Tag: journalism

  • The Changing Shape and New Economics of News Podcasting by Reuters

    The Changing Shape and New Economics of News Podcasting by Reuters

    About the paper

    The Reuters Institute report examines how news podcasting is shifting from audio-only formats towards video, personality-led “shows”, and hybrid business models.

    It is a mixed-methods report based on qualitative audience research with 50 regular news/current affairs podcast users in the US, UK, and Norway, mini-groups with a subset of those users, semi-structured interviews with 13 publishers plus industry experts and platforms, and selected Digital News Report/IAB quantitative data.

    Length: 39 pages

    More information / download:
    https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/changing-shape-and-new-economics-news-podcasting-listening-watching-podcasts-shows

    Core Insights

    1. What is the central change reshaping news podcasting?

    The report argues that news podcasting is no longer simply an audio medium distributed through open RSS feeds. It is becoming a more fluid, multi-format category that blends audio, video, social clips, newsletters, live events, subscription products, and sometimes television-style shows.

    The key shift is from “podcasts” as discrete audio products to “shows” as broader audience franchises. Video is the most visible driver of this change. Platforms such as YouTube, Spotify, and Apple are increasingly prioritising or enabling video podcasting, encouraging publishers to rethink production, distribution, discovery, and monetisation.

    The report does not claim that audio is disappearing. Instead, it argues that podcasting is becoming dual-format. Audiences often use audio and video in different contexts: audio while commuting, exercising, cooking, or multitasking; video at home, on YouTube, or on connected televisions. This means publishers are not simply replacing audio with video, but trying to work out which formats, shows, and audiences justify investment in video.

    A second major change is the rise of personality-led conversational formats. These are cheaper to produce than heavily edited narrative documentaries, easier to turn into video, and better suited to social clips and host-driven audience relationships. This is pushing parts of the market away from highly produced narrative series and towards recurring, reactive, talent-led shows.

    2. How are audiences using news podcasts, and what do they value about them?

    The report finds that news podcast users are generally a highly engaged subset of the news audience. They are not usually using podcasts as their only source of news. Rather, podcasts supplement other formats by offering depth, explanation, perspective, and a more conversational relationship with journalists or hosts.

    Podcast use is described as complementary to other news habits. Social media may provide fast discovery, websites and apps provide checking and updates, radio may support routine listening, while podcasts are used for deeper understanding. This makes podcasts particularly valuable for “active knowledge-building” rather than simple headline consumption.

    The appeal of video varies by country, context, and content type. US respondents were more open to video podcasting, partly because YouTube plays a larger role in their podcast discovery and consumption. Norwegian respondents were more resistant, with stronger attachment to audio and local public-service audio platforms. UK users sat somewhere between these positions.

    Audiences gave three main reasons for choosing video:

    • personal format preference
    • consumption context
    • and content type.

    Some younger users feel more connected to hosts when they can see facial expressions, body language, and surroundings. Others only want video when the subject benefits from visuals, such as breaking news footage, complex explanations, comedy, lifestyle, or entertainment. For factual news, many still prefer audio because it is flexible, intimate, and easy to use while doing other things.

    3. How are publishers responding to the shift towards video?

    Publishers are taking video seriously, but most are cautious about a full “pivot to video”. The report identifies three main strategic reasons for investing in video: acquisition, retention, and revenue.

    For acquisition, video helps publishers reach audiences through YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, YouTube Shorts, Spotify, and connected TVs. Video clips are easier to share and can act as discovery tools for younger audiences who may not actively seek out publisher websites or podcast apps.

    For retention, podcasts deepen audience relationships. The report repeatedly emphasises the human dimension of podcasting: hosts build trust, habit, familiarity, and parasocial connection. For subscription publishers, these relationships can reduce churn and strengthen the broader value of the subscription bundle.

    For revenue, video opens access to larger advertising budgets than audio alone. However, the report is careful to note that the economics remain uncertain. Video production costs more, requires new workflows, and may not pay off in smaller markets where advertising opportunities are limited.

