Beggars, choosers, AI scrapers
Watching your best people walk out the door, the end of free content, leaks about the new MFF, an entrepreneurial program for newsrooms in exile, nerdy stuff on pricing and 32 active calls.
Welcome
This week on Media Finance Monitor
Beggars, choosers, AI scrapers
Watching your most talented people walk out the door
The end (of free content) is nigh
Advent calendar, but for the next big EU budget
An entrepreneurial program for newsrooms in exile
How much is your journalism really worth? We have data and a calculator.
32 active calls (5 new)
Beggars, choosers, AI scrapers
Good news first: Cloudflare stepped up in a big way. On July 1st, the company announced it's now blocking AI crawlers by default unless website owners explicitly grant permission. This makes Cloudflare the first major internet infrastructure provider to challenge the status quo: instead of assuming AI companies can scrape everything under the Sun unless told otherwise, they're now assuming they can't unless explicitly invited in by publishers.
Major players including Condé Nast, Dotdash Meredith, Gannett, and AP welcomed the move, and rightfully so. It finally gives content producers some actual leverage when negotiating with AI companies rather than just hoping for their goodwill.
While this is genuinely good news, and I don't want to be the guy who finds clouds in every silver lining, I can't shake the feeling that we're once again relying on a third party to protect our interests. It's not that I have a better solution in mind, and I genuinely welcome Cloudflare stepping up. But it feels somewhat indicative of where the media industry stands in terms autonomy and controlling our own destinies when the best outcome we can hope for is a very large tech company deciding to align with us rather than their fellow tech giants.
And sometimes, it seems like we're not particularly interested in controlling our destinies anyway.
Ali Mahmood's new media-tech newsletter launched with fascinating research: he examined the robots.txt files of 316 publishers across 28 European countries and found that especially in CEE, very few publishers bother telling AI crawlers to stay away from their content.
Robots.txt files are like signposts on websites that tell crawlers how to catalog content and which pages to ignore. Though AI crawlers routinely ignore these instructions, for legal and strategic reasons, many publishers still leave explicit notes telling AI companies to keep away. The research revealed a stark pattern: in some Western European countries like Denmark, 90% of examined publishers put up these digital "keep out" signs, while in Hungary, Croatia, or Greece, very few bothered.
I could offer some pop-psychology analysis about how CEE experiences with rule-based systems might lead publishers to conclude robots.txt files don't matter, so why bother. Instead, I'll just encourage all of you to check if you have this set up and make a conscious decision about what's best for your organization.
Technical solutions matter because the legal landscape remains murky, and getting murkier.
While there have been some promising decisions from publishers' perspectives, late June brought a significant setback when Anthropic scored a major victory in federal court in San Francisco. A judge ruled that Anthropic's use of copyrighted books to train its AI models constituted fair use.
Anthropic argued that its training was "exceedingly transformative," with the judge agreeing that their language models trained on works "Like any reader aspiring to be a writer, Anthropic's LLMs trained upon works not to race ahead and replicate or supplant them — but to turn a hard corner and create something different". The company told the court that copyright law "not only allows, but encourages" AI training because it promotes human creativity.
With numerous lawsuits ongoing around AI training, scraping, and generation use cases, it's not hard to see why this decision represents a clear win for generative AI companies and a deeply problematic precedent for publishers.
But I don’t want to bum you out too much. Celebrate Cloudflare's move, but also maybe update your robots.txt file while you're at it.
Watching your most talented people walk out the door
When I have trouble falling asleep, I watch YouTube videos that don't require much thinking: people making expensive tables from wood and epoxy, a construction crew building a very big house in North Carolina, a man camping in the permafrost in Alaska, StarCraft II tournaments, and sometimes content about the US military.
One channel that fascinates me as a media product is Task & Purpose, a niche platform aimed mostly at people in and around the US military. They found this scrappy but charismatic host, Chris, who brings the energy of an easily excitable but loyal Labrador to every video and over six years built a hugely successful YouTube channel around him.
