening access: transparent recruitment, paid early-career roles located beyond a single metropolitan hub, all help ensure that entry into journalism isn’t limited to those with financial privilege and proximity.

Editorial processes must also evolve. Commissioning that intentionally considers underrepresented voices, supported by broader source databases and community engagement, improves accuracy and relevance in ways that top-down planning alone cannot.

Cultural change is equally critical. Newsrooms need environments where a wide range of journalists can thrive, backed by mentorship, fair pay, and sustainable workloads. Diversity cannot be confined to junior levels; it must be present in the rooms where editorial decisions and organisational priorities are set.

Finally, integration must extend to skills and innovation. Our research shows that young journalists feel least prepared in AI, data, and digital competencies: the very skills shaping journalism’s future. Organizations that invest in training and inclusive product development not only broaden their talent pipeline but also accelerate their ability to innovate responsibly and remain competitive.

The commercial case: Diversity drives sustainability

Ultimately, digital publishers cannot afford to treat diversity as optional. The business case is clear:

Represented audiences engage more.
Representative storytelling strengthens loyalty and subscription revenue.
Diverse teams improve organizational adaptability: crucial in volatile markets.
Authenticity is becoming a competitive differentiator.

The next generation of journalists, the very people who will shape this industry for decades to come, understand diversity’s relevance instinctively. They are not calling for tokenism; they are calling for transformation.

Diversity is a strategic response to the most urgent challenges facing digital media: trust, innovation, and sustainability. The publishers who succeed in the next decade will be those who understand that representation is a growth driver and who build their organizations accordingly.

-Gen Z audience enjoying digital and analog media-

Audiences | Featured Post

Reaching Gen Z means mastering authenticity and algorithms

November 13, 2025 Jessica Patterson – Independent Media Reporter

Publishers are rethinking how they show up on social platforms in 2025, places where Gen Z and Gen Y increasingly discover content through algorithms. Recent DCN research reveals that these generational audiences’ media diets are dominated by algorithmically surfaced video. Individual creators now outperform traditional media brands on trust, creativity, and entertainment value. This trend challenges publishers to adapt their approaches while maintaining editorial integrity.

The visibility challenge is fundamental: algorithmic feeds surface content based on engagement rather than quality or brand recognition. Publishers are no longer guaranteed an audience simply because someone follows them. Every post competes equally with creators, memes, and friends’ updates, making traditional media brands just another scroll in the feed.

Media leaders from The Guardian, The Verge, Eater, share how they’re maintaining relationships with younger audiences through platform-native content, personality and experimentation.

The creator connection

Andrew Hare, senior vice president of quantitative research at Magid, and co-author of DCN’s report, “Decoding video content engagement: Gen Z and Gen Y in focus,” points out that creators have fundamentally reset audience expectations. “Creators rewrote the playbook: they win on originality, honesty, and personality,” he says.

Hare notes that the definition of quality has shifted. “At one point it was all about the image, professional appearance; it was basically something you would see on television. Now we realize that when we move into these digital spaces, other factors impact trust. Do you believe the creator or brand? Is it an authentic message? Is it real and unfiltered to some degree?”

The nature of engagement with Gen Z and Gen Y is both reactive and participatory. “I think the remixing, commenting and sharing nature of these platforms has been something that brands have been a bit slower to embrace because it means the conversation might be evolving, and they cede some control,” Hare says. “But, as we are seeing, it is this living conversation that creators have innovated upon and the very thing that provides value on social and YouTube.”

Gen Z trust friends and family most at 88%, followed by individual creators at 79%, with brands at only 61%. Hare says younger generations are suspicious of brands when they see them in their digital spaces. “Brands need to build trust in much the same way creators have in order to prove they can be authentic and real and provide relevant value. Otherwise, they are just noise and in the way of more engaging content.”

Kate Scott-Dawkins, global president of business intelligence at WPP Media, notes this aligns with broader shifts. “We have also seen this shift in terms of ad revenue globally, a majority going to creator platforms and UGC platforms rather than legacy media.”

Tuning tone: platform fluency and authenticity

Publishers emphasized they’re not lowering editorial standards to compete on social platforms, Rather, they’re translating their journalism into formats that work in algorithmically-driven spaces. The challenge they outlined was capturing attention in those critical first seconds while staying true to their standards.