    Publisher strategies differ sharply. The New York Times is selective: shows such as Hard Fork, Popcast, and The Ezra Klein Show have video versions, while The Daily remains audio-first. The Guardian is also hybrid, using video for some conversational and sports formats while protecting narrative audio investigations. Die Zeit treats video mainly as a discovery layer. The Economist is exploring video inside a subscription ecosystem. Nordic publishers such as Bonnier, Schibsted/Podme, and Politiken are more cautious because they already have strong audio habits, subscription models, and smaller advertising markets.

    The report’s table on publisher strategies is especially useful because it shows that video is not one strategy but several: full video versions, short promotional clips, subscriber-only video, TV/documentary extensions, studio models, and selective experiments.

    4. What is changing in the economics of news podcasting?

    The economics are becoming more complex and hybrid. Traditional podcasting has mostly been free and advertising-supported, but publishers are now experimenting with subscriptions, bundles, premium layers, bonus episodes, live events, memberships, merchandise, IP licensing, and brand partnerships.

    The report shows that direct payment remains difficult. Audience research in the US, UK, and Norway found that many listeners value news podcasts but are reluctant to pay because there are so many free alternatives. Some would switch to another show if their favourite podcast went behind a paywall. Others might pay only for genuinely distinctive content, such as exclusive interviews, deep expertise, investigative journalism, archives, or bonus material.

    Several publishers are nevertheless testing paid audio. The Economist put most of its podcasts behind a paywall while keeping The Intelligence free. Die Zeit launched a separate podcast subscription. Politiken launched a stand-alone audio app. The New York Times offers an audio subscription mainly around archives and bonus material, while still using free recent episodes to support the broader bundle. Schibsted/Podme uses a premium podcast subscription model in the Nordics, with some free content and some exclusive paid layers.

    Advertising remains central, but video changes the opportunity. The report notes that US podcast advertising revenue reached $2.4 billion in 2024, while digital video advertising was vastly larger. That creates an incentive for podcast publishers to access video budgets. But the advertising market is still organised around separate audio and video buying teams, and measurement, ad-serving, pricing, and platform standards remain unresolved.

    The report’s broader conclusion is that podcasts are rarely just stand-alone revenue products for traditional publishers. They are often part of a wider funnel: attracting new users, increasing engagement, reducing churn, and adding value to subscriptions.

    5. What are the wider implications for journalism and media organisations?

    The report suggests that the future of news podcasting will be shaped by a tension between journalism-led publishing and creator-led show business.

    For traditional newsrooms, the challenge is organisational as much as technological. Audio, video, social, text, product, and commercial teams can no longer operate as separate silos if one recorded conversation can become a podcast episode, a video episode, social clips, a newsletter, a transcript, a written article, and a subscriber feature. This requires new skills, new production workflows, and potentially new “studio” or “show” structures inside media companies.

    The rise of talent also raises editorial questions. Podcast-first companies such as Goalhanger and Chora Media put hosts, fandoms, communities, and show brands at the centre. Their model looks less like traditional news publishing and more like a blend of creator economy, television, live events, and music-industry-style fandom. Traditional publishers may want some of that audience loyalty, but adopting the model raises questions about editorial control, host power, commercial boundaries, and whether newsrooms are set up to develop and retain talent in the same way.

    The report’s final implication is that “podcasting” itself is becoming harder to define. Some purists still tie the term to RSS distribution or audio. But in practice, audiences increasingly encounter podcasts on YouTube, Spotify, Apple, social feeds, connected TVs, apps, and paywalled publisher products. The boundaries between podcast, video show, radio programme, social franchise, and subscription product are blurring.

    The report concludes that the future is unlikely to be audio versus video. It is more likely to be a hybrid ecosystem where successful publishers combine reach and depth, free and paid layers, journalism and personality, open distribution and owned platforms. The strategic question is how much news organisations are willing to invest in creator-led, show-based formats without losing the editorial qualities that made their audio journalism valuable in the first place.

  • State of Journalism 2026 by Muck Rack

    State of Journalism 2026 by Muck Rack

    About the paper

    The report examines the state of journalism in 2026 through original research based on a self-administered online survey of journalists.

    Muck Rack says it surveyed 1,044 journalists between 30 January and 2 March 2026, with 897 responses retained after data cleaning; the sample is predominantly U.S.-based, with additional representation from the United Kingdom, Canada and India, so the geographic scope is international but heavily weighted toward the United States.