Then private equity acquired Task & Purpose and began pressuring the star host to churn out more content and deliver even bigger numbers. A few months ago, Chris decided to quit and start his own channel. After just two months, he's already eclipsing T&P in views and engagement, and will likely overtake them in subscribers within 6-12 months.
I know most of you aren't 12 and therefore unlikely to share my fascination with swoosh fighter jets and vroom tanks, but the video Chris made launching his new channel, explaining why he left T&P, perfectly illustrates how publishers can completely misjudge their leverage over talent in the current media landscape. If your job involves managing a newsroom full of talented reporters, I'd highly recommend watching it. This isn’t just a YouTube drama, it’s a cautionary tale for any newsroom undervaluing its public-facing talent.
A less obscure example is Derek Thompson, a star reporter from The Atlantic and co-author of the recent Abundance book, who left what must be among the best jobs in American journalism to start his own Substack.
Even Yahoo, not exactly known for being on the cutting edge lately, is expanding its creator program, sharing revenues and offering creators what seems like smart, light-touch support while giving them exposure on a platform that still generates a lot of traffic, especially in the US.
But while the dominant theme remains talented individuals leaving institutions to launch independent content streams, there are early signs that some creators might actually want the recognition and security that comes with being part of institutions.
YouTube recently released results from its Creator Consultation, surveying 10,000 creators in the UK. The report reveals some fascinating tensions.
First, many respondents want more government recognition and representation. (I tried and failed to find methodology details, it matters whether they were asked if they wanted recognition (sure, why not?) or whether this emerged from open-ended questions about what would help them.) Either way, there's an interesting contradiction between wanting independence and wanting institutional validation. Government recognition might sound benign in the UK (and terrifying in some parts of CEE), but it still represents a desire for some of the institutional benefits that many creators define themselves against.
The second finding is more straightforward: creators struggle with access to finance. The report notes that creators are "ambitious entrepreneurs" but "struggle to access the capital required to accelerate their journey." Many find it difficult to open accounts, secure loans, or apply for grants. Financial requirements, from filing taxes to proving business expenses, are hard to navigate. Only 7% of respondents think UK creators receive adequate support with business loans and capital.
This financing challenge is real and familiar. Access to capital for any early-stage media venture is difficult, but individuals without legal entities face particular hurdles. We discussed this issue last year, and while some US organizations are experimenting with fiscal sponsorships worth watching, the problem persists.
The end (of free content) is nigh
The BBC is launching a paywall for US visitors, $50 a year or $9 per month for access. This isn't just another subscription launch; it's a public institution acknowledging that even publicly funded journalism can't remain universally free anymore.
The BBC operates at around a £500 million annual loss despite UK license fees and is massively subsidized by the state. With future government support likely to shrink, this type of revenue generation becomes the only viable path forward.
But they face a crowded field. Questions about "peak subscriptions" are growing, whether consumers have hit their limit for journalism budgets and outlets will need to fight harder for the same wallets.
That's where local news might have an unexpected advantage. Greg Piechota argues that future audience revenue growth could be driven primarily by local outlets. While local and regional publishers currently trail national peers in engagement and conversion, this may be changing where local brands are modernizing and investing in subscriptions. Analyzing Digital News Report data, Piechota found that in countries with over 20% online paid news penetration, the share of local news payers is double that in lower-penetration countries (37% vs. 18%).
This creates a difficult dynamic: while national and international outlets like the BBC chase subscription revenue, some local publishers might actually be better positioned to capture it.
But whether it's payment for subscription or other form of monetizable engagement, it seems like some explicit value exchange will have to take place between content producers and consumers.
Google's new Offerwall tool lets publishers offer multiple access options: ads, surveys, micro-payments, newsletter sign-ups, but does require some form of intentional audience interaction before content access.
We're yet to see how effective this tool will be or how many publishers adopt it, but it's a clear signal that purely display ad-driven, mass-scale media models no longer make financial sense for many publishers.
The BBC's paywall, local news's potential advantage, and Google's value-exchange experiments all point to the same reality: the era of free-for-all journalistic content is ending. The question is how (if?) publishers can make the value exchange feel worthwhile for their audiences.