In a world where audiences connect with individuals over brands, developing recognizable voices within their own ranks isn’t just a creative choice, it’s a strategic necessity for publishers. Journalists who embody the brand’s values can humanize it, build trust, and compete with the authenticity that individual creators command.

Success, then, depends on how effectively newsrooms and social teams collaborate, from story development to publication.

At The Guardian, Max Benwell, deputy head of audience for The Guardian US, says encountering content off-platform doesn’t preclude building direct relationships. “Because people are encountering our content off platform and maybe without context about the Guardian, it doesn’t mean they can’t build a direct relationship with us over time,” he says. “But the key is all about looking at the data we have and making sure our off-platform content is as engaging as possible. Then, because of how the algorithms work, we can trust that they’ll start seeing more and more of us.”

Benwell identifies short-form video opportunities during newsroom meetings and reaches out to reporters. “We’re also trying to create a mutual relationship where they, when they’re working on a story, can come to us and flag it way ahead of time.”

Flagging stories early means social teams can plan authentic, substantive videos rather than scrambling to repackage finished articles, creating content that competes with creators on engagement while maintaining journalistic standards.

Guardian social content is held to identical standards as the website, from brief to script to final edit. If you’re hearing from a Guardian journalist on Instagram or TikTok, it should feel like meeting them in person: knowledgeable, personable, expert, occasionally funny.

At Eater, the focus is on making internal talent more comfortable on camera, with editing and creating social-first content, according to Kaitlin Bray, senior director of audience development for Eater, Punch, Thrillist at Vox Media. “The medium of telling the story has shifted, but the desire to get their stories in front of as many readers still stands,” she says. “Even though the method has changed, I think there’s a lot of natural interest from staffers in sharpening skills or learning new skills.”

She says that Eater leverages advantages creators lack: built authority, unique access, and deep expertise. The effort has been adapting their voice to be more casual while delivering rigorous reporting.

Format adaptation and audience engagement strategies

Publishers tailor their approach based on each social platform’s audience and culture.

“We often find that our followers there are looking for an immediate and direct entry point into stories,” Benwell says. “On social, we’ve experimented with a lot of different formats. But what really resonates are those specific moments, where you kind of land in with a very specific person.”

He points to a recent success with original illustrations by one of his social producers for Naomi Beinart’s ‘new chill girl’ op-ed. “We did original illustrations for that, which is quite different from what we usually do. It was one of our biggest posts of this year.”

At The Verge, experimentation on social platforms is constant, according to Denise Cervantes, senior social media manager at The Verge. She describes how a recent conversation in a creative meeting about viral Sora videos led to a new video the same day. “We saw that and we’re like, okay, that is like a really good place for The Verge to show up,” Cervantes explains, adding, “The format of the video is just taking the viral AI video and having our host hop in and be like, ‘Hey, this is AI and this is how you can tell.’”

Eater encourages staff-driven experimentation with formats or ideas they’re passionate about. For example, a Gen Z social producer pitched an idea: she’d never tried steak tartare before and wanted to try four in one day, biking around Manhattan and Brooklyn, Bray explains. “That’s not a video concept that I would’ve come up with. It was rooted her in her experience and she ended up making this super fun video.”

Kate Scott-Dawkins notes that highly polished content still has its place, pointing out that massive audiences tune into premium shows like Wednesday. However, she notes that it feels out of place in spaces that started as social platforms. “It feels less genuine in these spaces that started out as social forms, off the cuff pieces of content,” she says.

Perhaps the most critical shift is treating every piece of content as potentially reaching someone who’s never heard of your brand. “Our philosophy really is to treat every Verge video thinking about an audience that doesn’t know who The Verge is,” Cervantes explains. “We can’t always go into it thinking this video is going to get served to all of our followers because of how the algorithm and discovery feeds work.”

Creating quality content for younger audiences and algorithms

While it’s a shift in strategy and fundamental mindset, the publishers we spoke to offered clear guidance for others working to reach younger audiences on social platforms. It requires leaning into personalities and staying on top of trends and algorithmic changes.

Benwell emphasized the importance of being data-informed rather than data-led.

“We have a saying here at The Guardian that we don’t follow the data blindly. We’re data informed, we’re not data led,” he says. “We make a real effort to be aware of the data and know what your key metric is. For us, it’s shares because that’s the metric where our work is being placed in front of more and more people.”

Authenticity remains critical, Cervantes stresses. “Audiences may not always want to connect with a brand, but there will always be that people-to people connection.”