    Length: 48 pages

    More information / download:
    https://muckrack.com/resources/research/state-of-journalism

    Core Insights

    1. What does the report say are the biggest pressures shaping journalism in 2026?

    The report portrays journalism as a profession under pressure from several directions at once rather than one dominant crisis. The top concerns are disinformation and misinformation and lack of funding, both cited by 32% of journalists. Just behind them are public trust in journalism and unregulated or unchecked use of AI, each at 26%, followed by government interference in the press at 25% and politicisation and polarisation at 23%. The report’s own framing is that the threat environment is broadening, with AI moving sharply up the agenda rather than replacing older concerns.

    That wider strain also shows up in how journalists describe their working lives. While 65% still say their work feels meaningful, 47% say it feels exhausting and 38% say it feels precarious. More than half say misinformation has made reporting harder over the past year, and nearly one-third say safety concerns have affected how they do their job. Altogether, the report suggests a profession that still finds purpose in the work but is operating in a more fragile, contested and demanding environment.

    2. How are journalists’ day-to-day working conditions and career outlook changing?

    The report presents a mixed picture: journalists retain some short-term confidence, but the broader career outlook is less secure. On workload, 62% say their responsibilities have expanded in the past year, exactly matching last year’s level according to the report. At the same time, most still feel they can usually meet their standards: 18% say they always have enough time and 39% say often. Even so, 15% say they rarely or never do, which points to a notable minority under significant time pressure.

    Support levels are also mixed. A slim majority, 56%, feel supported in terms of tools, training or editorial guidance, but 21% feel unsupported to some degree. On career confidence, 53% feel confident about their long-term prospects in journalism, whereas 66% feel their current job is secure over the next 12 months. That gap is important: it implies journalists are somewhat more confident in immediate job continuity than in the long-term health of the profession. The report reinforces that interpretation by noting that short-term job security outpaces long-term career confidence.

    3. What role do AI and social media now play in journalism, and how is that role shifting?

    AI is clearly moving from experimentation towards mainstream use. The report says 82% of journalists now use at least one of the listed AI tools in their work, up from 77% the year before. ChatGPT remains the leading tool at 47%, while Gemini rises to 22% and Claude to 12%. Transcription tools remain steady at 40%. At the same time, concern about unchecked AI use in journalism has risen from 18% to 26%, so adoption and anxiety are growing together. That is one of the report’s most important tensions: journalists are integrating AI more deeply while also becoming more worried about its consequences.

    Social media tells a different story. Its importance for producing journalism has weakened: only 21% now say social media is very important for their work, down 12 points from 2024. Yet it remains highly important for promotion, with 45% saying it is very important for that purpose. So the report suggests social platforms are becoming less central to reporting itself, but still crucial to distribution and visibility.

    The platform landscape is shifting too. Facebook is rated the most valuable platform overall at 28%, LinkedIn is second at 20%, and X has dropped to 17%. In trust terms, LinkedIn stands out most strongly, with 58% saying they trust it to treat journalistic content fairly. By contrast, distrust in TikTok has risen to 61%, and Bluesky’s momentum has weakened, with the share spending more time there falling by 14 points year on year. The report’s wider implication is that journalists are becoming more selective and pragmatic about platforms: they are not abandoning them, but they are recalibrating where value and trust still exist.

    4. What does the report reveal about the relationship between journalists and PR professionals?

    The report shows a relationship that is clearly important but often poorly executed. More than half of journalists, 53%, say relationships with PR professionals are important or very important to being successful at their job. And 86% say at least some of their published stories began with a PR pitch, even if for most journalists the share is modest. That means PR remains a meaningful input into the news cycle, even though it rarely drives the majority of coverage.

    However, the quality and relevance of outreach remain major problems. Only 3% say pitches are always relevant to what they cover, while 43% say relevant pitches are seldom received and 4% say never. Unsurprisingly, 88% say they immediately disregard or delete pitches that are irrelevant to their coverage, 71% reject pitches that feel overly promotional, and 50% are put off by what look like mass emails. The report is therefore quite blunt: PR can be useful, but most failures come from poor targeting and low editorial sensitivity.

