Can journalism get so cheap that consumers just can’t pass it up?
A letter asking for more investment for the information ecosystem, the benefits of annual subscriptions, scaring the hell out of digital publishers, a worker owned reader funded newsroom and 25 calls.
Welcome!
This week on Media Finance Monitor
Can journalism get so cheap that consumers just can’t pass it up?
100+ organizations call the EU to keep meaningful investments for the information ecosystem on the table
Annual subscriptions >>>>>>>>> Monthly subscriptions
The latest in our ongoing series trying to scare the hell out of digital publishers
Hell Gate’s reader-funded growth: $850K and climbing
25 active calls (9 new)
Can journalism get so cheap that consumers just can’t pass it up?
A group of eight European doctoral students just published what might be one of the most ambitious proposals I’ve seen in recent years for fixing journalism’s business model. Their EU Media Wallet proposal addresses two of the industry’s most intractable problems: young people’s disconnection from news and the financial precarity of European newsrooms. It’s thoughtful, well-researched, and I applaud Dylan Thurgood and his colleagues for thinking beyond the standard EU grant framework. That said, I’m also conflicted about whether it would actually work.
The proposal is to create a pan-European platform where EU residents can buy individual articles through micropayments, with 18-24 year-olds getting a “Youth News Pass” for free access. Think of it as Spotify for news, but where you pay per song rather than subscribing to the whole catalogue.
Let me start with what I really like about this.
A lot of the EU’s current approach to media funding, those “give us €50,000 and we’ll produce 100 articles about the European Green Deal” grants, is fundamentally broken. It rewards publishers who excel at grant-writing rather than journalism. The Media Wallet represents what I would call a “consumption incentive”, public money that still requires publishers to compete for audience attention. You get the subsidy, but only if people actually want to read your content. That’s a market-like intervention I can get behind.
But I do have some reservations.
First, the youth problem. Yes, 44% of 18-24 year-olds get their news primarily from TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube. But giving them free access to traditional paywalled content assumes the barrier is price. I’m not entirely convinced. Young Europeans aren’t only avoiding the New York Times (or the local equivalent) because it costs €10 a month, many probably avoid it because they want shortform explainers on the topics that are relevant for them and not 3,000-word deep dives on geopolitics or information integrity. The modality matters as much as the money.
Second, micropayments in media have a graveyard full of tombstones. Blendle, the Dutch platform that pioneered pay-per-article in Europe, pivoted away from the model after years of trying. I think the fundamental problem probably isn’t technical, it’s psychological. Every article becomes a purchasing decision. “Is this worth €0.30?” That friction kills consumption, even when the amount is trivial.
There is also a cannibalization problem. Publishers make their money from a small percentage of content that truly connects with audiences. If readers can cherry-pick just those pieces through micropayments, why would they maintain subscriptions? You’re essentially unbundling the product at exactly the moment publishers are trying to build sustainable subscription businesses.
Google’s new Offerwall feature might change this calculus. They’re using “tab” payments where you read now and pay later after hitting a threshold, reducing that per-article friction. Some publishers report 20% revenue uplifts in pilot markets. But I think it is still too early to declare victory.
Journalism subscriptions are generally already undervalued. Making the transaction even smaller through micropayments might not remove the real barrier, which is attention and trust, not price (as we explored our 2025 Digital News Pricing Report). The transaction cost (psychological and financial) might exceed the value of many individual pieces.
That said, I really want to be wrong about this. If the EU actually funds this experiment (and it should) we’ll get real data on whether consumption incentives can work at scale. The authors estimate €195,000 for a pilot program, which is pocket change by EU standards and could provide invaluable insights.
We need to experiment with new funding models that go beyond traditional grants. The current system creates perverse incentives and does little to build sustainable businesses. Even if micropayments aren’t the answer, consumption-based subsidies might be.
To me, the real value of proposals like this isn’t necessarily in their implementation but in pushing the conversation forward. We need more people thinking creatively about how public resources can support journalism without creating dependency or distorting incentives. The EU Media Wallet might not be THE solution, but it’s exactly the kind of experiment we should be running.
100+ organizations call the EU to keep meaningful investments for the information ecosystem on the table
Let me be very relatable and start with self-congratulations: I’m really proud of our work around the next EU budget. In the middle of the MFF circus, we helped bring together more than a hundred organisations across the information ecosystem, publishers, researchers, development organisations, funders, CSOs, academic institutions, you name it, to sign a common open letter urging the EU to keep meaningful investments for the information ecosystem on the table.
If you’ve been reading me for a while, you know I’ve written (possibly too much) about the MFF and the future of EU support for media. I won’t rehash the whole saga here. What matters today is the coalition.
Sectoral advocacy is messy. People have different priorities, tactics and timelines. That diversity is a strength, but it can make building consensus feel like trying to put a crib together without a blueprint (I’m speaking on recent, lived experience on both counts).
In this phase of the negotiations, many sectors are understandably busy ring‑fencing their slice of the draft budget: “This is our money, put your hands up and step away from the line item!” That’s normal. It also makes it essential that the information ecosystem speaks with a clear voice.
