Tag: #journalists

Posted on

Tav Klitgaard, CEO Zetland: “We don’t like perfect, because perfect is not trustworthy”

The Danish news media Zetland belongs among the few big success stories in European digital media brands. It was profitable three years after being launched, attracts a comparatively young audience and is set to launch a new brand in Finland in January 2025. I spoke to their CEO Tav Klitgaard about how to engage audiences, working business models and the future of journalism in an AI-supported word.    

Tav, interviews shouldn’t begin with praise, but Zetland is an outstanding success story in digital media. Your team founded it in 2016, it was profitable three years later. Today you have more than 40.000 digital subscribers. What do you do that others don’t

An advantage was that we did not have any print legacy when we started. We had the privilege of sitting down and thinking really hard about what does news media mean. Among other things, we found out that it means journalism is an experience. You have the content and then you have the distribution. Those two together create an experience. The value does not lie in the journalism. The value lies in the moment when the journalism becomes an experience that changes something in your head.

But you seem to be very proud of your journalism?

Sure, we are! But existing companies way too often produce journalism from a sender’s perspective. We always try to have a receiver perspective. I would see this as the key reason for our success.

Zetland doesn’t do breaking news but publishes just a few in-depth stories a day, it focuses on explanation and analysis and has offered everything in audio format from the beginning.

Our first principle is that we are our members. This is why we came up with audio, because we asked them and they said: ‘Well, I really would want to consume your articles, but I’ve been looking into a screen for 10 hours today and I’m tired of it.’ We said, then audio could be a thing for you. And it turned out we were right.

In the age of generative AI, converting stuff to audio will be very, very easy. Won’t you lose your competitive advantage when everyone can just press the audio button everywhere?

I believe the last frontier against AI is personality. Audio is awesome at creating an intimate relationship. So, when we create a human audio product, we don’t use an AI robot voice, because the problem with that is that it’s too good. It’s perfect. We don’t like perfect because perfect is not trustworthy. You should not be perfect, you should be a human. And that’s what we are doing in all our products, creating something that is human.

Managers from traditional news outlets envy you because your audience skews young.

We are not a news outlet for young people, but we do have a pretty young demographic. About 50 percent of our audience is in their 20s and 30s. And we believe that the way that you build trust within a younger audience is to be human. It’s a giga trend in the world that that the trust is moving from authorities to persons. That’s also the reason behind the success of Instagram or TikTok. That’s why we always focus on the tone of voice and the storytelling. We imagine ourselves to be your friend and get into the car with you and tell you the story from the passenger seat. The world is super interesting. But there needs to be energy and engagement behind the stories we tell.

Part of your distribution model is people need to pay for a membership, but they can share the story with as many people as they like to. Don’t you fear that many free riders are taking advantage of you?

That’s right, our readers can share everything for free. Actually, the more members share our content, the happier we are. It proves to us and themselves that it has value to them, and it means more people get to know us. Journalism is great when it is discussed, and it should be easy for our members to get someone to discuss it with. It’s also great for our sources that they can freely share what they told us in their own network.

A Zetland membership is pretty expensive compared to other digital subscriptions though. 

Yeah, it costs around 18 or 19 euros per month. I keep hearing: Young people don’t want to pay for news. That is not true. You have to look at the user needs. If people don’t want to pay, it’s because your product is not valuable to them. If you look at, let’s say, a person who is 25 years old. She has a strong need to understand the world. Who am I in this world? What does society mean for me? What do I mean for society? The key is to not require a whole lot of prior knowledge for her to understand the world but to tell her super interesting stories about the world. Younger audiences are underserved by the media, at least in Denmark. If you’re 60 and a doctor and live in Copenhagen, well, you have a plethora of options. If you’re 26 and a nurse working at a rural hospital, you don’t have a lot of places to go to in the media world. So, what happens? You end up at TikTok. The right price is whatever value the product gives to the user. Our average member spends more than seven hours per month with us. I think €18,50 is actually very cheap for seven hours of value.

Are you still growing or have you reached a ceiling with your particular audience?