    The findings also show what journalists actually want. Seventy per cent say a pitch should clearly demonstrate relevance to their beat, 58% want interview access to relevant sources, and 40% value original data or research. When the question shifts from beat relevance to audience relevance, the answers become even more revealing: 78% say a pitch feels genuinely relevant when it directly affects the community their audience belongs to, and 45% want clear local or cultural context. So the report’s deeper message is that good PR is not just about matching a topic area; it is about understanding the outlet’s audience, community and public value.

    5. What broader conclusion does the report draw about the state and future of journalism?

    The overall picture is not one of collapse, but of a profession in uneasy transition. Journalism still appears to offer strong intrinsic meaning: that is the dominant emotional response in the survey. There is also evidence of resilience, with majorities feeling at least somewhat supported, somewhat secure in the near term, and still able to meet their standards most of the time.

    But that resilience is under strain from structural, technological and reputational pressures all at once. Funding pressures remain severe, disinformation continues to complicate reporting, AI is both increasingly embedded and increasingly feared, and journalists are operating in a more fragmented and less trusted information environment. The media relations section adds another layer: journalism still depends in part on external information subsidies from PR, but the quality of those interactions often falls short of what journalists need.

    In that sense, the report’s implicit argument is that the future of journalism will depend not only on newsroom adaptation to AI and platform change, but also on restoring relevance, trust, editorial support and sustainable resourcing. The profession still has purpose and momentum, but the survey suggests that its future will be shaped by whether institutions can reduce precarity while helping journalists navigate a noisier, more politicised and more automated media landscape.

  • Journalism and Technology Trends and Predictions 2026 by Reuters

    Journalism and Technology Trends and Predictions 2026 by Reuters

    About the paper

    The report examines the strategic pressures, technology shifts, and business-model changes likely to shape journalism in 2026, with a strong focus on generative AI, platform dependency, creators, video, and misinformation.

    It is a mixed-methods industry trends report drawing primarily on a closed survey of 280 senior news leaders from 51 countries and territories, supplemented by background interviews, industry examples, and third-party data such as Chartbeat analytics; the survey is global in scope but not a representative sample of the wider industry.

    Length: 47 pages

    More information / download:
    https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/journalism-media-and-technology-trends-and-predictions-2026

    Core Insights

    1. Why does the report argue that journalism faces a particularly acute strategic squeeze in 2026?

    The report’s central argument is that journalism is being squeezed simultaneously by technological disruption and cultural-platform disruption. On one side, generative AI is changing how people access information, especially through search engines turning into answer engines and AI tools surfacing information directly in chat interfaces rather than sending traffic to publishers. On the other side, creators and influencers are pulling attention towards more personality-led, platform-native content that often feels more direct, relevant, or entertaining than traditional institutional journalism.

    The report frames this as an existential challenge because it affects both economics and legitimacy. Economically, publishers fear a major drop in referral traffic from search and social platforms. Culturally and politically, journalism is also under pressure from declining trust, direct-to-audience communication by politicians and celebrities, and continued attacks on news media as biased or fake. The report suggests that journalism is no longer just competing with rival publishers, but with AI intermediaries, platform algorithms, and creator ecosystems that change how audiences discover and value information.

    This squeeze is reflected in industry sentiment. Only 38% of surveyed leaders say they are confident about journalism’s prospects in the year ahead, which the report says is 22 percentage points lower than in 2022. At the same time, 53% remain confident about their own organisation’s prospects. That contrast matters: the report suggests many executives believe their own brand may survive or adapt, even while the broader health of journalism as a public institution deteriorates.

    2. What evidence does the report provide that AI and platform shifts are already reshaping access to news and publisher traffic?

    One of the report’s most concrete findings is that publishers expect search traffic to decline by 43% on average over the next three years. That expectation is linked to Google AI Overviews, AI mode, and the wider shift from search engines that send users outward to answer engines that satisfy users inside the interface. The report also notes that around a fifth of respondents expect a loss of more than 75% of their company’s search traffic.

    The report backs this up with Chartbeat data. Across a network of more than 2,500 sites, Google Search referrals were down 33% globally year-on-year between November 2024 and November 2025, and down 38% in the United States. Google Discover traffic was also down. By contrast, Facebook and X showed modest year-on-year increases in that specific comparison period, but the longer trend remains negative: over roughly the last two and a half years, Facebook referrals fell by 43% and X referrals by 46%. The point is not that one channel is collapsing overnight, but that publishers are losing stability across several external traffic sources at once.

    The report also shows that AI referral growth is real but still tiny in commercial terms. ChatGPT referrals to publishers are rising quickly, yet they remain a tiny fraction of overall traffic. The report says Google delivers 500 times as many referrals as ChatGPT from search alone, and 1,300 times as many if Google Discover is included. So the immediate issue is not that AI platforms already replace traditional traffic at scale, but that they may erode old discovery systems much faster than they create meaningful new value for publishers.

    This is why the report highlights publisher ambivalence towards AI platforms. Publishers are weighing lawsuits, licensing deals, visibility strategies, and new optimisation practices such as AEO and GEO. The implication is that access to audiences is becoming less about classic SEO and more about negotiating with, supplying, or optimising for AI-mediated distribution systems.

    3. How does the report think publishers will respond editorially and strategically to these pressures?

    The clearest editorial response in the report is a shift towards distinctiveness. Survey respondents say journalism should focus more on original reporting, contextual analysis, community-building, human stories, fact-checking, and opinion or commentary. These are all framed as forms of journalism that are harder for AI systems to commoditise or summarise into generic output. Conversely, publishers expect to pull back from service journalism, evergreen content, and general news, because those formats are more easily absorbed by chatbots and aggregators.

    The report also points to a format shift. Publishers increasingly see video and audio as strategic priorities in response to AI. Seventy-nine per cent say it is important to invest more in video, and 71% say the same for audio. Text is still important, but the report suggests its economic and competitive position is weakening because AI can cheaply generate, remix, and summarise text-based content. Video and audio are seen as more defensible, more engaging, and more suited to platform discovery.

    Distribution strategy is changing too. For 2026, publishers plan to put more effort into YouTube, AI platforms, TikTok, Instagram, and LinkedIn, while reducing effort on X, Facebook, and old-style Google Search optimisation. This reflects a move away from legacy social and search habits towards video-heavy environments and AI interfaces. It also reflects the report’s broader argument that publishers need to meet audiences where attention is moving, even if that means adjusting tone, format, and production logic.

    The report adds an important nuance: not all publishers will pursue the same path. Some will double down on distinctiveness and direct audience relationships, while others will lean further into automation and scale. The report describes a possible “barbell effect”, with highly distinctive human journalism at one end and highly automated low-cost publishing at the other, leaving mid-market undifferentiated outlets especially vulnerable.

    4. What does the report say about the growing influence of creators, video culture, and personality-led journalism?

    The report treats the creator wave as one of the defining shifts in the media environment. It argues that platform changes have turbo-charged creator economics by favouring viral, personality-led, video-first content over traditional link-sharing and institutional distribution. Publishers are worried primarily about creators taking time and attention away from publisher content: 70% are somewhat or very concerned about that. A smaller, but still significant, 39% are concerned about losing talent to the creator ecosystem.

    Importantly, the report does not present creators purely as a threat. It suggests they have become a model for authenticity, voice, and audience connection, even if much creator content is more opinion-led and partisan than traditional journalism. That duality matters: creators are competitors, but also proof that audiences respond to content that feels human, recognisable, and direct. Publishers, the report suggests, are learning from this without fully embracing its norms.

    That is why 76% of surveyed publishers say they will try to get journalists to behave a bit more like creators in 2026. Half plan to partner with creators for distribution, 31% say they may hire creators, and 28% are considering creator studios or joint ventures. Examples in the report include Wired building writers into platform personalities, CNN Creators, SPIL in the Netherlands, and various creator partnerships or branded ventures at the Independent, Vox Media, and the Washington Post.

    But the report also flags risks. Making journalists more personality-led may create conflicts around editorial standards, reputation, and independence. It may also help staff build their own followings and then leave. More fundamentally, moving too far towards creator logic may undermine some of the things audiences still value in institutional journalism, such as fairness, verification, and a consistent editorial voice. So the report sees creator influence as both necessary stimulus and strategic tension.

    5. What broader conclusions does the report draw about the future of journalism, newsroom AI, and sustainable business models?

