Misunderstanding the power of opinion writing
Impenetrable paywalls, monetization tools, investing in communities instead of scale and 20 active calls.
Welcome!
This week on the Media Finance Monitor:
Opinion was one of the best selling journalism products. Let’s see if we can break it.
If you have a paywall, the less you show, the more likely readers are to subscribe
People don’t care about your scale, they care about your community
Monetization tools and strategies from Eastern Europe
20 active calls (4 new)
Misunderstanding the power of opinion writing
During my research at RISJ, I analyzed which editorial products drove the most conversions. Unsurprisingly, Opinion performed exceptionally well—so well, in fact, that some editors grew uneasy about its dominance. One editor, who ran a highly successful subscription program, put it bluntly:
“A strong opinion piece may be driving lots of conversions, but focusing more and more on those instead of nuanced and unbiased reporting goes against our mission. Others do it, we do it too, but it's not a good thing. We should be cooling debates, not heating them further.”
That was in 2021. Safe to say, cooler heads did not prevail.
I bring this up because Opinion journalism is once again in the spotlight—at least in mine—after two high-profile resignations in U.S. media.
David Shipley, the Washington Post’s Opinion editor, resigned last week following Jeff Bezos’s announcement of a new(ish) editorial direction:
“We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.”
I'm a huge fan of free markets and even more enthusiastic about personal liberties, so count me in. I am, however, slightly confused by the announcement. I never thought of the Post's Opinion section as the go-to destination for arguments promoting state-controlled economies and fewer personal freedoms. Given the current political climate in the US, I'm left wondering if this is Bezos's version of tattooing a red baseball cap-wearing bald eagle across his lower back.
The Post already lost hundreds of thousands of subscribers in October over Bezos’s decision not to endorse Kamala Harris. While financially painful, that move likely made sense for his broader business interests. Similarly, this shift in the Opinion section might cost some readers but could bolster his standing in the MAGA universe.
A few weeks earlier, another major departure made waves: Paul Krugman announced he was leaving the New York Times after 25 years, citing excessive editorial interference—restrictions on length, frequency, and overall control.
We only have Krugman’s account, but it’s plausible. It highlights how even the most powerful institutions in journalism fail to understand the shifting structure of public discourse.
Krugman doesn’t need the NYT to reach an audience or make a living (not that he was living paycheck to paycheck anyway). He launched a Substack, quickly amassed over 250,000 subscribers, and has tens of thousands of paying readers—all while rarely using a paywall. I'm sure his NYT columns were widely read, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he now has a similar reach, more income, and far greater freedom. (A story idea about free markets and personal liberties for the Washington Post’s new Opinion section, if I ever saw one.)
Noah Smith described an identical dynamic when he left Bloomberg, citing similar constraints—word limits, timing delays, multiple editorial layers, and an inability to respond quickly to breaking events. Established media institutions, deeply invested in their own models, fail to recognize that readers now have more and better alternatives. Audiences increasingly connect with individual voices rather than institutions, and a rigid, unified editorial tone is no longer desirable—it’s a liability.
Fifteen years ago, even top-tier writers like Krugman or Smith had few alternatives. Today, a writer with a fraction of their audience can build a successful Substack. Smith also argues that analysis—a blend of fact and opinion—is now the most in-demand editorial product, yet major newsrooms remain ill-equipped or unwilling to embrace it. Independent platforms, however, thrive on it.
Opinion sections at major newspapers were once the pinnacle of public discourse, but times have changed dramatically. I think the NYT and the Washington Post (or Bezos) have very different motivations for trying to meddle with their opinion sections but probably both overestimate the power they have—both over their own staff, many of whom can simply leave, and the relevance of opinion sections in general in an age where anyone can instantly access the highest quality analysis on any topic practically for free.
The departures of figures like Krugman, Smith and Shipley signal something more profound than editorial disagreements. They represent a fundamental shift in media power dynamics, where individual voices with dedicated followings no longer need institutional backing to thrive. As traditional gatekeepers continue grasping for control in a decentralized information ecosystem, they may find themselves holding onto an increasingly outdated model of influence.
If you have a paywall, the less you show, the more likely readers are to subscribe
There is an awesome study published online titled: Converting Online News Visitors to Subscribers: Exploring the Effectiveness of Paywall Strategies Using Behavioural Data looking at some of the factors influencing the decision to subscribe when people encounter a paywall. The one sentence summary: showing any information beyond the headline will decrease the likelihood of readers clicking on the “Subscribe” button, therefore the most effective strategy is to block everything apart from the title for maximum conversions. Showing a lead or an intro reduces the likelihood of clicking the “Subscribe” button by 86% and 72% respectively, which is a pretty massive drop.
The study was my favorite kind, analyzing actual user behavior from 21 German and Austrian websites rather than asking people what they do, which can be unreliable, especially if you are trying to map complex behaviours around highly technical features the readers may not even be able to identify.