We are growing very much. On the group level, we will have a revenue growth of at least 40 percent this year and I pretty conservatively project that to be the case next year, too. It’s not a 40 percent growth in Denmark, but it’s a 40 percent for the group which consists of journalism outlets in Denmark and now in Finland. And then we also sell other things, for instance, we sell books and technology.

So, you’re not only a media and journalism company, but also a tech company.

Exactly. The day before ChatGPT was launched, we launched our transcription service. That means very early on, we have been working with large language models and generative AI. The number one use case people think about when thinking about AI and journalism is transcription. So, we built a transcription service that for the first time ever has worked in Danish. That is basically contributing almost a quarter of our revenue this year. We also sell our distribution technology. We license the website and app and CMS that we built for Zetland to other media companies. It’s not something that we do to become filthy rich, but we need to be tech-savvy. Spotify is spending a gazillion dollars on tech development, and we need to be able to compete with Spotify.

You are planning to scale the Zetland concept internationally? Tell us about the Finnish project that you made headlines with recently.

The Finland case is super exciting for us. Three or four years ago we decided that we would begin the international journey. My background is within tech and in the tech industry, we always say if you have a product market fit, the next thing you need to do is scale. It’s not as easy as translating something, but we asked ourselves if the concept was replicable outside of Denmark. In the beginning of 2024, we hired a founding team in Finland and tasked them with creating a splash in the market to test whether our assumptions were right: that there is no big difference between Finnish people and Danish people in terms of what user needs they have. We talked about our mission of quality journalism and then said: If you’re willing to pay for this, we’re willing to build it. And that’s what we told them in September and October. What happened was that 10,000 Finns decided to prepay a subscription worth around 100 euros, which was much more than we had anticipated. We got 10,000 Finns to pay for something that does not exist!

When will it start to exist?

We are currently hiring a ton of people in Helsinki, a lot of journalists, and then we will start publishing the Finnish version of Zetland on 15th January.

What will you name it?

Zetland in Finland is called Uusi Juttu, meaning something like “The new thing”. Check it at uusijuttu.fi.

Do you have other markets where you have these kinds of assumptions or is this a Nordic thing? After all, the willingness to pay for journalism is much lower in other regions of Europe.

I think what we have learned to do in Denmark is very usable in a lot of different markets in Europe. It could also be outside of Europe, but it’s going to take us some time, some partners, and some money to be able to prove that I’m right.

Of course, I have to ask you about Germany now.

Well, Germany is definitely interesting, and it’s close to Denmark. If anyone who reads this thinks they want to build that in Germany, please reach out, because it’s also obvious for us that we are not going to be able to do it alone. We would need German partners who agree to our mission and are awesome journalists, tech people, and businesspeople.

Is there still some advice you could give to legacy media, or do you think they’re just lost?

If you have a print paper, you have to really, really think about why do you have a print paper? Most managers say: because it’s profitable. This means they do not focus 100 percent on the future and will innovate at a much slower pace.

What is the future of journalism in the age of AI?

I think there is a golden future for journalism. I think that the user needs that journalism fills are very much there, also among younger audiences. People need someone with feelings and with human intent to tell them about what’s going on. Plus, I believe that besides information, people want community and a sense of belonging. And I think journalism is wonderful at filling these needs. That’s why I believe that that there is a golden future.

So, it will be a golden future for less journalism, a lower volume at least.

Yes, I think that there has been a lot of work within journalism that has really been not super creative and that will go away.

Interview: Alexandra Borchardt

This text was published in German and English by the industry publication Medieninsider on 5th January 2025. 

 

Posted on

Nieman Lab Prediction 2024: Everyone in the Newsroom Gets Training

Up to now, the world’s newsrooms have been populated by roughly two phenotypes. On the one hand, there have been the content people (many of whom would never call their journalism “content,” of course). These include seasoned reporters, investigators, or commentators who spend their time deep diving into subjects, research, analysis, and cultivating sources and usually don’t want to be bothered by “the rest.”