    The report’s conclusion is neither apocalyptic nor reassuring. It argues that journalism is still in transition: old models are fading, new ones are emerging, and the eventual settlement is unclear. It suggests the industry will probably get smaller overall, with some audience attention permanently shifting elsewhere, but it rejects the idea that journalism becomes irrelevant. Reliable reporting, human stories, analysis, and trust still matter, especially in a media environment polluted by AI slop, misinformation, and manipulative content.

    On newsroom AI, the report is pragmatic rather than evangelical. AI use is spreading across back-end automation, coding, product development, commercial applications, newsgathering, and content creation with human oversight. Yet the impact so far is mostly described as promising or limited rather than transformational. Only 13% describe newsroom AI initiatives as transformational, while 44% say promising and 42% say limited. Likewise, AI has not yet translated into major labour savings for most organisations: 67% report no job cuts, 16% say they cut only a small number, and 9% say they have actually added jobs.

    On business models, subscriptions and membership remain the main priority, followed by display and native advertising, with events also important. The most notable emerging revenue area is platform payment for content, including AI-related licensing or revenue sharing, though the report makes clear that most publishers expect this to be, at best, a minor contribution rather than a transformative income stream. It also identifies structural barriers to innovation, especially lack of resources, skill shortages, siloed organisations, and weak strategic alignment.

    The final implication is that survival will depend less on chasing every trend and more on strategic clarity. The publishers most likely to thrive, according to the report, are those with a clear sense of their audience, their role, and the value they can create. That means being human where it matters, adaptable where necessary, and organised enough internally to experiment with new formats, products, and business models without losing editorial purpose.

  • Journalism and Technology Trends and Predictions 2025 by Reuters

    Journalism and Technology Trends and Predictions 2025 by Reuters

    About the paper

    The report examines the pressures, priorities, and strategic bets shaping journalism in 2025, with a particular focus on platform disruption, AI, product innovation, and the changing relationship between publishers and audiences.

    It is based primarily on original survey research with 326 senior media leaders from 51 countries and territories, fielded online between 20 November and 20 December 2024, and supplemented by background interviews and industry examples. The geographic scope is global, though the report notes that respondents were concentrated in the UK, US, and Europe.

    Length: 47 pages

    More information / download:
    https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/journalism-media-and-technology-trends-and-predictions-2025

    Core Insights

    1. What does the report identify as the central challenge facing journalism in 2025?

    The report argues that journalism is under pressure from several directions at once: hostile politics, economic strain, weakening platform relationships, and the rise of AI-driven intermediaries that may displace publishers in the discovery chain. Its core claim is not that journalism is disappearing, but that institutional journalism is being forced to redefine its value in a far more contested information environment. Publishers face attacks from populist politicians, a growing creator-led alternative media ecosystem, and a technology landscape in which search, social, and conversational interfaces are all shifting against them.

    A key tension in the report is the contrast between low confidence in journalism as a sector and higher confidence in individual companies’ prospects. Only 41% of surveyed leaders say they are confident about journalism’s prospects in the year ahead, while 56% are confident about their own company’s business prospects. That gap suggests leaders believe the wider institution is weakening even while some organisations think they can adapt and survive.

    The report’s underlying perspective is that journalism’s challenge is no longer just commercial. It is also structural and civic. Publishers are losing control over distribution, are being bypassed by politicians and creators, and may increasingly find their reporting summarised or repackaged by AI systems before audiences ever reach the original source. The report therefore frames 2025 as a year in which journalism must fight for visibility, authority, and economic leverage all at once.

    2. How does the report describe the impact of platform change and search disruption on publishers?

    The report presents search disruption as one of the most serious emerging threats to news publishers. After major declines in referral traffic from Facebook and X, publishers are now worried that search could be next as AI overviews and conversational search products replace traditional link-based discovery. The report cites Chartbeat data showing Facebook referrals to news sites down 67% over two years and X down 50%, while aggregate Google search traffic had not yet fallen overall at the time of writing. Even so, 74% of respondents say they are worried about possible declines in referral traffic from search engines in 2025.

    The concern is not just fewer clicks. It is that AI products increasingly look like replacements for publisher interfaces rather than gateways to them. The report points to ChatGPT Search, Perplexity, Particle, Grok Stories, and other automated news interfaces that summarise multiple sources and foreground the platform’s answer over the publisher’s full article. That changes the economics of discovery. A publisher may still be cited, but citations are not equivalent to traffic, habit, subscriptions, or control of the audience relationship.

