Sorry, we could not find the combination you entered »
Please enter your email and we will send you an email where you can pick a new password.
Reset password:


Plus Report - By Thomas Baekdal - April 2017

No Publishers, You Don't Own Advertising

Shared by Plus subscriber
Tom De Bruyne
This is Baekdal Plus content. It is shared with you for free by a member. Please reshare it.

We all know that advertising trends are disrupting the way that media can be monetized. We also know that two companies, Google and Facebook, are totally dominating all new digital advertising spend. And the result of this is a very negative outlook for publishers.

This is indeed a problem, and as a media analyst, I too am concerned about the future for so many wonderful old newspapers. I have friends who are journalists that have lost their jobs, and are now struggling to find new ones.

So, we all understand why the media is shouting at Google and Facebook. However, there is a fundamental problem with how the media thinks about advertising and its role in it.

Saying that advertising somehow belongs to old media, and that politicians should break the Facebook and Google 'duopoly', illustrates a complete lack of understanding about what advertising is.

Google, for instance, isn't actually selling the same type of advertising that publishers sell, and Facebook isn't actually a platform where people gather to read about all the negative events of the world.

The reality is that the main reason brands are moving their budgets away from newspapers is not because of Google or Facebook. It's because, when brands look at what channels fit their needs the most, newspaper articles are often a terrible choice to place an ad next to.

So, in this article, I'm going to help you understand what the real trend of advertising is all about, and why brands act the way they do. And the way I'm going to do that is by telling you this story from the perspective of brands.

At the end of this article, you will realize exactly why Google and Facebook are winning, but also why the media's fight with them doesn't make much sense. I will also highlight three paths forward, to show you why this trend does not mean the end for journalism. There are reasons to be hopeful, and excited.

"Advertising should go to newspapers because of the journalism"

For as long as I can remember, the media has hated the internet because it is disrupting everything. And also, for as long as I can remember, the media has been saying that the internet somehow stole what was theirs. In the past, we saw it when they talked about Craigslist and now we see it when they talk about Google and Facebook.

The latest example in this saga is in an article from the Press Gazette, which made some of the most ridiculous statements about why the UK government should legislate advertising back to traditional press.

The problem with the Press Gazette and its supporters is that they don't seem to understand what advertising is. They seem to believe that advertising exists to support journalism. But advertising was never about that.

There is no connection between the existence of advertising and journalism. And yet, we often see statements such as this one from the Press Gazette:

In the space of a decade the share of the UK advertising market going to UK regional and national newspapers has declined from nearly a half to little more than 10 per cent.

Money which had been spent on journalists holding those in power to account, particularly at a local level, has been transferred to two US-owned digital platforms which exist purely to exploit content rather than create it.

Or what about this:

Channel 4 News has generated literally billions of video views for Facebook - much of it for work created at great personal risk by journalists working inside Syria. By way of financial return it gets almost nothing, while Facebook banks the advertising income.

From a journalistic perspective, this all seems very important. And as a media analyst, I agree that this is important.

But from a brand perspective, what we do as journalists has no relevance. Brands don't advertise in newspapers because you are sending journalists to Syria or because it helps hold politicians to account. That has literally nothing to do with advertising.

In fact, from a brand perspective, it would be better if you didn't place ads on those articles at all. There is nothing worse for a brand than to show up next to an article about a hard news story.

Want proof?

This is a real page.

Think about how much damage this caused to the reputation of that brand trying to sell 'Fill your school bag with happiness' next to that story.

And remember, Daiso (the brand) had paid premium rates to have their ad on the front page that day, not knowing how the editors would completely screw them over.

So, no publishers, advertising doesn't exist to support journalism. In fact, it never existed for that purpose.

Advertising exists for an entirely different reason, which is to drive sales for brands. That is literally the only reason why brands advertise.

How brands make advertising decisions

Let me explain exactly how brands decide where to advertise.

As some of you might know, I didn't start my career in the media industry. I started my career in the fashion industry where I was responsible for digital media for a big fashion company.

As such, my main focus was to improve sales through any digital channel. We didn't care about journalism. In fact, in the 14 years working in the fashion industry, I have never even once discussed journalistic focus as part of any discussion involving advertising.

It was just sales.

Mind you, this sale didn't have to be direct. Often the discussion was focused on seven different elements that would help lead to a sale in the future.

The first three were:

All of these are critical for brands to get a sale.

