The monstrous levers controlling online traffic
Events (and perhaps left wing commentary) are the new gold, an all-expense paid workshop with us in Budapest and 21 active calls.
Welcome
This week on Media Finance Monitor
The monstrous levers controlling online traffic
Events (and perhaps left wing commentary) are the new gold
We are organising an all-expenses covered in-person workshop in Budapest. Apply here.
We want to hear from you about the next EU Budget
21 active calls (3 new)
The monstrous levers controlling online traffic
I spent quite a few years reporting on extremist groups in the 2010s, which exposed me to some remarkably conspiratorial thinkers. While they eagerly debated whether the Freemasons, lizard people, or the Israelites were secretly trying to subjugate Hungary to seize our hidden freshwater reserves, they all shared one implicit belief: the world was simpler than it appeared, controlled by a small cabal pulling strings from the shadows.
I found this fascinating, since my experience (as a Freemason-lizard-Israelite, naturally) constantly reminded me how even seemingly simple events are impossibly complex, how control is mostly illusion, and how even the most powerful people struggle against the world's crushing inertia. But looking at recent online traffic patterns, I'm starting to wonder if the conspiracy theorists had a point, at least on some abstract level.
New data from Profound, an AI optimization company, reveals just how dramatically traffic patterns shift when OpenAI tweaks its source preferences. According to their analysis of over a billion ChatGPT citations and a million referral visits, we're witnessing a massive consolidation of online authority.
The numbers are striking: Since mid-July, miscellaneous referral traffic has dropped 52%. Meanwhile, Reddit citations surged 87%, Wikipedia jumped 62%, and just three sites (Reddit, Wikipedia, and TechRadar) now control 22% of all ChatGPT citations. That's one in five answers drawing from the same three sources.
I'll take these specific figures with a grain of salt (there's no way to independently verify them), but the trend feels uncomfortably real. As AI adoption reaches intergalactic scale and conversational queries become the dominant mode of information discovery, these platforms are winning by default. They have answers in the formats people actually want: "What are the top 5 cheapest Roman emperors for a romantic autumn afternoon?"
I'm not thrilled about operating downstream from Big Tech's experiments either. OpenAI's citation adjustments created a 52% traffic drop very quickly, being on the wrong end of that is being crushed by an unstoppable hammer, there is nothing you can do about it. But if we calibrate our happiness around how much power these companies wield, we'll spend all our time moping while they remain just as dominant.
Instead, let's focus on what we can control. Why are certain sources surfaced? How can we structure content to remain discoverable? You can run easy experiments in an Incognito window and see if your content is referenced for your strongest topics. If so, great. If not, who is there and what are they doing differently? I'm not saying "pivot to video" (I promise), but AI will increasingly determine discoverability, and it's worth exploring low-lift ways to stay visible. Last week we had our first visitor from Perplexity at funds4media.org, so there's hope yet.
Events (and perhaps left wing commentary) are the new gold
Semafor just announced that events now represent more than 50% of their revenues. Sometimes called "live journalism," events were always central to Semafor's strategy, and I think there are several reasons why they're working out remarkably well.
Their World Economy Summit competes directly with Davos at a time when the US is more inward-looking than any point in recent memory. Gathering Fortune 500 CEOs in DC rather than the Swiss Alps perfectly captures the current zeitgeist.
Semafor also has crystalline clarity about their audience: CEOs and executives of very large companies, top decision-makers from adjacent sectors, and aspirational consumers who dream of becoming supporting characters from Succession. This audience has disposable income to burn, and many events come with the explicit promise of networking, deal-making, shoulder-rubbing, and generally advancing one's career and/or social status.
While a chauvinist takeover in South-Eastern Poland probably presents fewer lucrative business opportunities for local publications, identifying specific audience segments with money to spend (CEE IT professionals hunting remote US tech jobs, restaurant owners seeking the next smashburger sensation) can still inform a coherent event strategy.