Advent calendar, but for the next EU budget
The first draft of the MFF (the next seven-year EU budget) will likely arrive next Wednesday. If it does, we'll dedicate next week's edition to dissecting it. In the meantime, leaks are already happening. Context reports that money currently earmarked for media development and anti-disinformation programs under CERV may be folded into CREA, while parts of Creative Europe could become the "Democracy Shield" initiative.
If you don't fully understand what this means for your newsroom, don't worry, no one does. But I think it signifies three things:
First, journalism support is increasingly viewed through a democratic resilience/epistemic security lens in Brussels. This is the dominant frame of discussion for now. I don't think this is necessarily a problem, but I'd like to see this expanded to include journalism in competitiveness and innovation contexts as a crucial enabler of economic growth.
Second, there are actors within EU political and bureaucratic leadership who would rather see journalism funded from fewer programs, as opposed to the decentralized status quo where journalism (and related) projects get funding from dozens of different sources. This is a very complex issue with strong arguments on both sides, and I really want to see the first MFF draft before formulating a strong opinion.
Third, journalism funding will remain on the agenda. There's no talk of drastic reductions, and all stakeholders I've spoken to recently were cautiously optimistic. Again, we'll know more in a week.
But whatever the first draft looks like, don't forget: there's another 12-18 months of negotiations ahead. This is a marathon, not a sprint. Nothing is in the bank yet.
An entrepreneurial program for newsrooms in exile
In collaboration with the JX Fund and the excellent Patrick Boehler from Gazzetta, we're launching a new program aimed at small and medium newsrooms operating in exile.
The Newsroom Pivot Program will provide venture support and seed funding opportunities for exiled independent media from Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Russia, and Syria.
We'll work with seven newsrooms to help address real challenges and develop entrepreneurial ideas. The program includes group and peer learning sessions online, with each newsroom paired with a dedicated mentor to guide their project development. At the program's conclusion, there will be an all expenses covered in-person event in Europe, likely in December, where each newsroom will be able to pitch their projects to funders and investors.
You can find more information in the release and access the application form here.
How much is your journalism really worth? We have data and a calculator.
We released our 2025 European Digital News Pricing Report last week, which, thanks to Newspack's generous support, is freely available for everyone. It examines the pricing and discounting strategies of 101 European news publishers and, based on their examples and our experience working with successful European publishers, aims to help you navigate dilemmas around how much to charge.
TLDR
💸 Average undiscounted monthly price at the lowest tier: €10.08
🏷️ Average undiscounted price at the lowest tier in CEE: €7.84
💥 Five reasons why starting cheap is risky
📰 Average number of tiers: 1.86
⚖️ The benefits and challenges of having a single tier of service
🔢 Annual discounts average: 22.15%
♟️ How to use strategic discounting to build a pipeline
❌ Free trials are out of vogue, discounted trials dominate
💳 Credit cards, bank transfers and the benefits of multiple payment channels
💰 The CSM pricing calculator will help you with a starting point even if your country isn't listed this year
I'm obviously biased here, but I think we created something useful and the feedback from you has also been overwhelmingly positive. My friend Rishad Patel from Splice described the report as "Delicious, delicious pricing nerdism," which is so flattering I'm now considering tattooing it on my lower back.
We're also organizing a very informal online discussion for July 29th, 15:30 CET, for members to talk through the report, compare strategies, and shake our fists at inflexible digital payment regulations and whatever else we feel like discussing. If you're not already a subscriber, consider becoming one in the next two weeks and you'll get an invite.
European Network of Fact-checkers
Who: European Commission
How much: EUR 5,000,000
What is it for: Increase fact-checking capacity and coverage across the EU
How long: Between 30 to 36 months
Deadline: September 2nd, 2025
Eligible countries: EU member states (including overseas countries and territories), as well as candidate and accession countries and countries that are associated to the Digital Europe programme.