That’s what this letter delivers (I hope). It isn’t radical, it states the obvious: public‑interest information isn’t a luxury. It underpins democratic resilience. It enables economic growth. And given where geopolitics is heading, Europe is on track to become the most important funder of independent public‑interest information globally. Acting like that’s true in the MFF would be smart policy, not charity.
We worked hand‑in‑hand with GFMD (Global Forum for Media Development), with colleagues across the Media Viability Manifesto network, and with dozens more to craft language broad enough to include our many differences and concrete enough to matter. Our advocacy director, David Kardos, and GFMD’s advocacy manager, deserves special thanks for shepherding this from a Google Doc with too many Anonymous Armadillos to a text 120+ organisations could sign in good faith. (By the time you read this, we might be well past that number.)
This is, of course, not the finish line. As the MFF talks move from top‑line allocations to program design (what tools, what eligibility, which intermediaries) the consensus we achieved around the letter will be harder to replicate. That’s fine; it would be worrying if everyone agreed on every detail.
If for some strange reason you are not tired of me talking about EU budgets, we are organising an informal, online chat on Tuesday, 18 November, 15:30–17:00 for paying subscribers and partners. We’ll walk through the state of play, what’s realistic, where the risks are, and what to prepare for. If you want in, become a partner or pick up a subscription and we’ll send the invite soon.
Also-also, we’re keeping our MFF policy priorities survey open for one more week. It takes ~5 minutes, can be anonymous, and the responses are already shaping our proposals. If you work in/around media funding in Europe, please take it and/or pass it on to a colleague.
Annual subscriptions >>>>>>>>> Monthly subscriptions
Thomas Novotny, Piano’s Director of Data Analytics, shared fresh retention figures from Piano’s (very large) aggregate dataset. If you’ve never used Piano: think Audi of paywalls/CRM/audience‑rev tooling excellent, widely deployed, not exactly bargain‑bin. They see a ton of data across geographies, which makes their benchmarks worth paying attention to.
The headline: overall one‑year retention across all subs is ~39%. Switch the lens to annual subscribers, and one‑year retention jumps to ~65%. That gap only widens over time.
Cohort survival (all subs vs. annual only)
12 months: 39% vs 65%
24 months: 21% vs 44%
36 months: 13% vs 31%
48 months: 10% vs 21%
In other words: annuals don’t just reduce churn at the first renewal, they compound advantage. This tracks perfectly with what we reported in our 2025 European Digital News Pricing Report: commitment → usage → retention. People who make a bigger commitment tend to use the product more (they want to make the most of their spend), and usage is the strongest precursor to staying. Novotny also says 29% of their publishers now offer two-year subscriptions which is a lot higher rate than what we saw in our report, but based on the retention data, it makes a lot of sense.
The latest in our ongoing series trying to scare the hell out of digital publishers
I’m really not trying to surprise you with an aneurysm, but I came across this chart on Matt Karolian’s Substack and I think you should see it too.
It tracks what happened to YouTube when the Washington Post’s TikTok star Dave Jorgenson left. “Washington Post Universe”, the Post’s channel run by Dave, peaked at ~53.7M views in April and slid to ~8.3M by August; Jorgenson’s new channels climbed in the same window.
There is an excellent quote in the piece:
Gen Z and younger millennials trust people before they trust institutions. For decades, credibility flowed from the masthead to the individual, “They must be good; they work for The Washington Post.” Now it flows in reverse: “I trust Dave, and he works for The Washington Post, so they must be worth listening to.”
Hell Gate’s reader-funded growth: $850K and climbing
Hell Gate launched in early 2022 as a worker-owned experiment in reader-funded local journalism. Three years later, the New York City newsroom has 9,000 subscribers generating nearly $70,000 monthly, with 2025 revenue projected at $850,000 and growth trending toward $1 million by mid-2026. Their latest annual report breaks down how they built that momentum, and what it reveals about building audience-funded sustainability.
Philanthropy as transitional fuel. Grants and donations made up about half of Hell Gate‘s revenue in early years. As subscriptions grew, that share fell to about one-third of revenue, shifting external funding from primary support to project-specific investment. It now helps launch initiatives like their weekly podcast and live events while day-to-day operations run on subscriber revenue.
Advertising as a strategic supplement. Newsletter ads generated about $20,000 in 2025, mostly from local businesses. The team keeps ad sales deliberately small despite having an email audience of 30,000-40,000 with strong engagement, choosing to use that revenue to fund extra freelance stories rather than expanding into a more resource-intensive sales operation. At this scale, advertising adds flexibility without reshaping the core business.
Free channels as subscriber pipelines. Hell Gate‘s free newsletters more than doubled in the past year and now reach tens of thousands, while its weekly podcast averages 3,000–4,000 downloads. These open channels introduce audiences to the journalism and build trust before asking for payment, turning visibility into subscriber relationships without diluting the core value proposition.
Steep discounts can backfire. A 99-cent first-month offer with free merchandise brought a surge of signups, but many subscribers bailed once the price reset to $7 monthly. The promotion succeeded at generating buzz but attracted deal-seekers rather than loyal readers, suggesting that discounts too far below actual value may undermine rather than build a sustainable subscriber base.