Bray urged publishers not to be afraid of format experimentation while maintaining journalistic rigor. “We still have editors who used to write 1,000-word articles,” she says. “They’re still applying their journalistic skills, they are just figuring out different ways to communicate the information.”

The new landscape is clear: adapt to algorithmic distribution and creator-style content without abandoning your editorial standards. Newsrooms have found that experimentation and staff personality can coexist with rigorous reporting. Meeting younger audiences where they’re at doesn’t mean compromising good journalism.

For publishers, this means the path forward isn’t choosing between authenticity and polish, or between editorial integrity and platform fluency. It’s finding ways to deliver it all, in formats with voices that feel native to the spaces where Gen Z and Y spend their time.

-concept art showing audience in a hand for owning your audience traffic-

AI | Audiences

Owning the audience: how publishers win the AI era

November 5, 2025 Don Rua, Marketing Director – Admiral: The Visitor Relationship Management Company

For years, publishers grew by chasing pageviews and search referrals. But that playbook is breaking down. When AI-powered summaries appear in Google results, users are nearly 50% less likely to click through. In fact, just 8% of searchers click a link when an AI summary is present, compared to 15% when it isn’t. Publishers still get visibility, but not the visit.

At the same time, referral traffic from classic search sources masks a deeper risk of user journeys being diverted before they reach publishers’ sites.The funnel hasn’t disappeared—but control over it has.

Meanwhile, social traffic continues to fall, and direct channels only scale when publishers already have a known, consented audience. So the question is no longer How do we get more traffic? but How do we earn more revenue from the traffic we still get?

The new growth model: visitor value > traffic volume

The old model was built on scale; the new one is built on yield. Success is shifting from total sessions to revenue per visitor, lifetime value, and the percentage of traffic that becomes known and repeatable.

In an AI-mediated world, publishers can’t control how many people arrive, but they can control what happens after the click. The advantage is no longer acquisition, but conversion, retention, and relationship depth. A valuable visitor is a user who can be identified, engaged, and monetized over time.

Stage	Value Signal	Monetization Potential
Arrives anonymously	Pageview only	Lowest RPM, no identity
Gives consent	Ad targeting + compliance compliance lift	+20–40% higher ad yield
Registers	Known user with email identifier	Eligibility for newsletters, personalization
Subscribes or donates	Direct recurring revenue	Highest ARPU, most durable
Returns repeatedly	Engagement + retention loops	Protects LTV against traffic volatility

Instead of hitting every visitor with the same pop-up, value-driven publishers run sequenced journeys: Consent → Registration → Newsletter → Paywall → Membership.

That’s only possible if data, identity, and prompts are connected. When tools don’t talk to each other, journeys break and AI can’t fix them.

Put simply: Traffic is rented. Visitor value is owned. And AI is widening the gap between the two.

What actually moves revenue per visitor

If “visitor value” is the new north star, the next question is practical: what actually increases it? Across publishers that have already made the shift, four levers consistently move revenue per visitor, and none of them depend on AI alone. They depend on control, consent, clean data, and coordinated experiences.

1. Clean, unified first-party data instead of fragmented signals

AI-powered paywalls, churn models, and personalization don’t work if the same user appears as four different IDs across four different systems. Many publishers still juggle separate tools for consent, registration, newsletters, analytics, and paywalls, each storing data in its own silo. When identity isn’t unified, AI can’t optimize anything.

2. Orchestrated user journeys, not pop-up chaos

A typical publisher page might trigger a consent banner, a newsletter modal, a paywall, and a membership CTA, all from different vendors, all competing for attention. That leads to conflicts, duplicated prompts, and lower conversion at every step.

A visitor-value model replaces this with controlled progression:

Show consent
Then registration
Then newsletter or subscription offer
Remove prompts for subscribers and focus on retention

When the journey is coordinated, each step lifts the next instead of interrupting it.

3. Faster, lighter, more intentional page performance

Every tag, widget, and script adds latency, and latency is now a direct revenue drain. Google data shows a 1-second delay in mobile load time can reduce conversions by up to 20%. Tag bloat is a revenue tax that suppresses ad yield, paywall conversion, and AI-driven personalization. Performance is no longer a “tech issue.” It’s a monetization issue.

4. Direct channels that compound over time

As AI takes over discovery, publishers need channels they own—email, apps, alerts, memberships. An anonymous pageview is worth pennies, but a known, repeat, newsletter subscriber can be worth 30–50× more over a year, even if total traffic falls. That’s why renewal rates stay strong while subscriber growth slows: revenue now follows relationship depth, not volume.

What publishers should do now

The publishers who succeed in the AI era will be the ones who restructure how they measure, monetize, and architect the visitor relationship. That starts with five concrete moves:

1. Audit the visitor journey for fragmentation

Map every prompt, tag, overlay, and data capture point across the site. If three vendors are asking for email, or consent is handled differently by page type, or scripts are loading in random order, you have a journey problem, not a traffic problem. Fixing it raises RPV more than chasing incremental sessions.

2. Reduce tag bloat and duplicate vendors

The average enterprise site now runs dozens of scripts. Every one slows load, competes for attention, and sends conflicting data. Consolidating vendors and tags removes friction from every monetization path (ads, subs, registrations, commerce).

3. Shift KPIs from sessions to yield

If teams are still judged by pageviews, they will optimize for volume. If they’re judged by revenue per visitor, they will optimize for value. A modern publisher scorecard should include:

RPV (Revenue Per Visitor)
% of consented users
Identity match rate
Conversion from first visit → registration → subscriber
Newsletter opt-in rate
Retention / churn risk signals

4. Build direct channels that compound

The most defensible revenue in the next five years will come from:

Newsletters
Apps
Membership + loyalty programs
SMS + push notifications
Logged-in experiences

These channels only grow if the journey to consent and registration is intentional, not accidental.

The shift that can’t be ignored

AI isn’t killing traffic, but it is killing the assumption that traffic will just keep coming. The gap between getting visits and owning relationships is widening fast.

The winners won’t be the publishers with the most pageviews, but the ones who earn the most value per visitor—fewer anonymous users, fewer scattered tools, more known users and unified journeys powered by first-party data.

AI doesn’t fix that foundation, it exposes whether it exists. Traffic is rented. Visitor value is owned. Only the owners win.

Audiences | Featured Post | Innovation

The next media revolution isn’t editorial. It’s product.

October 23, 2025 Richard E. Brown, Media Revenue Consultant

I’m enamored with the growing conversation around media product development this year. It’s an exciting moment that reflects a real shift in how we think about value. We create products and experiences that people connect with, trust, and choose to invest in, that makes the work feel more purposeful and alive! Our industry has moved past channel distribution and now focuses on the human and social reasons people connect with journalism.

Understanding the why: evaluation

I’ve spent a lot of time studying how readers engage with news content, not just as consumers but as participants in a broader cultural ecosystem. In earlier decades, a newspaper or broadcast station was more than a source of information. It was part of daily life that blended local and national updates, insights, and experiences that helped people feel connected. People didn’t just pay for access to facts. They invested in a shared identity that reflected their values, routines, and sense of belonging. That relationship between value and identity continues to shape the future of media and its products. What excites me most is how the media’s current focus on product development gives us the freedom to create new models that honor both the integrity of journalism as a public good and the creativity to build products that people invest in.

To get this right, media leaders need to step back to view content through the lens of “product.” Product thinking brings clarity, focus, and a more objective sense of value. We’re in a hyper-digital consumer era, where every choice, every interaction, and every piece of content lives within an ecosystem of constant evaluation. Certain social and economic forces still support journalism as a public good grounded in truth and trust; However, there’s a growing expectation of transactional value. Audiences assess everything from experience to convenience to relevance. That makes the creation of media as a product both a significant challenge – and opportunity.

Testing assumptions: validation

Media teams now apply a product mindset to evaluate goals with intention and clarity. The process asks clear, purposeful questions:

Is there a real problem or opportunity, and can it be defined?
What is the hypothesis, and how does it align with the organization’s main mission or north star?
What does the current environment reveal, and where might there be room for adaptation or improvement?
How can the idea be tested quickly to bring sharper insight and direction?
What would success look like, and why?
What milestones matter most along the way?

From there, the focus turns to research and practicality.

Does a market already exist for something similar?
What resources would the concept require, and what is the expected return on investment?

This dynamic reveals something timeless about market fit and audience need. At its height, news media succeeded because it offered both utility and identity, a practical product built on trust and relevance. As the industry rebuilds, we’re returning to those roots with a modern sensibility. We rediscover how journalism can serve as a true resource in people’s lives. It reflects renewal, not nostalgia.