However, while this may be the most effective strategy from a pure conversion standpoint, it's not necessarily the only valid approach—or even the best one for every context and newsroom. People have complex motivations for payment that can be difficult to capture in a single study, no matter how comprehensive.
If we look at user needs through a traditional framework, the study primarily addresses cognitive needs—people want information and are willing to pay for it. Examining this as a purely transactional relationship, it makes perfect sense to limit the amount of information available for free. Create information scarcity, and conversions increase.
But there are other important needs driving subscription decisions that go well beyond information access.
Take my subscription to The New Yorker. I maintain a full print subscription, yet I rarely find time to actually read it. Despite this, canceling has never seriously crossed my mind. When guests visit, the latest issue mysteriously appears on the sofa, only to be conspicuously removed when everyone sits down: "Oh, let me put this away." I'm investing not in content access but in self-image—I want to see myself as the type of person who reads The New Yorker, and I certainly want my friends to perceive me that way too.
This subscription has nothing to do with information and everything to do with my desire to confirm my status, both for myself and before my peers. The New Yorker's digital paywall placement has little relevance to this motivation, despite it very much influencing my willingness to pay. I'm not paying for information—I'm paying for status.
There are other factors to consider as well.
Paywalls do restrict access to content (information) and in some environments, let's say repressive and low choice, this may not align with the public service mission of some newsrooms. These organizations could decide to use a paywall (as it remains a super effective tool to elicit payment) but do provide an extensive intro at the beginning of the article, to make sure the most crucial piece of information is available to every reader, not just those who can afford it.
This isn't to dismiss the study's findings—it provides valuable data on one dimension of subscription behavior and sometimes you want to or need to optimize for transactional efficiency. But successful subscription strategies need to account for the full spectrum of human motivations, from the practical to the emotional to the social.
People don’t care about your scale, they care about your community
Continuing on this trajectory, another study worth examining comes from The Verge and Vox Media, exploring how Americans perceive the internet, the value of platforms, and the role of content and community.
First, it’s important to note that this survey seems to reflect the views of extremely online people in the U.S.
When asked “Which of the following online spaces do you feel connected to and part of a larger conversation (even if only reading posts/content/articles vs actively participating)?” Fediverse leads with 43%. This is a little surprising because I barely understand what the Fediverse is, let alone feel connected to it. And I consider myself pretty plugged in. So I have some doubts about how representative the study truly is.
That said, there’s still plenty of value in the research (this is the fullest version I found). It accurately captures the shift away from mass platforms and toward more meaningful, community-driven spaces.
Not everyone cares about scale. Some people want a smaller, more tailored experience that feels relevant to them. This presents a real opportunity for newsrooms, organizations, and individuals willing to move away from chasing mass audiences in favor of serving smaller, tightly connected communities.
This shift is captured best on this slide, people answering the following question: “Now, imagine you're really into cooking (maybe you are!). Below are different ways you could connect with others who share this same interest. By your own definition, which would you classify as a 'community' vs not?”
These kinds of niche spaces exist for virtually every interest. If you’re in the content business (and if you’re reading this, I assume you are), you should be thinking about where audiences are gathering and whether you’re engaging with them in those spaces.
Having strong homepage traffic is great—but it may not last forever. You need to meet audiences where they are. However, the goal shouldn’t be to simply use YouTube, Instagram, or other platforms as a funnel to drive people back to your website—that’s just not realistic for most publishers. Instead, the focus should be on engaging meaningfully within those ecosystems and, where possible, monetizing attention directly.
Sure, it’s easier on some platforms and harder on some others, but I think we need to accept that we have an increasingly fragmented internet, and building large things that are still appealing enough to get people paying is increasingly difficult.
Monetization tools and strategies from Eastern Europe
The excellent Patrick Boehler sent me another great study (this is the last one for this edition) looking at the tools and strategies people in Armenia, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine use to drive audience revenues.
First of all, I think the paper shows the huge divide between countries that are part of the “Western” payment / fintech ecosystem and those outside.
Take Stripe, for example. It’s widely available, easy to use, continuously developed, and trusted by audiences—usually my first recommendation for publishers looking for a payment processing solution. But in countries where Stripe isn’t an option, payment becomes an immediate challenge, adding unnecessary friction to the process—something you never want. A smooth payment flow isn’t just a technical detail; it can make or break an audience revenue program.
I have immense respect for newsrooms that not only have to produce high-quality content, foster engaged communities, and develop meaningful benefits for their readers, but also navigate complex payment landscapes. Some have to build their own solutions or settle for less-than-optimal alternatives—an extra burden their counterparts in the Global North rarely face.
That said, the study highlights the tools available in these countries (some of which can be accessed through partnerships with legal entities registered in places like Poland—yet another layer of complexity). It also details how organizations are using them to sustain their work.
Even if you’re outside Central and Eastern Europe, the study offers a useful starting point for understanding the monetization options available to individuals and organizations creating content in challenging environments.
