The Business of Content with Simon Owens

When we talk about the media industry, we're usually discussing publishers that are geared toward a broad audience -- outlets like The New York Times or CNN or NPR. Even more niche publications like The Verge or Bon Appetit are designed to attract tens of millions of readers each month. But there's also an entire ecosystem of business-oriented publishers that operate in extremely narrow niches -- outlets aimed at sewage workers, electricians, and grocery store executives. Though their readerships are relatively small, they represent industries that collectively generate hundreds of billions of dollars each year. Because of this, B2B niche publishers, when run well, can be immensely profitable. Industry Dive is one such B2B publisher. Founded in 2012, the company now produces publications that cover over a dozen industries. I sat down with one of its co-founders Sean Griffey to talk about Industry Dive's origin story and how it bootstrapped its way to north of $22 million in annual revenue.

BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti has expressed a lot of frustration with the large platforms that dominate our online browsing. In 2018, for instance, he complained that Facebook captures a lot of value from publishers and argued that it should share more of its revenue with them. That same year, he floated a merger of several digital media companies so they'd have more bargaining power against the platforms. And then recently he wrote a memo in which he lamented that publishers didn't receive enough credit for the consumer purchases they drive. "The two most important players in this chain are the publisher who inspired a consumer to take action and the companies that actually deliver the product But most of the profit is captured by digital middlemen who didn't create much value." In the memo, he promised that BuzzFeed was working hard to solve this attribution problem. To get an idea of how BuzzFeed plans to solve this problem, I recently spoke to Rich Reid, its senior vice president of global content. We talked about Bring Me, BuzzFeed's travel vertical that publishes a wide range of video and text content across its website and social channels. Recently, Bring Me formed an ad partnership with Hilton, and I asked Reid about how his team designed the campaign so that BuzzFeed gets full credit for any business it sends Hilton's way.

It's been nearly a decade since The New York Times launched its metered paywall, and its success has spurred just about every digital publisher to test out some form of reader revenue strategy. Many have followed in the Times's footsteps and debuted metered paywalls. Others have rolled out various membership options, offering everything from behind-the-scenes footage to exclusive commenting features to convince readers to open their wallets. But which tactics actually work? And how should publishers determine what to charge? To answer these questions, I spoke to Jacob Donnely. Donnely is the managing director of audience and growth at Coindesk, one of the leading cryptocurrency publishers, and runs his own paid newsletter about the publishing industry. We talked about how to design the perfect subscription offering and debated whether subscription fatigue is actually real.

In its most recent earnings report, Twitter revealed that it has over 139 million daily users, but the company's first podcast it launched in 2019 was designed to only appeal to a tiny fraction of those users. The show is called Character Count and is hosted by Joe Wadlington, a creative lead in the department that helps educate small businesses on how to leverage Twitter in their marketing. And that's the focus of Character Count, highlighting some of the most effective ways in which businesses utilize Twitter. Recent guests have worked for Dungeons and Dragons, Grindr, and Dropbox. I recently interviewed Wadlington about his podcast strategy and the role the show plays in helping improve Twitter's bottom line.

Where you can subscribe to my newsletter: https://simonowens.substack.com/p/discount So this is the 68th episode of my podcast, and if you've been listening to it for any amount of time, you'd know that it never has ads. And while I don't have anything against podcasts that have advertising, I don't envision a future for this podcast where I'm reading promos for Squarespace of Mailchimp. But at the same time, I'd like for this podcast to contribute to my income, mostly so I can justify spending more time on it. During a good month, I might put out a new episode each week, but I've had busy months where I was lucky if I could produce more than a single episode. If I can start making money from this podcast, then it'll be easier for me to justify spending more time on it, and then everyone gets to benefit. And I didn't want to do just a quick promo and then be done with it. Given that most of my listeners actually care about business models for content, I wanted to go deep on my decision making process, and to do that I enlisted the help of my friend Jaclyn Schiff. Jaclyn is a content expert like me who specializes in converting podcast episodes into shareable articles for clients. You can find her work at podreacher.com. She recently interviewed me about my history covering the business of content and how I came up with my monetization strategy.