Growth reinvested in capacity. Hell Gate now pays reporters $75,000 (editors: $85,000) after raises in early 2025, covers 100% of staff health insurance plus 50% of family premiums, and expanded freelance budgets to $5,500 monthly. Without outside investors, revenue growth flows directly into better compensation and stronger journalism, creating a virtuous cycle where quality attracts subscribers who fund more quality.
This last piece is part of a series focusing on local and community journalism and is supported by the LimeNet project and the European Union.
Here are the active calls, with the largest at the top:
Building a trustworthy social media sphere: countering disinformation on social media for young Europeans
Who: European Commission
How much: Up to EUR 3,100,000
What is it for: Combat disinformation and boost media literacy in EU youth
How long: 18-24 months
Deadline: December 2nd, 2025
Eligible countries: EU member states (including overseas countries and territories)
CREA - Journalism Partnerships Pluralism - NEW
Who: European Commission
How much: Up to EUR 2,500,000
What is it for: Funding local, regional, and investigative media strengthening democracy
How long: Up to 24 months
Deadline: February 4th, 2026
Eligible countries: Creative Europe participating countries (EU member states, including overseas countries and territories, and non-EU countries associated to the Creative Europe Programme)
CREA - Journalism Partnerships Collaboration - NEW
Who: European Commission
How much: Up to EUR 2,000,000
What is it for: Support collaborative projects boosting media sustainability, innovation, and transformation
How long: Up to 24 months
Deadline: February 4th, 2026
Eligible countries: Creative Europe participating countries (EU member states, including overseas countries and territories, and non-EU countries associated to the Creative Europe Programme)
CREA - European slate development - NEW
Who: European Commission
How much: EUR 90,000 - 510,000
What is it for: Support to develop slates of fiction, animation, or documentary projects for cinema, TV, or digital release
How long: Up to 36 months
Deadline: December 3rd, 2025
Eligible countries: Creative Europe participating countries (EU member states, including overseas countries and territories, and non-EU countries associated to the Creative Europe Programme)
CREA - Media Literacy - NEW
Who: European Commission
How much: Up to EUR 500,000
What is it for: Support innovative cross-border media literacy projects
How long: Up to 24 months
Deadline: March 11th, 2026
Eligible countries: Creative Europe participating countries (EU member states, including overseas countries and territories, and non-EU countries associated to the Creative Europe Programme)
Information measures for the EU Cohesion policy for 2025- NEW
Who: European Commission
How much: Up to EUR 200,000
What is it for: Producing and disseminating content on EU Cohesion policy
How long: 12 months
Deadline: January 15th, 2026
Eligible countries: EU member states (including overseas countries and territories)
CREA - European co-development - NEW
Who: European Commission
How much: Up to EUR 120,000 – 200,000 (depending on the number of partners and project type)
What is it for: Co-development of audio-visual projects (fiction, animation, or documentary) by independent European production companies
How long: Up to 30 months
Deadline: February 25th, 2026
Eligible countries: Creative Europe participating countries (EU member states, including overseas countries and territories, and non-EU countries associated to the Creative Europe Programme)
CREA - TV and online content - Documentary project - NEW
Who: European Commission
How much: EUR 70,000 - 2,000,000
What is it for: Develop and produce documentary works (one-off or series) intended for TV or digital platforms
How long: Up to 36 months
Deadline: December 3rd, 2025
Eligible countries: Creative Europe participating countries (EU member states, including overseas countries and territories, and non-EU countries associated to the Creative Europe Programme)
Media Project Funding (Vienna Media Initiative)
Who: Vienna Business Agency
How much: Up to EUR 100,000
What is it for: Support to develop new media services
How long: Up to 2 years
Deadline: October 31st, 2025
Eligible countries: Austria (must be based in Vienna)
Ukraine: Relief, Resilience, Recovery - Media support
Who: German Marshall Fund
How much: Up to USD 25,000
What is it for: Support media’s role in informing audiences
How long: 3-12 months
Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible countries: Ukraine
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
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: January 22nd, 2026
Eligible countries: European countries
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: January 22nd, 2026
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: January 22nd, 2026
Eligible countries: European countries
Work/Environment Reporting Grants
Who: Pulitzer Center
How much: Up to USD 20,000
What is it for: Report on climate change and its effects on workers and work
Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible countries: Global
Western Balkans Environmental Media Grant 2025 - NEW
Who:
How much: EUR 10,000
What is it for: Support activities that improve media coverage of environmental challenges and solutions
How long: 12 months
Deadline: October 30th, 2025
Eligible countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Kosovo
WBF Matching Grants
Who: Western Balkans Fund
How much: Up to EUR 10,000
What is it for: Support to regional cooperation projects in Western Balkans
How long: Up to 4 months
Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia
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
Kosovo Local Media Booster - NEW
Who: LuxDev
How much: Up to EUR 5,000
What is it for: Support and mentoring for journalism countering misinformation, AI, and disruption
How long: 6 months
Deadline: October 31st, 2025
Eligible countries: Kosovo
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