Here are the active calls, with the largest at the top:
Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Programme (CERV)
Who: European Commission
How much: EUR 75,000 - 8,000,000
What is it for: Counter disinformation, information manipulation and interference in the democratic debate
How long: 12 - 24 months
Deadline: April 29th, 2025
Eligible countries: EU member states (including overseas countries and territories), countries associated to the CERV Programme or countries which are in ongoing negotiations for an association agreement and where the agreement enters into force before grant signature
A European public sphere: a new online media offer for young Europeans
Who: European Commission
How much: EUR 1,500,000 and EUR 3,200,000
What is it for: Engage young Europeans in pan-European discussions
How long: 12-14 months
Deadline: March 24th, 2025
Eligible countries: EU Member States, including overseas countries and territories
European Festival of Journalism and Media Freedom
Who: European Commission
How much: EUR 3,000,000
What is it for: Organize the European Festival of Journalism and Media Freedom
How long: 24 - 27 months
Deadline: March 31st, 2025
Eligible countries: EU Member States (including overseas countries and territories)
Media Freedom Hub 2025
Who: European Commission
How much: EUR 2,940,000
What is it for: Support independent Russian and Belarusian media based in the EU
How long: 22 - 24 months
Deadline: March 14th, 2025
Eligible countries: EU Member States (including overseas countries and territories)
Prevention of irregular migration through awareness raising
Who: European Commission
How much: EUR 1,250,000 - 2,500,000
What is it for: Prevent irregular migration through information campaigns
How long: 36 months
Deadline: April 1st, 2025
Eligible countries: EU Member States, including overseas countries and territories
Making online spaces safer, more trustworthy and inclusive
Who: Civitates
How much: Up to EUR 150,000
What is it for: Media resilience and sustainability
How long: Over 24 months
Deadline: March 14th, 2025
Eligible countries: Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Spain.
Climate Story Fund - NEW
Who: Doc Society
How much: Up to USD 125,000
What is it for: Completion of nonfiction production and impact pilots for finished nonfiction and fiction projects
Deadline: March 10th, 2025
How long: Up to 12 months
Eligible countries: Global
Enhancing Media Resilience and Quality News Journalism - NEW
Who: Open Society Institute – Sofia
How much: Up to EUR 60,000
What is it for: Enhance media resilience and promote quality news journalism
How long: Up to 12 months
Deadline: April 7th, 2025
Eligible countries: Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, and Slovenia.
IJ4EU’s Investigation Support Scheme
Who: IJ4EU
How much: Up to EUR 50,000
What is it for: Cross-border investigative journalism
Deadline: March 10th, 2025
Eligible countries: All 27 EU member states and the following non-EU countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Serbia and Ukraine.
Visegrad Grants
Who: Visegrad Fund
How much: Up to EUR 30,000
What is it for: Media literacy, disinformation, transparency
How long: Up to 18 months
Deadline: June 1st, 2025
Eligible countries: V4 countries (Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia). * Consortia required.
Visegrad+ Grants
Who: Visegrad Fund
How much: Up to EUR 30,000
What is it for: Media literacy, disinformation, transparency
How long: Up to 18 months
Deadline: June 1st, 2025
Eligible countries: V4 countries (Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia), Western Balkans (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia) and the Eastern Partnership regions (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.
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: May 22nd, 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: April 3rd, 2025
Eligible countries: European countries
Fossil Fuel Grants Programme
Who: Journalismfund Europe
How much: Up to EUR 20,000
What is it for: Cross-border research on unreported activities of European fossil fuel companies
Deadline: April 3th, 2025
Eligible countries: European countries
European Cross-Border Grants Programme
Who: Journalismfund Europe
How much: Unclear, but likely up to EUR 14,000
What is it for: Cross-border investigative content
Deadline: March 27th, 2025
Eligible countries: At least 80% of the requested budget should go to local journalists/media from EU countries
European Local Cross-Border Grants Programme
Who: Journalismfund Europe
How much: Unclear, but likely up to EUR 10,000
What is it for: Local cross-border investigative content
Deadline: March 27th, 2025
Eligible countries: EU countries
Microgrants for Small Newsrooms
Who: Journalismfund Europe
How much: Up to EUR 5,000
What is it for: Capacity building for small news outlets
Deadline: April 3rd, 2025
Eligible countries: Creative Europe participating countries (EU member states and non-EU countries associated to the Creative Europe Programme)
Media Innovation Europe 2.0 - NEW
Who: Thomson Foundation
How much: EUR 5,000
What is it for: Validation of new digital business ideas (products/services)
How long: 6 months
Deadline: April 1st, 2025
Eligible countries: Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Ukraine.
Pluralistic Media for Democracy
Who: Journalismfund Europe and IMS
How much: Unclear (call amount: EUR 700,000)
What is it for: Support media in "news deserts"
Deadline: June 12th, 2025
Eligible countries: EU 27 countries, including Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia.
Science Misinformation Journalism Grant - NEW
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
Until the next issue, thanks for reading and take care.
Peter Erdelyi and the rest of the Center for Sustainable Media team