    This leads to a second issue: compensation and bargaining power. The report notes that some major publishers have secured licensing deals with AI companies, but these arrangements are uneven and opaque. Nearly three-quarters of respondents, 72%, say the industry should push for collective agreements rather than company-by-company deals. The report therefore treats AI licensing not as a settled revenue opportunity, but as a contested and potentially unequal new layer in the publisher-platform relationship.

    3. What strategic responses are publishers prioritising to adapt their business models?

    The report shows publishers leaning harder into reader revenue, product diversification, and direct relationships. Subscription and membership remain the most important revenue focus, cited by 77% of commercial publishers, ahead of display advertising at 69% and native advertising at 59%. But the report also emphasises that most companies are now combining several revenue streams, including events, platform funding, e-commerce, philanthropy, donations, and related businesses.

    A major theme is that strengthening the core product is no longer seen as sufficient on its own. While 55% still say strengthening the existing product is the main priority, 44% say developing new products and services will be most important for future growth. Publishers are exploring youth products, audio, video, education, games, food, international editions, and bundled offerings. The report presents this as a strategic shift from a narrow news product to a broader portfolio model, influenced especially by the New York Times example.

    The report also suggests that bundling may become more important as a retention strategy. Publishers are looking to combine news with adjacent services and lifestyle products in all-access subscriptions, both to reduce churn and to compete in a crowded subscription market. This reflects a larger assumption in the report: that publishers will need stronger owned-and-operated ecosystems because platform-dependent growth is becoming less reliable.

    4. What role does generative AI play in newsroom transformation, according to the report?

    The report makes clear that generative AI is no longer a speculative issue for news organisations. It says newsrooms are already being transformed, with 87% of respondents saying GenAI is transforming newsrooms fully or somewhat. The strongest emphasis remains on back-end and workflow uses, such as tagging, transcription, copyediting, recommendation systems, coding support, research assistance, and commercial modelling. These are seen as more mature and less risky than fully automated publishing.

    At the same time, the report argues that audience-facing uses of AI are becoming the next frontier. Publishers say they are actively exploring text-to-audio, AI-generated summaries, translation, chatbots, new search interfaces, and text-to-video conversion. The most widely planned initiatives are text into audio at 75%, AI summarisation at 70%, and translation at 65%, with 56% exploring chatbots or new search interfaces. The direction is towards more personalised, reformatted, and conversational news experiences.

    But the report is not triumphalist about AI. It repeatedly notes uncertainty about whether these investments will generate savings or sustainable advantage. It also warns that third-party tools may outpace in-house newsroom tools, and that a flood of synthetic content could increase misinformation risks and further weaken the visibility of original journalism. So AI appears in the report both as an efficiency tool and as a destabilising force that publishers must adapt to quickly without assuming it will solve their core business problems.

    5. What broader shifts in audience behaviour, talent, and media culture does the report see as shaping journalism’s future?

    One of the report’s most important arguments is that journalism is being reshaped by the rise of personalities, creators, and more socially native forms of news consumption. It highlights research showing that many younger audiences increasingly get news from influencers and creators rather than established news brands, and it notes that publishers themselves are split on whether this trend is good or bad for journalism. The report positions this “creator-fication” as both a competitive threat and a creative challenge to legacy media.

    This shift has implications inside news organisations too. The report says talent concerns are especially acute in engineering, data science, product, and design. While most respondents are confident about retaining editorial staff and even editorial stars, they are far less confident about attracting and keeping technical talent. That matters because the same organisations that need to innovate most aggressively around AI, product development, and user experience are struggling to recruit the people required to do it.

    The report also points to audience fatigue as a major issue. It describes efforts to respond through explainers, more human-centred storytelling, constructive or positive products, and “less noise, more signal” formats. This suggests the future challenge is not just reaching audiences but making journalism feel usable, sustainable, and worth returning to in a saturated and exhausting information environment. In that sense, the report’s broader conclusion is that journalism’s future depends not only on defending its principles, but on redesigning its formats, products, and relationships for a very different media culture.