There are few people as knowledgeable about web publishing as Scott Rosenberg. In 1995, he and a group of other San Francisco Examiner journalists launched Salon.com, one of the first online magazines. An early blogger, he wrote the definitive history of the blogosphere and published it as a book in 2009. Today, Rosenberg is the tech editor for Axios, a website launched in 2017 by Politico founders Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei. Since its debut, Axios has tried to upend the paradigm for how news can be delivered. Instead of adhering to the structure of the traditional news article, Axios reporters strive for succinctness by delivering information in a bulleted, just-the-facts-ma'am form. As co-founder Jim VandeHei explained in a 2017 interview, "Ninety percent of stories either shouldn't have been written or should have been 10 percent the length. Most people do not want to spend five minutes on 1500 words of mediocrity on something that has one interesting fact, figure or quote." In my interview with Scott Rosenberg, he told me about Salon's first viral story and explained why the online magazine was way ahead of its time, in both the way it delivered news and how it monetized content. We also discussed Axios's approach to news gathering and whether it's "Be smart" tagline is patronizing or enlightening.

In 2020, Netflix is projected to spend $17 billion on content. Disney will spend $24 billion and AT&T will shell out over $14 billion. With all that money on the line, there's an enormous amount of demand for new intellectual property that can be adapted into movies and TV shows, and a lot of that IP is being drawn directly from magazines. The Oscar-winning film Argo, for instance, is based on a 2007 Wired article, and the critically-acclaimed Netflix miniseries Unbelievable is based on a longform Propublica article published in 2015. This rising demand means that Hollywood is throwing larger and larger sums of money at journalists just to option their articles. All that money has had a distorting effect on the entire magazine industry, with writers increasingly pitching more narrative articles in the hopes of luring a Hollywood agent. At least that's according to journalist James Pogue, who recently wrote a piece for the Baffler about what he sees as the negative impact of the streaming wars on magazine journalism. I recently interviewed Pogue about this phenomenon and why he thinks it's changing longform reporting for the worse.

Of all the algorithms that influence our daily internet browsing habits, few are more closely scrutinized than the one that governs YouTube. Through the homepage, the recommendations that appear on the side of videos, and the trending tab, YouTube's algorithm has the ability to shower a video with millions of views and transform its unknown users into overnight stars. It's because of this very influence that so many people get angry about it. Whether it's YouTube stars who are worried about their ability to reach their fans or liberal critics who say YouTube promotes right-wing extremism, there are plenty of politicians, journalists, and activists who are up in arms and ready to accuse YouTube executives of all sorts of nefarious evil. But how many of these accusations are merely conspiracy theories born out of paranoia? To answer that question, I interviewed Chris Stokel-Walker, a journalist who covers YouTube for an online magazine called Fast Forward. Stokel-Walker and I went deep on the YouTube algorithm and the ways its biggest stars game it to their benefit.

I think it's safe to say at this point that digital publishers recognize the importance of email newsletters. In 2016, Facebook pulled the rug out from underneath a media industry that had, until then, relied on it for hockey stick growth, and over the next several years publishers generally warmed to the idea that the decentralized distribution offered by email newsletters would prove more reliable than the fickle whims of social media giants. Today, nearly every media company has a robust email marketing strategy, and some news startups interact with their readerships almost entirely within the inbox. We've also seen the launch of platforms that make it easier for individual writers to distribute their own newsletters and monetize them through paid subscriptions. So are newsletters reaching a saturation point? Are they generating real ad revenue? And can newsletters actually replace Facebook as a referral source? These are just some of the questions I put toward Ernie Smith, the creator and editor of Tedium, a fantastic newsletter that almost operates as a kind of Wikipedia of obscure topics. Smith also runs a popular Facebook group for the newsletter industry, and he's one of the most knowledgeable people I know when it comes to newsletter trends.

Back in 2010, the world was still skeptical of Wikipedia. High school teachers and college professors warned students to never, ever use it for research. If you ever tried to cite it in an argument, your opponent would mock it as unreliable. Late night hosts like Stephen Colbert would enlist their audiences to flood a specific Wikipedia page and vandalize it. Celebrities and major companies would treat it as a vanity project, editing their own pages while making absolutely no effort to disclose their conflict of interest. Flash forward to 2020, and Wikipedia certainly has more respect. The Wikimedia Foundation, which acts as its official steward, has tens of millions of dollars in the bank. While college professors don't view it as a primary source for research, they'll sometimes endorse it as a starting point for said research. And nearly everyone recognizes it as one of the most influential websites on the internet. But though tens of millions of people use Wikipedia every day, most only have a passing understanding of how a core group of a few thousand volunteer editors perform the vast majority of contributions to its articles. One of those editors is Bill Beutler. For the past decade, Bill has consulted with hundreds of brands, helping them to edit their Wikipedia pages without running afoul of the platform's strict rules. I recently interviewed Bill about the problems that have plagued Wikipedia for the past decade and the issues its community will need to address in the decade to come.