This is the time to test as many assumptions as possible, measure real behavior, and make informed adjustments that strengthen product-market fit. Propensity modeling plays a big part here because it helps identify early signals of interest and likelihood of engagement. By studying data patterns and connecting intent to action, organizations understand not only what audiences say they want but what they actually do.

What matters most is that validation gives you proof, not just possibility. It’s how we separate assumptions from evidence and shape news and media experiences that reflect the true behavior and expectations of the people we serve. When done well, it transforms journalism into a living resource that meets audiences where they are while guiding them toward what they need next.

Building for people: amplification

Every interaction, whether through newsletters, video engagement or social participation, offers clues about how people move through the experience. Those insights allow teams to refine quickly and stay adaptive to the needs of the moment. Authenticity remains the constant thread, especially as visual and social storytelling become even more influential. Video, personality, and voice all shape how audiences connect and return.

This process helps organizations build experiences that feel personal, intuitive, and essential. Every insight becomes a chance to fine-tune the relationship between audience behavior, editorial vision, and product design. It reinforces that product work is more than features or clicks. It’s about designing systems that anticipate needs, remove friction, and deepen value with every interaction.

This is why propensity modeling matters. It offers one of the most practical ways to understand how people connect with content and how their actions reveal what truly matters to them. Propensity modeling uses patterns in data to identify the likelihood that someone will take an action, such as subscribing, donating, or returning to engage again. It helps teams recognize not just what people do, but why they do it.

A product-centric approach guides media innovation

When combined with thoughtful product development, propensity modeling can transform how media organizations serve their audiences. It shows how often people engage, what keeps them returning, and what causes them to drift. With that understanding, teams create user journeys that feel natural and affirming, inviting people deeper into the ecosystem.

This approach builds an ongoing feedback loop. Each iteration becomes a chance to learn more, improve relevance and strengthen the experience in meaningful ways. It’s not about volume; it’s about resonance. By pairing data with empathy, organizations design products that feel human, responsive and alive. That’s the kind of innovation that keeps journalism connected to the people it exists to serve.

-concept art showing a human hand touching digital world to portray audience preference of human created news over AI created news-

AI | Audiences | Industry-Research

AI and news: Humans have the edge (for now)

October 20, 2025 Suzanne S. LaPierre – Independent Media Reporter

A recent survey of roughly 12,000 adults across Argentina, Denmark, France, Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom reveals that people continue to place greater trust in news produced primarily or entirely by humans than in content generated by AI. According to data published by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, trust increases in proportion to the level of human oversight.

While the public generally feels comfortable with how they believe GenAI is currently used in journalism, concerns persist around its application to certain news-related tasks. Optimism about GenAI’s future varies by sector, with news and politics standing out as areas of skepticism.

The study also shows a growing adoption of GenAI tools, with trust in these technologies rising alongside user familiarity. As this trend continues, the advantage currently held by human news professionals may diminish, especially if news leaders fail to actively reinforce public confidence in the value of human-driven journalism.

GenAI in news and journalism

The percentage of those surveyed who are more comfortable with news produced entirely or mostly by human journalists has risen slightly compared to data from the previous year, while trust in news generated primarily or entirely by GenAI has fallen slightly. This indicates a growing preference for human leadership in news, presenting an opening for news executives to bolster public confidence. Across all six countries studied, a strong preference for human oversight in news prevails.

62% are comfortable with news made entirely by humans.
43% are comfortable with news produced mostly by humans with help from AI.
21% are comfortable with news produced mostly by AI with some human oversight.
Only 12% are comfortable with content generated entirely by AI.

Comfort levels vary according to how AI is being used. Most participants are fine with GenAI use in checking grammar, spelling, and providing translation. They are less approving of use for research, writing, and data analysis. The public is decidedly disapproving of GenAI tools being used to rewrite content for different audiences, generate a realistic image when a photograph isn’t available, or create an artificial presenter or author.

Fortunately, people’s comfort level with journalists using GenAI for certain tasks is aligned with how often they think journalists are already doing so. It appears that most of those studied believe journalists are using AI in ways that they find acceptable, and few believe it is commonly used in the ways they would find most unacceptable.

While there are differences among the countries surveyed,news is trusted significantly more than the most widely used and trusted GenAI system, ChatGPT, in almost every country studied.

In Denmark, 72% report trusting news while only 32% report trusting Chat GPT.
In Japan, 60% trust news; only 31% trust ChatGPT.
In the UK, 45% trust news; 20% trust ChatGPT.
The USA and France have lower margins, with 36% of respondents from both countries reporting trust in news while 27% trust ChatGPT.
Only Argentina reversed the trend – with 37% trusting ChatGPT- more than the 31% who reported trusting news.

It’s worth noting that ChatGPT was found to be the most trusted GenAI tool among survey participants. This means that the differences in trust levels would be even more stark if comparing news with lesser known GenAI tools.

Caution: Trust in GenAI grows with familiarity

Increase in regular use of GenAI tools is leaping rapidly. The proportion of survey participants who reported having used a standalone GenAI system such as ChatGPT rose from 40% in 2024 to 61% in 2025. Those reporting weekly usage nearly doubled in a year, jumping from 18% to 34%. So, if trust rises with use and familiarity, traditional news media could soon lose their edge in public trust when compared to GenAI tools.

Not surprisingly, younger generations were found more likely to both use and trust GenAI tools. 59% of people in the 18–24 age range reported having used any GenAI tool in the last week, compared to 20% of those aged 55 and up. However, that age gap is driven mostly by ChatGPT. Other GenAI tools, including Google’s Gemini, Microsoft’s Copilot, Meta AI, and Grok, had narrower use differences across age groups. This is probably because the later tools are embedded within widely used products.

Optimism about GenAI varies by use case

The public generally leans optimistic about the future of GenAI. Across all six countries studied, on average 29% are optimistic and 22% pessimistic about the impact of such technologies. However, the share of optimism versus pessimism varies by several factors. Pessimism outweighs optimism when it comes to GenAI use in news media, government, and politics. Optimism outweighs pessimism when it comes to GenAI use in health care, science, retail, and search engine efficiency.

Only 18% think GenAI will improve their experience with political parties or politicians.
27% believe GenAI will enhance their interactions with news media.
37% believe GenAI will improve their interactions with health care professionals and scientists.
43% believe that GenAI will enhance their experience with search engines.

The lower levels of confidence in GenAI’s impact on politics and news suggests a perceived link between those areas. It also aligns with the stated preference for human-produced news.

The future of Gen AI and news

While this data provides some reassurance for news media leaders that the public values human news professionals, it also points to some areas of concern. As use of GenAI rises, so do comfort levels and trust in the utility of the tools, potentially eroding the advantage currently held by human journalists and producers.

To stay ahead and remain better trusted by audiences, news organizations should prioritize original reporting. They must differentiate their offerings from GenAI content and actively communicate these unique values to their audiences.

-concept art showing search with AI imagery to suggest SEO changes -

AI | Audiences | Featured Post

Publishers rethink SEO in the age of AI overviews

October 16, 2025 Esther Kezia Thorpe – Media Reporter

Whether it’s the rise of LLM search queries, AI overviews or the black-box operations of features like Discover, search and SEO is undergoing a fundamental shift.

Publishers have built SEO strategies, audience acquisition teams and substantial revenue streams to capture consumers with search intent. Now, they are faced with referral traffic dropping anything from 5% to more than 25%. Despite Google’s proclamations that AI in search is driving more queries and higher-quality clicks, the reality is that premium publishers are feeling the pain.

With so much uncertainty in how consumers are interacting with AI when it comes to search, it’s hard to formulate strategies to adapt. SEO and audience experts at the Daily Mail and Bauer Media Group spoke to DCN to outline how they’re approaching search changes, and why publishers need to refocus on the fundamentals.

Search is not dead

A number of issues get conflated when talking about AI and search. The biggest culprit of immediate traffic drop-offs is Google AI Overviews, which have been rolling out over the past 18 months. These appear at the top of a search, summarizing key information from a range of sources.

But overall, search is not dying. Consumers aren’t moving away from Google and using other services to find information. Thus far, even the rise in ChatGPT seems to be additive to traditional search. But as publishers know, consumer behavior is far from static. And given the growth in use of these tools, this is bound to change and publishers need to make moves now to keep pace.

-Sparktoro research that shows that AI tools are additive to traffic for SEO-

Bauer Media Group owns more than 600 magazines, 400 digital titles and 50 radio and TV stations across the UK and Europe. Global Audience Director Stuart Forrest sees the most immediate threat not from using LLMs as search engines, but from how Google is reshaping the search experience. “Are there challenges to search traffic from Google? Absolutely,” he said. “But is there a meaningful challenge to Google’s dominance? I don’t see the evidence for that.”