Fighting against disinformation while ensuring the right to freedom of expression
Who: European Commission
How much: EUR 3,000,000 - 3,500,000
What is it for: Research on countering disinformation in media while protecting free expression
Deadline: September 16th, 2025
Eligible countries: EU Member States (including overseas countries and territories)
Advisory support and network to counter disinformation and foreign information manipulation and interference
Who: European Commission
How much: EUR 3,000,000 - 3,500,000
What is it for: Scaling research into tools countering disinformation and FIMI
Deadline: September 16th, 2025
Eligible countries: EU Member States (including overseas countries and territories)
Countering and preventing radicalisation, extremism, hate speech and polarisation
Who: European Commission
How much: EUR 3,000,000 - 3,500,000
What is it for: Research to counter radicalisation, hate, and polarisation online and offline
Deadline: September 16th, 2025
Eligible countries: EU Member States (including overseas countries and territories)
European mini-slate development
Who: European Commission
How much: EUR 60,000 - 310,000
What is it for: Support to develop documentary, fiction or animation for commercial release in digital platforms, cinema, or TV
How long: Up to 36 months
Deadline: September 17th, 2025
Eligible countries: EU Member States (including overseas countries and territories), listed EEA countries and countries associated to the Creative Europe Programme
Resilient Voices: Supporting Exiled Journalism - NEW
Who: JX Fund
How much: USD 75,000 - USD 200,000
What is it for: Support exiled media in continuing public-interest journalism
How long: 12 months
Deadline: July 12th, 2025 (eligibility form) and July 25th, 2025 (full application)
Eligible countries: Belarus
Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change
Who: UNESCO
How much: Up to USD 150,000
What is it for: Strengthen information integrity on climate change
How long: 6 -18 months
Deadline: July 6th, 2025
Eligible countries: Global (non-profit organizations)
Media Project Funding (Vienna Media Initiative)
Who: Vienna Business Agency
How much: Up to EUR 100,000 (up to 60% funding rate)
What is it for: Support the development of new media services
How long: Up to 2 years
Deadline: October 31st, 2025
Eligible countries: Austria (must be based in Vienna)
Democratic transition, (re-)building and strengthening society based on the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights
Who: European Commission
How much: From EUR 50,000 (total budget EUR 1,900,000)
What is it for: Commemorate democratic transitions and resistance to authoritarian regimes, and promote civic participation and democratic resilience
How long: 12–24 months
Deadline: October 1st, 2025
Eligible countries: EU Member States and CERV-associated countries
Journalism Science Alliance Grants
Who: Journalism Science Alliance
How much: Up to EUR 50,000
What is it for: Support journalist-scientist collaborations for evidence-based reporting
How long: 8 months
Deadline: August 4th, 2025
Eligible countries: EU member states and Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Serbia and Ukraine
Pre-litigation Research Support
Who: Digital Freedom Fund
How much: Up to EUR 45,000
What is it for: Planned litigation concerning the free flow of information online
Deadline: July 15th, 2025
Eligible countries: Council of Europe Member States
Litigation Track Support
Who: Digital Freedom Fund
How much: Up to EUR 45,000
What is it for: Supporting legal action to protect online information flow
Deadline: July 15th, 2025
Eligible countries: Council of Europe Member States
Legal Defense Fund
Who: IFCN
How much: Up to USD 40,000
What is it for: Support fact-checkers facing legal or harassment threats
Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible countries: Global (IFCN verified signatories)
Machine Learning Reporting Grants
Who: Pulitzer Center
How much: Up to USD 25,000
What is it for: Strengthen data-driven reporting using data mining
Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible countries: Global
Support for Local & Community Media - NEW
Who: LIMENet / MDIG
How much: Up to EUR 20,000
What is it for: Boost collaboration, skills, and sustainability in local media
How long: Up to 9 months
Deadline: August 25th, 2025
Eligible countries: Belgium, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, and Serbia
Financial support for independent exiled media from Belarus - NEW
Who: JX Fund
How much: EUR 20,000
What is it for: Securing a sustainable operation in exile
Deadline: July 20th, 2025
