Journalism needs to come to grips with the fact the era of free traffic is over

Whether you call it as I do - the Platform Era - or what Brian Morrissey calls it the Traffic Era, the era of building a media business on a high volume of referrals from search and social is over. The sooner we come to grips with it and adjust our priorities and business models, the sooner we return to growth and stability - as many publishers already have.

If we need more proof of the precarity of relying on rented traffic, look at the latest Reuters Institute trends and predictions report. Traffic from Facebook to news publishers has plummeted by 67% in the last two years, according to data from Chartbeat

Search has been much more reliable, but algorithm changes routinely cause audience teams to scramble and adjust to the business imperatives of other companies rather than their own.

Smart minds in the industry predict this year will be even more challenging. “Although this is hardly revelatory, my prediction for 2025 is that the big topic on everybody’s mind is going to be traffic,” Lisa MacLeod, Director of FT Strategies, wrote in the consultancy’s 2025 predictions. Thomas Baekdal added to the voices warning about reliance on “other sources” for traffic. “The first thing to talk about is traffic, because in 2025, we have reached the point where the old strategies and tactics around traffic are no more.”

End the reliance on rented audiences

Since the rise of social media, audience development editors have agilely adjusted their tactics to changes in the platforms’ algorithms. They have become expert in using data and experiments to intuit these changes to re-establish traffic. They have been early adopters of new platforms, and they have quickly got up to speed with new formats and understood the community dynamics. The logic was that we went to platforms because that is where “the audience” is. But as my friend Damon Kiesow asks journalists: Is Twitter actually your community? For most news organisations, the answer is no, unless they are focused on politics or sports. Facebook has been deprioritising news for years now. Google can still drive traffic to journalism sites, but it’s quite a dance. We have spent endless amounts of time and energy chasing the trends on platforms.

You can see this in discussions about whether Bluesky would be a good place to shift to after the changes at Facebook and whether to follow other publications in leaving X. Should we shift to TikTok or RedNote or WhatsApp? I agree with Thomas Baekdal that this is the wrong way to look at things.

The conversation shouldn’t be about what platform publishers should focus on for the next source of free traffic. Not only is that era over, but the last decade has shown us the dangers of an over-reliance on rented audiences. Many publishers have already shifted to a focus on converting rented audiences on platforms to known, owned audiences.

Diversify products, revenue and marketing channels

The traffic era was predicated on the idea that digital advertising was a low-margin business, so we needed to attract as many people to our sites as possible to monetise them effectively. This isn’t working, and it hasn’t been working for years. Diversifying revenue and accepting that smaller, paying audiences are a more stable basis for a journalism or media business than trying to rely on platforms for traffic.

The playbook on how to transition is becoming relatively well established, although even with a clearer path, execution is still critical.

  1. Develop and execute an A2K strategy - The strategic shift is acknowledging that known audiences are much more valuable than unknown, lightly engaged ones, and the UK’s independent has the data to prove it. Registered users are 11x more engaged and subscribers are 62x more engaged than unknown users. Even if the Indy was only monetising audiences using advertising, that is a huge delta. Even if the registered users don’t subscribe, they still have more data about them, lifting their ad yields, and they can market other products such as events or e-commerce offerings. However, registration is an important step in their conversion journey, and half of new subscribers are registered users.

  2. Diversify products and revenue - Expanding the pool of known users offers new revenue opportunities. I have seen publishers like the Baltimore Banner use their email lists for partner marketing. Publishers market events, wine clubs, puzzle apps and recipe offerings. In India, HT Media has even launched an OTT video service aggregator. The more you know about your audience, the more relevant and effective these advertising messages can be and the more revenue they can generate.

    It’s time to stop putting so much energy into staring into the black boxes of platforms and put more energy, effort and money into our marketing our own work.

  3. Invest in marketing your own work - It’s time to stop putting so much energy into staring into the black boxes of platforms and put more energy, effort and money into marketing our work. We need to diversify our marketing channels and work to connect with audiences. Some of this will be on platforms, such as marketing our podcasts, newsletters and subscription offerings via social channels. But there are so many other marketing channels.

This doesn’t mean that this is easy. B2C media leaders all talk about the challenging media market. But by seizing our own destiny, at least we can have a sense of agency.

Of course, Mark Zuckerberg has made a raft of changes across Meta’s properties at the start of 2025. He ended fact-checking and took a poke at “legacy media”. Flagging posts with fact-check details isn’t censorship. It’s context. Alexios Mantzarlis is the director of the Security, Trust, and Safety Initiative at Cornell Tech and was the founding director of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). He provided this fact-check of Zuck, and it’s an important read.

As Exhibit A of the challenges facing media, Vox Media continued with its layoffs and made changes to its leadership in an effort to right the ship.

Well, credit the Washington Post for ambition, but a goal of 200m paying readers seems a little unrealistic. And I’m not sure by trying to appeal to a wider range of the political spectrum and to blue-collar readers that they’ll achieve their “big hairy audacious goal'“. Of course, paying readers doesn’t necessarily mean full-fat subscribers, and it depends on the range of products they develop.

Reuters has been trying to develop its subscription product, and Gannett has been loosening its connection to the Associated Press. They started 2025 by announcing a bundled subscription.

If you want a good example of the type of diversification strategy I’m talking about, you only have to look to Zetland in Denmark. Their deep content model works and deeply engages their audience. Moreover, their mix of text and audio content connects with young audiences. Half of their members are in their 20s and 30s.

I practiced data journalism for a long time, and in the current industry research and content marketing that I do, I still try to include data visualisations. Here are some tools to start using this year.

Creators and influencers are one of the major themes this year.

The murder of a health insurance CEO gave journalists an opportunity to listen. Most failed.

The commentary and coverage of the murder of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson troubled me. This newsletter isn’t about generic news stories or media commentary, but I decided to take some time to mull over why it had irked me. Ultimately, I realised that it was because it felt like journalists weren’t listening. Most of the coverage felt like journalists were circling the establishment wagons, and a lot of commentators seemed genuinely surprised that Americans were boiling over with rage about the health-industrial complex. Really?

Even outlets I normally admire have tilted toward sensationalist coverage obsessing over suspected killer Luigi Mangione’s rising status as a social media-age folk hero and the all-too-common violent rhetoric on social media. The Financial Times declared Mangione represented a “new era of villainy”. The New York Times had pieces about the social danger when a killer’s looks overshadow a violent crime and revulsion towards the anger at the US healthcare industry on social media. As my wife would say, the coverage is full of “pearl clutching” about people swooning over the “hot assassin”. What society had come to by glorifying a killer?

I know the business and how commissioning works, and I’m sure these stories were popular. However, the establishment media was reflexively defensive about a crime against a successful business leader. Reporters showed surprise that Americans are upset with a healthcare system that is more expensive than any other developed country and has poorer outcomes than other developed countries, largely due to shockingly bad outcomes along racial and socio-economic divides.

Some of the New York Times coverage was particularly surprising because their past coverage of US healthcare has generally been good and clear. The paper has examined why drug prices are nearly twice what they are in other rich countries, and in 2019, they compared the much higher prices for common procedures in the US versus other advanced economies. In the US, an angioplasty costs $32,000, but in other countries, it’s just $6400.

Patients and insurance companies in the United States pay higher prices for medications, imaging tests, basic health visits and common operations. Those high prices make health care in the U.S. extremely expensive, and they also finance a robust and politically powerful health care industry, which means lowering prices will always be hard.

They also did an incredibly hard-hitting piece in 2021 showing the wildly variable costs for procedures based on your insurer.

The Times has done excellent coverage of the issues with the US healthcare system over the years, but it’s almost as if the desks covering the murder didn’t talk to their healthcare reporters.

Morality versus outcomes in media coverage

The media have cast this killing as a morality play with the protagonist being a fallen son of privilege, and they have expressed surprise at this desperate act. The media often engage in moral framing as opposed to consequentialist framing. Hot takes are all about seizing the moral high ground often at the cost of the bigger picture. In the context of Brian Thompson’s murder, the framing has focused on the morality of the killing and social media lionisation of Mangione while superficially engaging with fundamental shortcomings in US healthcare.

In the US, the primacy of market dynamics and the presumption that a business's role is to maximise shareholder returns don’t allow the framing of healthcare as a public good. Public goods are prone to market failure, which means they suffer issues with pricing and distribution. This means that discussions about the morality of access to healthcare are almost absent. It’s baffling to most people who live in other developed countries, I can tell you.

Instead of talking about the poor outcomes of the current healthcare system or the morality of bankrupting people who were unconscious and couldn’t give consent for out-of-network care, Americans get served up superficial coverage of the morality of killing a CEO.

The shock of the new(s) reinforces a sense of helplessness in Americans

On one level, news focuses on what is new, and frustration with US healthcare and insurers isn’t new. Journalism, even generally high-quality outlets, like the FT and the New York Times, can fall into the trap of struggling to cover long-simmering issues, whether those are issues like US healthcare and gun control where powerful interests stymie any change, or complex ones that play out over long-time scales such as climate change (well, there are fairly powerful interests that prevent change with that too).

Brian Thompson’s murder was a shocking new development in a larger story, so it received outsized coverage. But in the rush to fill column inches, the broader context was stripped away and journalists failed to examine or explain the systemic problems in the healthcare system which had led to his killing.

On the face of it, healthcare is like so many issues in the hyper-partisan United States: The two main political parties have fought each other to an impotent stalemate arguing over culture war issues instead of finding solutions to long-simmering problems. Americans had given up hoping that positive change could happen until they got a ripped vigilante to rally behind. The rage felt by people across the political spectrum erupted in a rare moment of national unity. Journalism could have recognised that, listened to it and pushed politicians to engage with the issue.

In one of the more interesting pieces by the New York Times, they interviewed the people who polled Americans about their attitudes towards healthcare.

“That adulation (of Mangione) reflects public anger over health care, said Nsikan Akpan, managing editor for Think Global Health, a publication that explores health issues at the Council on Foreign Relations. ‘The UHC killing and the social media response stem from people feeling helpless over health coverage and income inequality,’ he said. “The topic is so often ignored by American public officials, he said, that voters have stopped listing it as a top priority.”

Michael Perry, a pollster who has run hundreds of healthcare focus groups, said he used to find a gap between how the wealthy talked about their healthcare and everyone else. “I don’t hear that anymore,” he told the Times. “The wealth gap has closed, and there is no amount of money that can buy you good insurance.”

How Constructive Journalism can address these issues

Journalists bemoan news avoidance and a lack of trust in what they do. When political leaders don’t listen to people, journalists must. That didn’t happen with this story. Americans are furious about healthcare, and some of the clueless coverage isn’t helping. Seeming out of touch on this story plays into the hands of the autocratic populists who are attacking journalism.

Fortunately, there is a model of journalism that can help cover the complex stories our societies are grappling with and reinvigorate trust in and engagement with journalism. Constructive journalism goes beyond simply covering solutions, (although that is important), and outlines a process in which positive social and societal outcomes are the goal.

Constructive journalism is a response to increasing sensationalism and negativity bias of the news media today. Its main mission is to reinstall trust in the idea that shared facts, shared knowledge and shared discussions are the pillars on which our communities balance – and it centers the democratic function of journalism as a feedback mechanism that helps society self-correct.

Constructive Journalism grounds its approach in a mission to contribute to democracy, not simply by being watchdogs. It uses a three-pronged approach to provide a new approach to journalism and counteract the results of overly negative, sensationalist cover that has fed the pernicious partisanship and anti-democratic populism.

  1. Focus on solutions

  2. Cover nuances

  3. Promote Democratic Conversation

Constructive journalism focuses on highlighting solutions to societal problems and adds active engagement with audiences. It advocates for creating opportunities for democratic conversations to bring people with differing ideas together to solve these problems.

An example of this is Zeit Online’s My Country Talks project that “matched more than 200,000 political opposites for 1:1 discussions in a bid to bridge social and political divides”. This is an example of how to increase bridging capital that grows trust not only in journalism but also among people. Bridging capital is US political scientist Robert Putnam’s phrase for the social bonds between dissimilar people whether based on age, race, class or education. Putnam is famous for his 1995 essay and subsequent book about the collapse of civic participation in the US, Bowling Alone, which is now seen as prophetic about the pandemic of loneliness in the country.

It’s going to take active engagement to make our societies and democracies better. I used to think that simply providing people with information would empower people to make decisions that would improve our societies, make them more equitable and deliver better outcomes for the many, not just for the few. I have realised over my career as a journalist and a consultant focused on communications and community that it will take more than simply providing good information. It will require active engagement and positive efforts like Constructive Journalism to turn the tide in our societies and restore our sense of community and trust. Between Putnam’s ideas, which are the foundation of the Aspen Institute’s Weave project, and Constructive Journalism, I have hope for 2025 and beyond.

Headlines: A look back at AI and journalism in 2024

And now a few links after that epic newsletter, which has been brewing for a few weeks.

If you talked to me in the early 2000s, I probably fell into the category of techno-utopian. I was so hopeful that technology would create a better society and expand opportunities. I now think we need to return to first purposes: What kind of societies do we want? And does a technology support our societal goals or not? If it doesn’t, then we shouldn’t adopt it.

A new EY survey finds that workers and company leaders are experiencing “AI fatigue”. If we don’t want to feed into the feelings of helplessness that I’ve talked about already, we need to have discussions about how AI works for us not against us.

One of the issues we need to grapple with in terms of technology adoption: Does it lead to greater or less equitable solutions? What I mean by that is that so much of the technology revolution is rooted in neoliberal economic assumptions that have led to rising economic inequality that erodes the foundations of democratic, free societies. Many of the AI deals prejudice large-scale news organisations and add more hurt journalism that serves local communities. Rasmus is right to say that AI isn’t going to be lucrative for many news organisations. adds

A very smart framing from my friend and former colleague at the BBC - Alf Hermida. Again, we are faced with choices. Will AI be a “substituting force or a complementary force”. As I wrote in my last newsletter, it’s really down to the business model.

A good roundup of all of the research from the Reuter’s Institute and how it can help prepare our thinking to tackle the issues in 2025.