But even more importantly: events deliver what people actually want and what media ventures can uniquely provide: meaningful connections with other humans. As discussed above, providing essential information as a business proposition is becoming increasingly tricky at scale. There are good-enough substitutes for so many forms of journalism. But real, live, person-to-person connection cannot be automated or large-language-modeled away. (Yet.)
In fact, the more impersonal/remote our lives become (we order in, work from home, watch DepQ on Netflix, play online, engage with digital communities), the more certain people will value physical-space connections, whether at exclusive CEO dinners or 400 people weeping together at my friend Cristi Lupsa's Power of Storytelling event.
Beyond connections, events matter because they're identity markers. At the excellent Perugia International Journalism Festival, accomplished professionals (=me) wear their red speaker badges at Bar Brufani late into the night for no reason other than to signal they're Very Important IJF Speakers.
People pay for identity, as demonstrated by Krytyka Polityczna's recent fundraising success in Poland. (Disclaimer: we work with them on product and business development, but they didn't ask for this mention.) Under new chief editor Kaja Puto and her deputy Slawek Blich, they're relaunching their tech infrastructure, rethinking audience revenues, and leaning harder into the magazine's left-wing legacy, willing to ruffle centrist feathers.
Financially, their approach seems to be paying off: a single email about the site relaunch, reminding supporters of their editorial direction and requesting support, generated more revenue than any single fundraising email in the past. Complex dynamics are at play, but having a clear identity (and therefore being a small part of the audience's identity) clearly matters.
We are organising an all-expenses covered in-person workshop in Budapest. Apply here.
If you're somewhere in Central and Eastern Europe or the Balkans and want to spend two and a half days with us workshopping news products, revenues, and financial sustainability (all expenses covered) then boy, do I have good news for you.
In collaboration with the Goethe-Institut and the Perspectives project, we're organizing an intimate Media Entrepreneurship Program featuring four online group learning sessions in October, followed by a 3-day all-expenses-paid workshop in Budapest in mid-November.
It's essentially like being immersed in this newsletter for three days straight, which could be either thrilling or terrifying, depending on how much you appreciate my perspective on the media business (or my attempts at humor).
On the more serious side, we'll be diving into:
Product and service design
Revenue streams and diversification
Business planning and forecasting
Audience research and survey methodology
Publishing technology and tools
And plenty more
Read the full call and submit your application here.
We're evaluating submissions on a rolling basis with spots for 6 media ventures (12 people total), so don't wait too long.
Tell us what you think about the next EU budget
I’ll be giving input on the proposed AgoraEU program next week in Brussels (I’ll be remote, but still). If you have strong opinions, I would love to hear from you. My schedule is pretty hectic, so I can’t promise a call, but I would really (REALLY) appreciate if you sent a few paragraphs with your perspective to peter@funds4media.org
If you have no idea what I’m talking about and are new to the EU budget negotiation process, start here:
How to persuade the EU to spend hundreds of millions on journalism no one seems to care about?
The new EU budget promises a big boost for journalism. It’s probably too good to be true.
An in-depth look at the most important media funding programs proposed in the new EU budget
Here are the active calls, with the largest at the top:
European Media Hubs
Who: European Commission
How much: EUR 1,500,000 - 3,800,000
What is it for: to support independent reporting on EU affairs by European-level newsrooms
Deadline: September 29th, 2025
Eligible countries: EU member states (including overseas countries and territories) + Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Türkiye, Ukraine. Potential candidate: Kosovo
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)g
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
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
Production grants for independent media - NEW
Who: Goethe-Institut and DW Akademie
How much: Up to EUR 30,000
What is it for: Support public service journalism in the Western Balkans
How long: Up to 8 months
Deadline: September 18th, 2025
Eligible countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo*, Montenegro, North Macedonia, or Serbia
Visegrad Grants - NEW
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: October 1st, 2025
Eligible countries: V4 countries (Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia). * Consortia required
Visegrad+ Grants - NEW
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: October 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
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
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
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
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