On top of this, there are three more concerns related specifically to what each publisher/channel provides. These are:

Finally, there is also a seventh factor:

Businesses consider these seven elements and how they relate to the individual needs of each of their brands.

A brand with a very low level of brand awareness would focus on exposure and reach, while a brand that everyone already knows, would focus more on a channel that can provide intent and context.

This is the first part.

Brands will then look at all the media channels available to them (newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, outdoor, sponsorships etc), and then try to rank them against the seven brand performance metrics mentioned earlier.

A national newspaper, for instance, is very good at providing reach(at least it used to be), but unless you bought ad spots for every day of the week, it's not that good at brand recall(brand recall mostly only happens after repeated exposures). However, the brand sentiment was fairly good, because most national newspapers (at least back then) had a good reputation.

As for the customer impact, national newspapers have a very low customer intent and context because the editorial focus is just to publish random stories for random people.

Also customer targeting is almost non-existent simply because newspapers focus on everyone. So the more specific a brand is, the less relevant a national newspaper is for advertising.

As for the cost, it's not as expensive as other channels, but still much higher than, say, advertising in a local newspaper.

In other words, this is the advertising profile for a national newspaper:

What brands then do is to compare this to the advertising profile of the other channels. For instance, here is the one for local newspapers:

Notice how brand awareness is now much lower because, in local newspapers, brands are reaching fewer people. But also notice how both brand recall and customer targeting is much higher. This is because the ads would be about shops in each person's city, and because brands can laser target the ads to focus on products and offers from that one local store.

So, in many cases, it would make much more sense to advertise in every local newspaper where a brand has a local shop, than to advertise in a big national newspaper. And, in fact, when I worked at a fashion company, this was the majority of our ad spend. We advertised locally where we had shops, instead of nationally where we had no idea who we reached. It almost never made sense to advertise in national newspapers, unless we had something new we wanted a lot of people to see from a 'branding perspective'.

Of course, newspapers weren't the only channel. So here is the advertising profile for TV advertising:

TV Advertising is amazing at creating brand awareness and also brand recall (if done right), but it's utterly hopeless at anything specific around each individual customer. And the cost is often very high.

Meanwhile, for niche magazines, the advertising profile looks like this:

As you can see, niche magazines provide brands with a very low level of brand awareness (reach), but because it's so niche, it's a wonderful advertising channel for super high-intent, contextual and targeted advertising.

This is how brands think about advertising.

They don't care about the journalism. They don't care that in the past newspapers had a higher share of the total advertising revenue. They don't care that publishers feel that the role of a newspaper is to hold those in power responsible. They don't care about press freedom or the risk of sending someone to Syria.

This doesn't mean that brands aren't interested in world problems. They are. You will often find that brands combine their marketing efforts with social issues.

Brands, for instance, often sponsor things that make the world a better place, like Nike, which has created a campaign around a message of tolerance and inclusion, saying that it doesn't matter how you dress. From Nike's perspective, everyone is equally amazing:

If you have a body, you're an athlete.

But there is a very big difference between how brands talk about social issues, and how the media talk about them.

I have mentioned this before. There are two ways of looking at a problem. You can either talk about all the bad stuff ...or, you can focus on the positive side by showing people a better way and supporting people to do better.

Journalists and the media focus on the former, while brands focus on the latter.

Here is an example:

This is a page from The Telegraph reporting that the UK public favor intolerance. Compare this news story with the ad for Nike (or the ad for IBM next to it).

You see the difference here?

So, when I say brands don't care about journalism, I really mean that. The way newspapers focus on social issues is the exact opposite of what brands are looking for.

This is a fundamental problem with advertising and newspapers. The only reason brands advertised in newspapers in the past was because it gave them a massive amount of reach for a large and wide audience. It was never about the journalism. In fact, brands have always seen the journalism in newspapers as a downside to placing ads there.

Today, brands have many more channels to choose from, like Facebook. But brands don't think about Facebook in any special way either. It's just another channel. As such, brands compare it to the same seven performance metrics to create an advertising profile.

And for Facebook, that profile looks like this:

As you can see, on Facebook you can reach as many people as you can possibly dream of, exceptionally quickly, with a high level of targeting and for a very low cost per view.

On top of this, Facebook has a much higher level of customer context exactly because Facebook focuses more on posts about family and friends than news content.

This is wonderful news for brands. Instead of showing an ad next to a negative news story, you can now show ads next to your friend's picture of a baby. It's not a good context by any rate, but it's a more positive one.