On the other hand, there has been “the rest.” These are the people who understand formats, channel management, metrics, editing, products, and audiences, and are ever on the lookout for new trends to help the content people’s journalism thrive and sell. But with the advent of generative AI, taking refuge in the old and surprisingly stable world of traditional journalism roles will not be an option any longer. Everyone in the newsroom has to understand how large language models work and how to use them — and then actually use them. This is why 2024 will be the year when media organizations will get serious about education and training.

“We have to bridge the digital divide in our newsrooms,” says Anne Lagercrantz, vice CEO of Swedish public broadcaster SVT. This requires educating and training all staff, even those who until now have shied away from observing what is new in the industry. While in the past it was perfectly acceptable for, say, an investigative reporter not to know the first thing about SEO, TikTok algorithms, or newsletter open rates, now everyone involved with content needs to be aware of the capabilities, deficiencies, and mechanics of large language models, reliable fact-checking tools, and the legal and ethical responsibilities that come with their use. Additionally, AI has all the potential to transform good researchers and reporters into outstanding ones, serving as powerful extensions to the human brain. Research from Harvard Business School suggested that consultants who extensively used AI finished their tasks about 25% faster and outperformed their peers by 40% in quality. It will be in the interest of everyone, individuals and their employers, that no one falls behind.

But making newsrooms fit for these new challenges will be demanding. First, training requires resources and time. But leadership might be reluctant to free up both or tempted to invest in flashy new tools instead. Many managers still fall short of understanding that digital transformation is more a cultural challenge than it is a tech challenge.

Second, training needs trainers who understand their stuff. These are rare finds at a time when AI is evolving as rapidly as it is over-hyped. You will see plenty of consultants out there, of course. But it will be hard to tell those who really know things from those who just pretend in order to get a share of the pie. Be wary when someone flashes something like the ten must-have tools in AI, warns Charlie Beckett, founder of the JournalismAI project at the London School of Economics. Third, training can be a futile exercise when it is not paired with doing. With AI in particular, the goal should be to implement a culture of experimentation, collaboration, and transparency rather than making it some mechanical exercise. Technological advances will come much faster than the most proficient trainer could ever foresee.

Establishing a learning culture around the newsroom should therefore be a worthwhile goal for 2024 and an investment that will pay off in other areas as well. Anyone who is infected with the spirit of testing and learning will likely stretch their minds in areas other than AI, from product development to climate journalism. So many of today’s challenges for newsrooms require constant adaptation, working with data, and building connections with audiences who are more demanding, volatile, and impatient than they used to be. It is important that every journalist embraces at least some responsibility for the impact of their journalism.

It is also time that those editorial innovators who tend to run into each other at the same conferences open their circles to include all of the newsroom. Some might discover that a few of their older colleagues of the content-creator-phenotype could teach them a thing or two as well — for example, how to properly use a telephone. In an age when artificial fabrication of text, voice, or image documents is predicted to evolve at a rapid pace, the comeback of old-style research methods and verification techniques might become a thing. But let’s leave this as a prediction for 2025.

This post was published in Harvard’s Nieman Lab’s Journalism Predictions 2024 series on 7th December 2023.  

Posted on

The Moral Dilemma of Paywalls: Why Journalism will Increasingly Move into Two Different Worlds

Selling journalism is no crime. In fact, only a few reporters and editors are ashamed of the fact that much of what they go great lengths to research, edit, and produce can only be consumed for money. After all, even bread is not for free. However, potential users who are stranded at paywalls at times make journalists feel like sleazy used car dealers. “It’s outrageous to make important information available to paying customers only,” complain those who are turned away at the login. Some even go further and argue, this promotes the division of society. Nikki Usher made this point in her book “News for the Rich, White, and Blue” that was published by Columbia University Press in 2021.

So, feeling attacked like this, who can blame journalists for getting a bit pathetic at times when talking about their craft? They prefer to elaborate about enlightenment and democracy, about holding power to account and citizen service, rather than about user loyalty and business models. The truth is, however, that without rapid progress in the commercialization of their offerings, many publishers will not survive.

