The media industry should have built tech. You specifically shouldn't.
A rare European media acquisition, creators working for equity instead of cash, our MFF policy survey, a case study in profitable local news and 17 active calls.
Welcome!
This week on Media Finance Monitor
The media industry should have built tech. You specifically shouldn’t.
Finally, a media company is getting acquired in Europe! (Okay, it’s a little bit of a tech company, but still.)
Giving your company away, one influencer at a time
Help us shape EU media policy. Pretty please!
Turning a local community newspaper profitable
17 active calls (3 new)
We’ll likely skip next week’s issue but plan to be back on the 16th. Thanks for bearing with us.
The media industry should have built tech. You specifically shouldn’t.
Around five years ago, I was working for a large publisher looking for a new CRM, the piece of tech at the heart of most digital audience revenue programs. We approached a major technology provider about their solution. After an impressive demo, they told us they loved our journalism and our mission aligned perfectly with theirs. So just for us, just that day, just because we rocked so much, they offered a very special price: $150,000 per year. It really made me feel warm and fuzzy inside before turning this generous offer down.
This year, working with another publisher, we approached a provider about a similar solution. This time the final offer was around €50,000. Now, that’s still a lot of money, many newsrooms absolutely cannot invest that kind of sum. But the comparison shows you how dramatically publishing technology costs have dropped. This is overwhelmingly good news. Technology is no longer the massive constraint it once was.
I’m bringing this up because my friend Ali Mahmood recently published an excellent piece on his Substack, exploring the trade-offs between developing and buying technology. He arrives at roughly the same conclusion I do when advising clients: I’d say nine out of ten times, developing your own technology doesn’t make sense for most publishers.
I don’t say this lightly.
In some ways, not investing in technology was the media industry’s original sin. In the late 1990s, media companies had resources and talent. They could have invested heavily in technology, but they didn’t. Publishers said, “Technology is someone else’s job”, and doubled down on content. So other actors came along, and big tech companies gradually became the dominant force in the attention economy. Publishers got their wish, but it turns out content is easy to reproduce and the infrastructure and distribution are where you actually capture a lot of the value.
Still, for most publishers, especially small and medium-sized entities in Central and Eastern Europe, developing your own technology usually doesn’t make sense. Tech development is hard. Getting good people is brutally difficult because you’re competing globally, and talented developers can command astronomical salaries news organizations simply cannot match. Buying is almost always the better choice.
But buying is not trivial either because there are so many good options. This is where process matters a lot. Define your requirements, look at solutions, and ask for demos. Demos are especially important: they’ll show you features you didn’t know existed and inspire you to think differently about content and products.
About two years ago, we worked with a small publisher considering replacing the tech behind their payment infrastructure. We organized a demo with a solutions provider but in addition to management and editorial leadership, we also invited the two developers that maintained their WordPress based solution. The developers watched the demo and got upset. “How dare this provider offer this for this price? We can do this over the weekend!” Those local developers got so annoyed they actually built something similar. It worked for a while. It shows demos can be genuinely inspiring, and if you can’t guilt your developers into doing something, maybe you can spite them into it.
Let me also recommend four resources.
First, Full Stack Journalism, where independent newsrooms share information about technology: a catalog of solutions, providers, and who’s using them. Second, Open Subscription Platforms, which compares subscription software. It’s basic but shows you the market breadth and, usefully, compares data exports. The third is INMA’s CMS Vendor comparison tool which describes some of the feature set of CMS systems. And last but not least, our 2025 Newsletter Playbook that (I know this is going to be a shocker) compares some newsletter software solutions and also has 19 awesome case studies.
Finally, a media company is getting acquired in Europe! (Okay, it’s a little bit of a tech company, but still.)
Back in August, we published a piece called “The Definitive Guide to Doing Media Wrong“ comparing how capital flows (or doesn’t flow) in US versus European media markets. I wrote about how there’s essentially no capital moving around in European media. Turns out I wasn’t 100% right or at least there are exceptions to every rule.
This week, the Zetland Group, which publishes Zetland in Denmark and Uusi Juttu in Finland, announced that Bonnier, a large Swedish publisher, has acquired a majority stake in the company.
I think one problem with media acquisitions is that they’re incredibly personality-dependent. You’re buying a chief editor, a newsroom, and (hopefully) an audience, but these still are volatile assets in the sense that people can quit and leave. Sure, you can get leadership to sign retention agreements, but it’s not like buying a factory or real estate. There are a lot more moving parts.
What’s different about Zetland is they’re not purely an editorial play. Zetland wanted to create content for younger audiences and deliver it through audio, so they built a native app, the best way to deliver an audio-centric experience. They have strong editorial offerings, absolutely, but their value isn’t purely editorial leadership and gifted journalists. They have the right mix of editorial quality and technology innovation.
They were also smart about moving this app around. They recently launched in Finland and they’re looking at other markets: in Austria, Jetzt is launching using Zetland’s technology and editorial approach.
It’s worth noting that their CEO, Tav Klitgaard, actually came from tech, he used to be a product manager. When the newsroom needed a transcription tool, they built Good Tape, an app for transcribing audio that was initially used internally and then got spun off into its own business. They’ve always had this affinity for tech and developed the right blend of premium journalism and technology.
It matters, too, that they have a real audience: across their two markets, 70 thousand people pay for their content. This isn’t some empty tech concept, it’s content plus technology delivering something people actually pay for.
For Bonnier, this makes sense, since it’s very difficult to find hot talent, hot properties, and tech to revitalize your portfolio. For Zetland they get an influx of capital that will enable further expansion and growth.
I think this is also a sign of consolidation and the pendulum swinging toward more bundling. Successful startups and properties are emerging, and bigger, more legacy publishers are taking note, acquiring talent, audiences, and solutions. There’s always this hope that this new group of people, this new technology, this new approach will revitalize and energize core operations.
Heartfelt congratulations to Tav, Lea and the entire Zetland team. This is awesome, and I hope there are more good things ahead for them.
Giving your company away, one influencer at a time
The PublishPress recently covered a startup called OWM with a wild concept: creators promote brands in exchange for equity instead of cash.
Here’s how it’s supposed to work.
Founders pitch their ideas to OWM.
OWM generates a customer profile (with AI, including AI is mandatory for all startup ideas), finds creators who influence that brand’s target audience, and reaches out to them.
The creator assesses the brand, and if they like, OWM facilitates a deal.
The creator makes content about the brand and gets equity in return.
On one hand, this is a fascinating idea I’d love to see work. On the other, it feels like it was generated by an AI trained exclusively on TechCrunch headlines, creator economy manifestos and “disruption” think pieces.
Do startups really need the exposure creators offer so much they are willing to give up equity for it? Maybe, if you’re building a consumer-facing product, a creator and the audience they bring can be extremely useful. But I’m not entirely sure serious founders would give up equity in exchange for promotion, especially when promotion doesn’t guarantee a specific result.
There’s a reason serious media companies don’t really do transactional advertising, deals based on clicks or purchases. Transactions are complicated, there’s friction, and there are factors the media company can’t control. The creator can only guarantee exposure, and as a founder, even if you trust yourself completely, there’s too much else in the mix that influences purchase decisions. For most businesses, giving up equity for exposure sounds like a questionable trade.
(By the way, we also carry advertising, though not for equity. If you want to promote your service or product, I absolutely won’t guarantee clicks or transactions, but I’m happy to put it in front of 1,700+ media executives/managers in Europe and around the world. But I digress.)
I understand that many founders don’t have money, they have the idea, the product, the service. So maybe for some, this is an alternative. But my worry is that the people willing to give up equity don’t have serious products. And if a product or service doesn’t look good, there’s still risk for the creator. You don’t want to promote things that aren’t great. Even in purely commercial relationships (ads, sponsorships) you want to make sure what you’re promoting is relevant and actually good for your audience. That’s when advertising works well.
I’m still fascinated by this concept and curious to see how it works out. I’m eager to hear success stories or, frankly, fuck-up stories. But I lack the imagination to see a founder with a really cool idea they truly believe in saying, “Yes, I’ll give up equity for what’s basically an ad.“
Help us shape EU media policy. Pretty please!
I’ve written about the next MFF (the EU’s big seven-year budget starting in 2028) so many times already, and you’re probably bored out of your minds. But here’s where we are, again: the European Commission’s first draft more than doubles funding for journalism compared to the current budget. There’s still a lot of work ahead to make sure the information ecosystem gets its fair share.
Right now, we’re running a survey for media companies, journalists, NGOs, think tanks, academics and anyone else willing to answer. We want to understand your policy priorities and what you want from the MFF negotiations.
It takes five minutes. You can leave your email and name, but you don’t have to—it can be completely anonymous. Please take five minutes and respond. It will help us enormously.
Thank you <3
Turning a local community newspaper profitable
In 2020, when Keith Becker bought a cluster of Atlanta community newspapers, nearly all revenue came from print and few believed local papers had much of a future. By Q3 2025, Rough Draft Atlanta reports revenue up 30% year-over-year, with digital income tripling since the acquisition. Becker’s interview on The Rebooting Show with Brian Morrissey highlights key challenges and opportunities for similar publishers. If you’re running a local or community newsroom, it’s well worth a listen.
High-value advertiser alignment: Much of Rough Draft’s revenue comes from sectors like real estate, healthcare, finance, and private schools. These businesses may not transact daily, but each deal is worth a lot, making them more willing to pay for advertising that reaches the right local audience. Hyperlocal outlets can deliver that kind of precision and trust.
Split distribution channels: Rough Draft reaches households once a month with ~90,000 copies delivered by post and connects daily with ~50,000 newsletter subscribers plus smaller vertical lists. Print reaches physical mailboxes, that are nowadays actually less crowded than digital inboxes , while email provides frequency and room to expand.
Variable production formats: Their monthly tabloid can run anywhere from slim issues to 56 pages, with print costs moving up or down with ad sales. This keeps margins steadier when demand softens and lets them scale up in strong months without locking in higher fixed costs.
Content balance for sustainability: Coverage runs from city council meetings to dining guides. As Becker said the goal is to be “meaningful, not massive”: civic enough to matter, commercial enough to sustain the operation.
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. It does not reflect their views, they don’t have views on Rough Draft Atlanta, I promise.
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 - NEW
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)
Media Project Funding (Vienna Media Initiative)
Who: Vienna Business Agency
How much: Up to EUR 100,000
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)
Ukraine: Relief, Resilience, Recovery - Media support - NEW
Who: German Marshall Fund
How much: Up to EUR 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 - NEW
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: 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: October 16th, 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
WBF Matching Grants
Who: Western Balkans Fund
How much: Up to EUR 10,000
What is it for: Supporting 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
Support for Small Media in the Western Balkans
Who: The SMS Facility – Small Media Support project
How much: Up to EUR 4,900
What is it for: Strengthening local media to safeguard expression and pluralism
How long: Up to 12 months
Deadline: October 17th, 2025
Eligible countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro,
Kosovo, North Macedonia, and Serbia)
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