Mind you, Facebook is not perfect. As you can see, Facebook is terrible for any form of brand related marketing, because there is just too much scale, too much randomness and it is too low-intent for people to really remember any of the ads they see.

There is also a problem with ad fraud, in which you end up paying for something you are not actually getting, although most people heavily over-estimate how big an issue this is. There is an increasing problem with offensive content (like fake news) that has degraded Facebook's image as a brand-friendly platform focusing primarily on 'family and friends'. And there is a problem that Facebook has focused so much on scale, that the value of each ad view is very small.

But even with all these problems, Facebook still offers brands a better prospect than newspapers, especially if you compare the cost.

This is why Facebook wins. Not because it's perfect (because it isn't), but because for a specific outcome (massive targeted reach for a low cost), it's the best choice.

This also relates to trust. Who do brands trust the most, newspapers or tech companies?

Obviously, there are many things about digital advertising that brands don't like. They don't like it when their ads show up next to content that is bad, or on fake or extremist news sites. But fundamentally, brands look at the tech companies like Google, YouTube and Facebook, and they see companies who are constantly innovating to do better. And then brands look at their actual ad spend, and they see that, while some of their ads might have shown up with extremist content, it represents less than 0.01% of their total exposure.

Meanwhile, brands look at newspapers and here they see that their ads are almost always placed next to articles that they don't like.

Just think about this.

If you were a brand, who do you think provides you with the safest brand environment. Newspapers or YouTube?

The answer, generally, is YouTube.

The only reason why brands are saying bad things about YouTube right now is because they have been singled out by journalists and don't want to look bad. From a trend perspective, nothing has changed.

With this in mind, let's turn to Google's main source of advertising income, which is Google Search. It has a very different pattern from almost all other channels, but one that is equally disruptive to old media:

As with Facebook, Google Search ads provide brands with a massive level of brand awareness for a very low price per view. It also has a high level of targeting. In fact, the targeting on Google Search is even higher because it's linked to something people are specifically searching for.

The big difference, though, is how Google Search is also providing customer intent and customer context. Again, this is because of search. People are looking for something very specific (high-intent/context) and they are seeing ads related to just that need.

The only negative about Google Search is that it's terrible for branding. A search ad is just one of many, and while it provides you with targeted views, it doesn't really help your brand message.

You couldn't build a company like Coca Cola using only search ads.

But think about this in comparison to newspapers. Here is that graph again:

Newspapers do provide brands with a better brand effect, but, with every other metric, Google is simply the better choice because it provides a much better advertising environment in terms of reach, targeting, intent, context and cost.

But this is also where we see the next conflict that exists between media and Google, because newspapers will look at this and claim that Google has somehow 'stolen' this market, and that the government needs to bring it back.

For instance, the Press Gazette wrote:

Automated online advertising is largely controlled by Google, which owns the dominant Double Click technology used by most ad-buyers. As little as 30 per cent of the money spent by brands on programmatic advertising finds its way to publishers.


Google and Facebook need to adopt a formula where a fair proportion of the search and display advertising income they make from journalism is returned to publishers so it can be reinvested in content creation.

The idea here is that, without the newspapers, Google and Facebook wouldn't be able to do what they do. This is simply not true.

Google makes almost no money from news related topics.

I can prove this in a very simple way.

If you go to Google and search for 'dead migrant child'. The resulting page looks like this:

First of all, this is a terribly sad story, but you will also notice that there are no search ads. The reason for this is obvious. No brand would want to target their search advertising to match these keywords, because why would brands ever want to do that?

Meanwhile, if I search for 'Mountain bike', I get this page:

Now you see all the ads, because this is a topic that brands absolutely want to advertise on.

This idea that Google makes money from the work of newspapers simply isn't true. Newspapers are mostly just an extra, and news doesn't really contribute anything of significance to Google's total search ad revenue.

But that's not the important part. The important part is what brands want, because they are the ones paying the money. And brands don't want any of their ads to show up next to news stories.

It's not Google that has stolen the market for newspapers. It's the brands who have decided that news isn't a good place to advertise.

And, even if Google was forced by the UK government to pay a share of their revenue to newspapers for linking to them, it wouldn't actually change anything because the share of Google's revenue that relates to news related search queries is so little.

The media industry is fighting the wrong fight. It's not about what Google does, it's about what brands want. And brands don't want to spend their budget on news content.

This is the new reality of advertising.