Publishers have long operated on a clear value exchange: search engines index their content, and in return, they receive referral traffic that funds journalism. Carly Steven, Director of SEO & Editorial E-commerce at news publisher the Daily Mail believes that the premise of AI overviews fundamentally disrupts that balance. “They still use our content—but we don’t get the clicks,” she said.

This lack of visibility and control leaves publishers unable to shape strategies or measure impact. “We don’t know where our content is being used or how it’s contributing to AI responses,” Forrester noted. “And that prevents a fair value exchange.”

Barry Adams is an SEO and Audience Growth Consultant working specially with news publishers. He has decades of experience and insight from working with global media companies. Adams pointed out that while AI has accelerated these declines, the shift started earlier—with news avoidance, user fatigue, and diversified consumption habits. “AI just pushed it further.”

The stakes go beyond revenue. Steven underscored the existential risk: “If we can’t sustain the journalism that trains these models, the whole system collapses. AI is only as good as the content it consumes.”

The impact of AI on SEO (so far)

Despite near-universal agreement on these challenges, the impact on publishers is varied – for now, at least. Steven pointed out that it’s tough for the Daily Mail to measure the true impact because Google hasn’t yet separated out that data. “We aren’t able to distinguish between clicks that have come from AI overviews, and clicks that have come from normal search; it’s all bundled in together,” she explained.

However, they can see the impact on click-through rates when an AI overview is present. Steven told Press Gazette that when an AI overview appears in Google, the Daily Mail’s average clickthrough rate was 56.1% lower on desktop, and 48.2% lower on mobile.

Steven was keen to point out that the big double-digit drops that publishers are reporting in click-throughs is not the same as traffic. “For a news site like The Daily Mail, the keywords that we care about change every minute and hour; the news changes so quickly. So even if we can see that when there’s an AI overview present, the click rate drops, that doesn’t mean the traffic aligns with that,” she said.

The Daily Mail also has over 60% of search traffic as “branded” search, where people are searching specifically with the term ‘Daily Mail’. Half of their total traffic is also direct to their website. “That’s very high, and makes us much more resilient [to these changes]” Steven shared.

At the moment, AI overviews rarely appear against breaking news stories. Adams noted that publishers focused on breaking news do appear to be more resilient to AI-driven declines. This is also echoed by DCN member surveys which show non-news brands taking bigger traffic hits than news brands.

But those who also have background stories, explainers or coverage of topics like fashion trends and car reviews are feeling the pain. “There’s a genuine grievance there that Google is ‘stealing’ their traffic because that sort of journalism is still adding value,” Adams said.

These concerns also apply to evergreen content – articles and explainers which can be updated or don’t go out of date. Steven said that the Daily Mail hasn’t ever relied on evergreen content for traffic, and that she sees this as being more vulnerable to AI summarization. This puts publishers in a tough position as many have invested in evergreen content precisely to establish authority within Google search.

-Similarweb chart showing AI referrals by category for impact on SEO-

Bauer is also seeing traffic changes, which Forrest says are having a nuanced impact on their brands. The company publishes global entertainment and lifestyle titles like Grazia and Empire, but also has a large portfolio of specialist titles covering hobbies and interests from golf and angling to motorcycling.

They also publish a number of TV listing titles, from TV choice and Total TV guide in the UK (which sell 4 million print copies a week between them) to TV Movie in Germany. Forrest says the industry has a tendency to underestimate consumer inertia. “The reality is that an awful lot of people still go online and look at EPGs (Electronic Programme Guides) from both us and competitors every day to decide what to watch on TV,” he pointed out.

“That mass market consumer inertia, once you get outside quite a limited cohort of early adopters of change, I don’t see as having a meaningful impact [for these types of query].”

Bauer’s automotive titles have been impacted more with some queries, especially around car specification data. But Forrest emphasized that their work isn’t focusing on providing answers to consumer queries. Rather, they aim to build on unique insights from experts in those areas, adding value to that data.

Forrest sums up the current landscape as an attention challenge, and effective monetization of that attention. “We still see plenty of examples of growth in our business, and plenty of examples of recovery in our business,” he highlighted. “When you look at what’s driving that, it’s coming back to high quality journalism from people who know what they’re talking about. It’s really not any more complex than that.”

Strategies to adapt

With tangible changes happening and solutions to the value exchange some way off, both publishers emphasized the need to diversify reliance on Google search for revenue. Forrest said this was doable, but not if traffic drops off a cliff overnight.