This is why the journalism of the future will most likely move into either one of two worlds: On the one hand, there will be the increasingly sophisticated world of commercial journalism, in which highly professional providers offer their distinct audiences custom-fit, high-quality content, and user-friendly products that inspire them. On the other, there will be the world of public service or non-profit journalism, which steps in where the market fails. In this second world, journalism of the watchdog type will be created that only a few people are willing to pay for, or it will be about journalism that serves audiences which cannot or refuse to pay for news. Democracy needs both worlds. So, instead of fuelling today’s fights between public service and commercial media in tightening markets, it is about time for an honest discussion about this division of labour. Journalism would benefit from it – and so would citizens.

The highly professional world is currently emerging at a rapid pace. Most publishers have understood that only the sale of digital subscriptions, or at least memberships and other products, will secure their future. They are increasingly using experiments and meaningful data to figure out which customers or customer groups are most lucrative and how best to serve them. The audiences-first focus is at the core of media innovation programs like Table Stakes, in which close to 150 publishers in the US and Europe have already taken part (disclosure: the author of this is a coach in the Table Stakes Europe program run by WAN-IFRA). A lot of great journalism is created this way. But decisive for gaining and retaining subscribers is individual customers’ time spent on certain media. An extensive German data-gathering project called Drive has revealed that this was the key metric for selling digital subscriptions, not the clout of individual stories or subject areas that “convert well”. This summer, the industry organisation INMA named Drive, that bundles data from more than a dozen regional publishers and is led by German Press Agency dpa, the word’s “best news media innovation project”.

Focusing on “media time” though means that many publishers won’t be able to afford much journalism that doesn’t zero in on lucrative audiences. As resources become scarcer, newsrooms must inevitably ignore target groups that promise little commercial success. They are better off making those even happier who they already serve. This may be an audience with a certain level of education, political lineage or background. News organizations like the New York Times and the Financial Times have long understood this. Despite proclamations to the contrary, it is hardly worth many newsrooms’ while to reflect the diversity of society in its entirety. To the contrary, this can even alienate their core clientele. This is a sad truth and sounds reprehensible for journalism on a mission to safeguard democracy. But media companies with too little focus will sooner or later risk their existence.

This makes the role of public service media or non-profit offerings all the more important. With public service media at least in the traditional European concept, every citizen has to pay the license fee. That’s why the broadcasters have a mandate to reflect society in all its diversity and – this is important – meet all groups at eye-level. Unlike commercial publishers, they must remain impartial and use all formats necessary to reach users. Public service media has an obligation to go where the market of journalism fails. However, this also means that they have to make offerings for the mass market in order to not disappear into insignificance. When some commercial publishers argue public service broadcasters should retreat into niches, they don’t understand market dynamics. Such fear of competition always demonstrates a lack of confidence in their own offerings. To defy international platform or streaming monopolies, public service providers must cover the breadth. The commercial ones, on the other hand, should provide their audiences with so much added value that these are happy to pay for it. Ideally, both sides should cooperate on new technologies, innovative services, or education, rather than antagonize each other.

Complementary to public service news, there will also be a niche for non-profit news organisations, particularly in markets without strong public service media like the U.S.. They will establish themselves in areas where the market fails. The Texas Tribune, one of the most prominent non-profit U.S. media companies, for example, has focused on local political coverage. Readers typically don’t like to pay for that, their founder Evan Smith has argued. But when no one holds local politicians and administrators to account, it has been proven to hurt communities and their citizens. This is where funders who want to do good for society will be needed.

An open debate about the different journalism worlds would also enliven the discussion about trust in media. The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism in Oxford recently published a study based on discussion forums with media executives from the U.S., the U.K., Brazil and India. What emerged was that newsrooms target their trust-building efforts at very different audiences. For some, it’s about breadth. The aim is to win back those who have turned their backs on the public debate – an endeavour that is honourable, arduous and important, yet rarely successful commercially. For the rest, it’s about stable customer relationships and thus depth. Nevertheless, building trust as a means to an end is not reprehensible, on the contrary. It safeguards the plurality of the media landscape and consequently democracy.

This text was first published in a slightly different version in German by Medieninsider on 8th December 2021.

 

Posted on

What’s wrong with the News?