It's the same story when media people argue that Google and Facebook should pay newspapers higher ad rates than what it gives to others.

As the Press Gazette put it:

Even at the wholesale rate, Press Gazette would argue that trusted news brands are under-valued by the advertising networks.

Google needs to look at ways to enable news publishers who invest in journalism to get a fairer deal from the ad networks.

This is an argument that we have heard again and again, and it not just coming from newspapers. The record labels frequently argue this too by claiming that YouTube should pay a bigger share of the ad revenue to them than what they pay to other YouTube creators.

This is completely the wrong way to think about it, because, from a brand perspective (the ones paying the money), the media is providing less value.

Let me illustrate why:

Imagine that you have three videos on YouTube. One is a music video with a staggering 256 million views, the next video is a news story with 1.7 million views, and finally, we have a YouTuber creating an exercise video with 2.9 million views.

Traditional media then says this:

Imagine then that you are a company like Nike and you have decided to place ads on YouTube, which video provides the most value for Nike?

The answer is obvious.

The result is that, in relation to brand value, the exercise video is worth the most to Nike, followed by the music video, and the news video is not really worth anything at all.

So why should the news videos then earn a higher ad rate? Because of the journalism? That doesn't make any sense.

Sure, the video from the Guardian is very important and addresses a vital problem in society. But remember what I wrote before about brands and journalists. Just because we think something is important from the perspective of journalism doesn't mean that it has anything to do with advertising.

Those are two completely separate things.

This is reflected in the way YouTube works.

When YouTube sells ad spots it is doing it through an automated auction system where brands can define what they want to focus on, and what YouTube thinks a video is about.

CPG Gray recently posted a quick video about how this works:


The result is that the YouTuber who created a popular exercise video gets the most money. That is not a failure of the system. That is how this is supposed to work.

It's not Google and YouTube that is taking money away from newspapers. It's the brands. It's companies like Nike who are saying that they want their advertising budgets to be spent on channels where people are motivated to exercise, rather than on news channels about problems in society.

So when Press Gazette argues that news brands are under-valued, they are not. News brands are probably over-valued.

Mind you, I'm saying this as a media analyst, and I hate it. My job is to help the media win the future, and here I'm basically saying that it's crap. Writing this article is both painful and frustrating for me.

It's painful because I love journalism. I wouldn't be a media analyst if I didn't love journalism. I want journalists to win. I want my journalism friends to find new and greater jobs. I want us to do what we do best, and be paid for it.

But it's also frustrating because this constant battle between the media and the tech companies is such a massive distraction and a fight that the media simply can't win. Not because Google and Facebook are perfect (far from it), but because what press organizations like the Press Gazette are doing shows a complete lack of understanding about what it is that brands are paying for.

As I mentioned in the beginning, this is not the first time this has happened. This is a repeating pattern with the media. We keep spending all our time fighting impossible battles instead of actually listening to what both the public and the brands really want.

The last time we saw this was with classified ads.

In the media, we often hear people say that "Craigslist destroyed the newspaper industry", and journalists can get quite rowdy about it.

But that is not actually what happened.

What really happened was that, back in the 1980s, the public was getting increasingly frustrated by the way classified ads worked. The problem was that classified ads were locked into each local newspaper and sold at a somewhat high price, which severely limited the market for both buyers and sellers (especially in the smaller cities).

For instance, if you wanted to buy a used designer lamp, looking for it in your local newspaper was practically impossible. The likelihood that someone in your own city would be selling just the right one would be very small.

Meanwhile, someone in a neighboring city might have just the right one, but you would never know because that lamp was only advertised in their local newspaper.

It was the same problem for sellers. When you are limited to only people in your local city, the likelihood of selling something isn't that great, and even if you could sell something, you wouldn't be able to get a good price for it.

So, the old classified market in local newspapers was not very good. It was a crappy market.

The result was that, all around the world, the public wanted something better, and so it was only a matter of time before someone came up with a better model.

In my country (Denmark) this happened in 1981 (more than 10 years before Craigslist and even before the internet), where a race car driver, Jac Nellemann, created 'Den Blå Avis' (The Blue Paper).

It was a print newspaper with only classified ads.

It worked almost the same as with Craigslist. Instead of having to try to find classified ads in your local newspaper, Den Blå Avis allowed people from anywhere to use the same platform, and for a much cheaper price.

The reason it was so cheap was because Den Blå Avis didn't have any journalism in it. It only had classified ads and nothing else (except for TV listings). So without the cost of journalism, it could offer to list products for free.

As you can probably imagine, this was a recipe for success. The combination of giving the public a much better platform for buying and selling used products, without any of the limitations of a local newspaper, and for free, allowed Den Blå Avis to grow very rapidly.

It started out merely as a classified platform for Copenhagen (the capital of Denmark), but very quickly it expanded into becoming a national classified newspaper. To this day, it's the largest platform for classified ads in Denmark (and it's now owned by Ebay).

Here is a picture of the first edition:

This, obviously, had a massive effect on the newspaper market. Suddenly, the market for classified ads disappeared, which was particularly painful for local newspapers.

And just like today, the media was shouting and complaining about this, saying how Den Blå Avis was stealing their market. But that wasn't actually true.

What Den Blå Avis did was to solve a problem that everyone else wanted to be solved, while newspapers were doing everything they could to keep classified ads at a high cost and in a separate market, because they needed that to pay for their journalism.

But for people who were buying and selling products, what the media wanted had nothing to do with what the public wanted. The public wanted a much more efficient and cost-effective platform. Journalism was never a part of it.

This was what Den Blå Avis created, and that's why they won. The media lost because it had convinced itself that the public wanted to pay more.

And this trend was happening everywhere.

In the US, it took 10 more years because the market was too big for a nationwide classified print newspaper. But when the internet arrived, Craig Newmark created Craigslist and Pierre Omidyar created AuctionWeb, later known as Ebay. Both services solved exactly the same problem, while the media industry was trying everything they could to keep classified ads as expensive as possible.

Obviously, the media was going to lose that battle.

The same thing is now happening all over again with Google and Facebook, and again we see press organizations like Press Gazette spend their time and focus on trying to convince governments that brands should be paying the media because of the cost of sending journalists to Syria.

That makes no sense to anyone. Yes, journalism is important, but that's not what brands are paying for when they buy advertising.

And speaking about the future, this is only the start.

The next major disruption that is coming is when artificial intelligence, automation and machine learning start to dominate the advertising space.

Let me give a very brief example of this.

Google has developed a system that can look through videos and identify everything in every scene. Here is a video of how it works.


This seems like a simple thing, but think about how massive a difference this makes. Not just for advertising, but in relation to a lot of things, including how it can be used for journalists to quickly find and identify content at scale.

But in terms of advertising, this solves two very important problems for Google.

First, it will help Google solve the problem of how ads sometimes show up on questionable content on YouTube. The reason YouTube is struggling to do this today, is because they don't actually know what's in a video. It's very hard for them to identify what each video is about without a manual review (which you can't do at YouTube's scale).

Sure they have their content ID system, but that only works for copyrighted content, which is matched against known videos. That's a very different thing.

With this technology, they will have a much better way of identifying and also understanding what each video is actually about.

So this problem will basically be solved in less than a year, which also means that YouTube will continue being the preferred platform for brands.

The second thing is much more important. Think about how this relates to targeting.

Imagine, again, that you are Nike, and you want to advertise a new pair of running shoes specifically for people interested in running a marathon.

Today, that ad might show up on videos such as these.

These are videos from three different marathon events, and they all looks pretty awesome if you only look at the thumbnails and the video headlines. But when you start to look inside each video, you realize that the first video is about what happened at the Boston Marathon in 2013.

And, as we all know, that event didn't go so well because it was targeted by terrorists. So even though these three videos look like they are about marathons and all match the keywords, the first video from ABC News is actually about terror bombings.

Today, Google is struggling to make this distinction, but with this new technology, Google will be able to understand the context and intent of videos which can then be used for targeting.

From a brand perspective, this is absolutely amazing. But it's also another step up in how the market for advertising is moving completely away from the market of hard news. Going forward, news content will probably never have ads if the topic discussed in the video is about something bad that has happened.

And this is not happening at some distant future. This is here right now. Google only needs to find a good way to implement it and to train the system.

Note: This is only one of many forms of machine learning that Google can use. You can see all of them in the full presentation.

How do we solve this?

The question now is, what do we do about this? Do the media just give up and hide because Facebook and Google have won anyway?

No, of course not.

As I said in the beginning, I'm very hopeful about the future of journalism. There are some pretty significant changes happening, but I'm not even for a second worried about the future of journalism as a concept.

What I worry about are all the publishers who refuse to change. And I worry about the increasing pointlessness of how things are covered. The quality of journalism is way down. Good journalists have been replaced by pundits and opinionists, writing about topics with no real relevance, a total lack of perspective, and a focus more on what people feel than actual news.

That worries me. But I'm not worried about how the shifting market of advertising will impact journalism. And the reason is that there are so many other things we can do, which all make journalism better.

Let me name three of them.

Be monetized by value

It's pretty obvious that when we look at hard news, advertising is not going be the main form of monetization. As advertising gets more targeted, fewer ads will show up on hard news stories.

So the future of news is to very quickly and very aggressively shift to a subscription-based economy. This is where our future is, and we all know that.

We are already seeing many positive signs of this. Newspapers like the New York Times already make more money from subscriptions than from advertising and so do other newspapers.

Mind you, the US is a bit of a special case. It's currently winning because the US political system is so hopeless. So, the challenge for newspapers in general is to become valuable all the time. This requires a shift in the overall editorial strategy.

We already see this happening. Look at The Correspondent. It's a great example of a post-advertising news site.

Brands need more than exposure

While advertising is going away for hard news, it's not really going away for everyone else. It's just changing.

If, again, you look at the advertising profile for Facebook, you'll notice that there are elements where it isn't doing anything useful at all. Facebook is great for exposure, targeting and low cost, within a somewhat useful level of customer context.

But brands need more than just exposure.

Exposure is the first step of a brand journey. It's where brands let people know that they exist. But to actually sell a product, you also need people to love the brand, to learn about it, to see what other people think, and to be inspired.

Facebook's advertising doesn't really do any of this. It just creates targeted but random views. It doesn't help people feel anything about the products.

So, there is a massive advertising market right in front of us that neither Google or Facebook is doing anything about, and not even thinking about, because their primary focus is scale.

Magazines face the same problem. How can you change your editorial focus so that you combine your value of journalism with high-intent, influential brand impact?

Most magazines struggle to do this, because they are just too random and too unfocused. But this is actually what digital natives do every day when they optimize for influencer marketing.

Here is the advertising profile for that.

As you can see, influencers (like YouTubers) don't really offer that much scale (they have a low rate of awareness), but they have pretty much maximized every other metric.

When a YouTuber creates a super valuable and engaging video with a brand, the brand recall is close to 100%.

Just think about this in relation to brands. Facebook is great for reach at scale, but they need other channels for influence and impact. And this is where we come in as publishers.

The hard part, of course, is that to do this you must really step up your game in terms of reputation and focus. The digital natives are currently light years ahead of most traditional media.

Become a service

One of the things I have been talking about a lot recently is the need for publishers to become a service rather than just journalists pushing out articles.

For instance, if you are a fitness magazine, why merely write an article about yoga when you can teach people instead? And I don't mean just writing an article about how to do a few things, but actual teaching.

Same with business magazines. Why merely write stories when you can provide business intelligence and trend insight?

Or if you have a healthcare magazine, why merely write about health when you can become the platform for preventive care, the type of healthcare that happens in people's daily lives and is the future of healthcare?

You see what I'm getting at?

And again, this is what we see with the digital natives all the time. In traditional media, we start defining the editorial focus around articles. Digital natives define it around a service.

That's a much better model for the future.

So many ways to win

These are just three ways that publishers can win, and there are many more which I have written about in some of my other articles. So, I'm not worried about the future of journalism.

But, we need to stop fighting impossible fights that nobody wants us to win. Lobby campaigns like that of the Press Gazette don't help us win the future.

We need to focus on what we do best, instead of trying to be something that we are not. Hard news sites are good at important civic journalism, but they're absolutely terrible at providing brands with a platform that encourages people to buy products.

In the past, this didn't really matter because the market was so limited. Today, we need to accept this and move on.

People need great journalism and publishing products, perhaps now more than ever.

Let's focus on that.


The Baekdal Plus Newsletter is the best way to be notified about the latest media reports, but it also comes with extra insights.

Get the newsletter

Thomas Baekdal

Founder, media analyst, author, and publisher. Follow on Twitter

"Thomas Baekdal is one of Scandinavia's most sought-after experts in the digitization of media companies. He has made ​​himself known for his analysis of how digitization has changed the way we consume media."
Swedish business magazine, Resumé


—   trends   —


2021 and forward: What is the future of events for publishers?


How publishers could organize working from home after COVID-19


Navigating a winner-take-all media market


For publishers, the key to personalization isn't to filter


How accurate data was turned into misleading articles by the government ...and the press


The scam that is ad profiling and targeting