“We want to protect Google traffic as much as possible, continue to evolve our approach, and then continue to diversify into other channels,” he explained.

Bauer’s teams are also focusing on turning those search-acquired audiences into more valuable consumers by encouraging newsletter sign-ups and investing in social and brand awareness. They are seeing some success with audience and revenue growth on Apple News, and have even commissioned some premium content specifically for that channel. Forrest pointed out that none of this was revelatory, but needs to be a priority.

“You clearly can’t rely on Google as being your primary traffic source,” the Daily Mail’s Steven echoed, pointing out that algorithm changes over the years have already proved its unreliability as a channel. “If it’s one way for your audience to reach you, that’s fine, but you wouldn’t want to have all your eggs in that basket now.”

Adams was even more explicit in emphasizing that a mindset shift needs to happen. “If you’re an SEO-mature organization… you’re not going to grow more traffic,” he said. “We’ve reached peak traffic. If you maintain traffic, you’re winning.

Curiously, given publishers’ long and stormy history with social platforms, both publishers have a renewed focus on their platform presence. Google’s indexing of Instagram posts has helped. In his experience, Forrest says that if someone is searching for a topic, recognizing a brand in search (whether that be their site or an indexed social post) can be helpful. “Brand recognition and ranking position are major drives of click-through rate,” he noted.

This is a key difference in the approach to social now. It’s no longer seen as a huge driver of traffic back to websites. But what Forrest describes as “good, old-fashioned investment in brand awareness and reputation” can pay off in other areas.

Steven explained that the threat of traffic drops has provoked evaluation of social strategies, and well-established playbooks are suddenly trendy again. “It has forced us to think really hard about who we are as brands, and where our audiences are, and being where they are, whether that’s on TikTok, or Reddit, or Instagram,” she said.

However the Daily Mail’s priority is to grow its fledgling subscription business. Their Mail+ partial paywall launched in the UK in January 2024, and into the US and Canada earlier this year. Steven described the subscription targets as “punchy,” saying that they are targeting “1 brand, 1 million;” aiming to reach 1 million digital subscribers by October 2028. As of July, they had 325,000 digital subscribers globally, including 50,000 in the US.

Adams recommends going back to basics; talking to customers and finding out why they come to you and what they want from you. Then, focus on tying them into your own ecosystem. “If you have a paywall, make sure it’s as smooth and efficient as possible,” he advised. “Make sure you have a dedicated app that’s very easy to install and great to use. Have newsletters that people can subscribe to and show them what they want to read.”

“If you are a content-focused publisher, news or otherwise, you need to find a way to prove added value that the AI bots can’t replicate. I think a lot of publishers are worried about that, because they can’t.”

Outlook and advice for AI-era SEO

Expectations for the future were mixed between the three experts. The need for a rethink and recalibration of expectations for publishers was a common thread. “We’ve always thought of the platforms as being audience drivers and traffic drivers,” the Daily Mail’s Steven said. “If there’s an acceptance that it’s more about visibility and brand awareness than about driving traffic, then we can calibrate our expectations around that.”

Adams believes that publishers should step away from generic, easily replicable content. “We have to have something worth paying for,” he outlined. “And that means you need to have an identity as a news publisher. You need to have a good grasp of what your readers want from you and make sure you deliver in that space.”

Licensing was highlighted as an option for some publishers, as many have done deals with AI companies. But there are only so many of those deals to go around, and not everyone is in a position to do those. This is unlikely to be a long-term viable strategy, especially for smaller organizations and start-ups.

There was also acknowledgement that the short-term is going to be rocky. “This is a weeding out,” Adams explained bluntly. “We will lose publishers, there will be casualties, and I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad thing.

“Online publishing has been too much of a free-for-all and a race to the bottom by chasing after clicks and throwing ads on everything… There will be a new normal…with stronger news brands who have a clearer idea of what they offer, with loyal audiences bound to them.”

Steven, however, was more concerned about what will happen to the diversity of information in the ecosystem in this scenario. “I worry that if that value exchange question isn’t addressed and resolved, we will end up in a much worse place with less diversity of voices, but because [AI overviews] are so easy and convenient, it’s just accepted,” she said.

Despite a 20+ year career in SEO, Steven said that she’s never witnessed a period as disruptive as this. The shake-up is unquestionably under way. Whether the publishing ecosystem is better or worse off afterwards remains to be seen.