Well, hello,
Today, I wanted to write about why investigations like the one we published last week are important—not just to make the general public aware that spying is still a viable métier, but also spotlighting the nature of the Russia threat here.
Or perhaps a bit on how several of our opinion articles (like this one and this one) ended up on the front page of the ‘front page of the internet’, Reddit—and what this means about the general public’s interest in EU affairs from a pan-European perspective.
I’d also like to interview our transparency and migration reporter Nikolaj Nielsen about how it feels for him personally to see the window of acceptable rhetoric on migrants and asylum seekers drifting ever further into the murky territory of the far right. And about what it’s like to often be attacked on social media for pushing ‘pro-migration propaganda’, when all he’s doing is highlighting how we collectively agreed to treat people—and how we often no longer adhere to those principles (with deadly consequences).
And yet, when push comes to shove in writing this weekly email, there’s a nagging question that keeps me awake: what exactly are the foundations upon which we’re building this news site?
Increasingly, thriving purely on quality journalism feels almost impossible—or at least, it appears limited to a very small group of publishers who fend off extreme competition with exorbitant marketing budgets—budgets many times our total annual spending.
The harsh reality is that we simply aren’t making enough money for long-term survival. And we've been in that position for 25 years. Somehow, we make it work, but it’s a stress-inducing, ever-shifting obstacle course.
I’m certain this has nothing to do with the quality, originality, or uniqueness of the journalism we publish. So what is it then?
It’s not our spending. We’re constantly cutting back, and nearly all we make goes toward salaries for our modestly sized team.
It’s not you, either. Life is expensive enough as it is for personal budgets, and businesses also seem to be cutting back on spending for information.
It’s not the government. We don’t receive any EU or national grants, but as a non-profit, we also don’t pay much tax.
It could be big tech, sucking up advertising budgets by promising more targeted and convenient options. Or advertisers, making the easy choice.
It could also be me—I could simply be bad at running this business. I struggle to devise ways to make more money while maintaining ethical standards—a combination that doesn’t seem to overlap easily.
Let me present you my options and my hesitations:
More ads on the website—annoying for readers, visually unpleasant, and with our traffic, insufficient even to cover half a journalist’s salary.
Try webinars/special reports—similar issue; they might generate income but would consume valuable journalistic time.
Host events—many media outlets do this successfully, but in policy circles, this can essentially become unregulated lobbying through sponsorships.
Increased outreach/marketing for memberships—that’s partly what we’re doing here, but there’s a risk of overwhelming readers with too many emails, making it annoying and, worse, ineffective.
Out of respect for you, our reader, I will not impose any of these options.
So, what then?
Well, we're improving certain aspects of the website to hopefully convince more visitors that we’re worth paying for. We’re exploring partnerships with a Brussels job site to offer relevant job ads through the newsletter. And we're looking into engaging more actively with EU tenders to leverage our expertise.
Meanwhile, we continue focusing on what we do best: producing stories that matter, written by journalists who care, for people seeking reliable information.
Perhaps it’s not about radically changing our business model but about reminding ourselves—and you—why EUobserver exists in the first place.
Alejandro Tauber
Publisher EUobserver
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten