I hadn’t considered printing presses as security infrastructure until I spoke to some people from Lithuania last week at the Reinventing Media Business conference in Riga. They explained that when Russia attacks (and they said when, not if) and disrupts internet access, the ability to print and distribute newspapers could be critical to keeping people informed.
Later that night, over some chicken in Georgian garlic sauce so good I was considering asking for a straw, we had a lighter conversation with media executives from the US and Europe. Should publishers be worried about their top writers leaving for Substack or similar?
Media Finance Monitor is where newsroom leaders, funders, and media entrepreneurs come to understand how money moves through the information ecosystem. We decode funding, business models, policy, and platform shifts and turn them into strategies you can actually use.
Paid subscribers get premium editions, full access to the archive and all our research reports, for about the cost of a pistachio éclair and a good espresso a month.
For deeper engagement, our Partnership Program offers one-on-one strategic advisory, curated briefings, and access to our internal databases and invite-only events.
One answer was reassuring: yes, it happens, but how many successful journalists actually want to run a business? A good newsroom pays you to report and write while other people handle technology, distribution, contracts and administration. Going independent instantly burdens you with several additional jobs that you probably never wanted.
This is very real. I like this newsletter a lot and I’m the kind of person who actually enjoys many of the other tasks too, but I still need to put it together every week, and sometimes (=right now, Wednesday night, as I’m writing this in my hotel room in Hamburg) I’d be very happy doing other things. Independence has attractions, but a lighter workload is not one of them.
But the fact that not everyone wants to become a creator is a limited defence against a market increasingly organised around those who do.
Belgian publisher Mediahuis has taken a minority stake in Kessel, a French answer to Substack. The founders retain majority ownership; the price and the exact percentage acquired have not been disclosed. Kessel helps people publish newsletters, build audiences and charge subscriptions and it also sells advertising and supports production and talent development. Mediahuis says its investment will strengthen Kessel’s technology and commercial capabilities.
I feel mildly validated. In March, Milo and I argued that Europe should buy Substack. Yes, this is a smaller transaction with a different company (my capacity to claim vindication is considerable), but I think it’s a step in a similar direction.
Our argument was that Europe should own more of the infrastructure through which information circulates. We also liked the incentives: helping people build direct relationships with audiences willing to pay for their work. Subscriptions do not guarantee quality, but persuading someone to pay and renew usually requires something more substantial than getting them to click once.
It is good to see a European publisher investing in that proposition.
Culturally coded critical infrastructure
These products overlap without being interchangeable. Steady grew out of Germany’s independent media world. Kessel is rooted in France. Substack has international reach but retains an American cultural center of gravity. Alongside the software, each offers a sense of who belongs there.
In the rest of this edition:
The cultural and commercial barriers that make scaling across Europe difficult.
Which publishing functions platforms can now provide, and where institutions still bring real value.
What the latest celebrity journalist leaving a prestigious newsroom tells us about going solo.
The choices publishers still have as the way information is produced, distributed and consumed changes around them.