Eligible countries: Belarus
Business Continuity Fund
Who: IFCN
How much: Up to USD 20,000
What is it for: Support for fact-checkers disrupted by disasters/conflict/repression
Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible countries: Global (IFCN verified signatories)
Professional Development Grants for Environmental Journalism
Who: Journalismfund Europe
How much: Up to EUR 20,000
What is it for: Capacity building of environmental investigative journalists
How long: Up to 12 months
Deadline: October 9th, 2025
Eligible countries: European countries
Environmental Investigative Journalism
Who: Journalismfund Europe
How much: Up to EUR 20,000
What is it for: Conduct investigations about Europe's environmental affairs
How long: Up to 12 months
Deadline: July 24th, 2025
Eligible countries: European countries
Work/Environment Reporting Grants
Who: Pulitzer Center
How much: Up to USD 20,000
What is it for: Reporting on climate change and its effects on workers and work
Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible countries: Global
Romani Program - NEW
Who: Dalan Fund
How much: Up to EUR 15,000
What is it for: Roma-led initiatives for independent media organizing
Deadline: July 31st, 2025
Eligible countries: Romania, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland
Media Start Funding (Vienna Media Initiative)
Who: Vienna Business Agency
How much: Up to EUR 10,000 (75% funding rate)
What is it for: Turn early-stage media ideas into viable products
How long: Up to 1.5 years
Deadline: July 31st, 2025
Eligible countries: Austria (must be based in Vienna)
SAFE: Support and Assistance Facility for Experts
Who: EMIF
How much: Up to EUR 10,000
What is it for: Financially supporting European counter-disinformation entities facing urgent threats
How long: Up to 3 months
Deadline: Ongoing (rolling basis, submissions open until February 27th, 2026)
Eligible countries: EU Member States (open to EMIF grantees, EFCSN fact-checkers, and EDMO members)
Global Reporting Grants
Who: Pulitzer Center
How much: Up to USD 10,000
What is it for: Support in-depth, high-impact reporting on critical issues
Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible countries: Global
Small Grants to Produce Quality Journalism - NEW
Who: SMS Facility – Support for Small Media in the Western Balkans (EU)
How much: Up to EUR 7,000
What is it for: Content production and audience engagement strategies
Deadline: August 15th, 2025
Eligible countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, or Serbia
Sphera Media Collabs
Who: Sphera Network
How much: Up to EUR 7,000
What is it for: Short documentaries on social issues through personal narratives and human-centered storytelling
Deadline: July 12th, 2025
Eligible countries: EU Member States and Ukraine (excluding Belgium, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Spain)
Kari Howard Fund for Narrative Journalism
Who: International Women’s Media Foundation
How much: Up to USD 5,0000
What is it for: Support narrative journalism
How long: Up to 6 months
Deadline: July 13th, 2025
Eligible countries: Global
Science Misinformation Journalism Grant
Who: Pulitzer Center
How much: Depends on project’s scope and size
What is it for: Journalism combating science denial and misinformation
Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible countries: Global
Conflict & Peace Reporting Grants
Who: Pulitzer Center
How much: Depends on project’s scope and size
What is it for: Reporting on global and local conflicts, peacebuilding efforts, and their human impact
Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible countries: Global
Transparency & Governance Reporting Grants
Who: Pulitzer Center
How much: Depends on project’s scope and size
What is it for: Reporting on corruption, illicit finance, and related topics
Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible countries: Global
Global Health Inequities, Risks, and Solutions
Who: Pulitzer Center
How much: Depends on project’s scope and size
What is it for: Reporting on global health inequities, emerging threats, and the impact of reduced health aid worldwide
Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible countries: Global
AI Reporting Grants
Who: Pulitzer Center
How much: Depends on project’s scope and size
What is it for: Reporting on the societal impact of AI and surveillance, focusing on accountability, equity, and human rights
Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible countries: Global
Until the next issue, thanks for reading and take care.
Peter Erdelyi and the rest of the Center for Sustainable Media team