The rise of data analytics has made journalists and their editors confident that they know what the people want. Why, then, did almost one-third of respondents to the Reuters Institute’s latest Digital News Report say that they regularly avoid news altogether?

The British public can’t get enough news about Brexit – at least, that’s what news platforms’ data analytics say. But, according to the Reuters Institute’s latest Digital News Report, 71% of the British public tries to avoid media coverage of the United Kingdom’s impending departure from the European Union. This disparity, which can be seen in a wide range of areas, raises serious questions about news organizations’ increasingly data-driven approach to reporting.

The rise of data analytics has made journalists and their editors confident that they know what people want. And for good reason: with a large share of news consumed on the Internet, media platforms know exactly which stories readers open, how much they read before getting bored, what they share with their friends, and the type of content that entices them to sign up for a subscription.

Such data indicate, for example, that audiences are interested in extraordinary investigative journalism, diet and personal-finance advice, and essays about relationships and family. They prefer stories with a personal angle – say, detailing an affected individual’s fate – rather than reports on ongoing conflicts in the Middle East or city hall coverage. And they are drawn to sensational stories – such as about US President Donald Trump’s scandals and antics – under “clickbait” headlines.

But if newsrooms were really giving audiences what they wanted, it seems unlikely that almost one-third (32%) of respondents in the Digital News Report, the world’s largest ongoing survey of online news consumption, would report that they regularly avoid news altogether. But they did, and that figure is up three percentage points from two years ago.

The most common explanation for avoiding the news media, given by 58% of those who do, is that following it has a negative effect on their mood. Many respondents also cited a sense of powerlessness.

Moreover, only 16% of participants approve of the tone used in news coverage, while 39% disapprove. Young people, in particular, seem fed up with the negativity bias that has long been regarded as a sure-fire way to attract audiences. For many, that bias feels disempowering. Conversations indicate that the problem is compounded for young parents, who want to believe that the world will be good to their children. Younger generations also feel consuming news should be more entertaining and less of a chore.

One reason for the disconnect between the data and people’s self-reported relationship with the news media may be the “guilty pleasure” effect: people have an appetite for voyeurism, but would prefer not to admit it, sometimes even to themselves. So, even as they click on articles about grisly crimes or celebrity divorces, they may say that they want more “quality news.”

 

When newsrooms indulge readers’ worst impulses, the consequences are far-reaching. Media are integral to support accountability by anyone wielding power or influence, and to mobilize civic engagement. Democracies, in particular, depend on voters being well informed about pressing issues. News organizations thus have a responsibility to report on serious topics, from political corruption to climate change, even if they are unpleasant.

That does not mean that readers’ complaints about media’s negativity bias should be disregarded. On the contrary, if people are to be motivated to confront challenges that are shaping their lives, they should not be made to feel powerless.

This is where so-called solutions journalism comes in. By balancing information about what needs changing with true stories about positive change, news organizations can fulfill their responsibility both to inform and to spur progress. This means occasionally recognizing that over the long term, living standards have improved globally.

Reconnecting with audiences will also require media organizations to broaden their perspectives. In much of the West, it is largely white, male, middle-class journalists who decide what to cover and how. This limits news media’s ability to represent diverse societies fairly and accurately.

In fact, only 29% of Digital News Report respondents agreed that the topics the news media choose “feel relevant” to them. A joint study by the Reuters Institute and the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, indicates that the key to increasing this share is to increase diversity in newsrooms.

At the same time, news media need to do a better job of contextualizing and otherwise explaining the news. While 62% of Digital News Report respondents feel that media keep them apprised of events, only half believe news outlets are doing enough to help them understand what is happening. At a time when nearly one-third of people think that there is simply too much news being reported, the solution seems clear: do less, better.

This means listening to readers, not just studying the data analytics. It means balancing good news with bad news, and offering clarifying information when needed. It also means representing diverse perspectives. Media organizations that do not make these changes will continue to lose trust and relevance. That is hardly a sound strategy for convincing consumers that their work is worth paying for.

This commentary was published by Project Syndicate on September 11, 2019