At the Audiencers’ Festival Montréal, Corinne Osnos, VP of Subscriptions and Marketing at Foreign Policy, shared three low-effort, high-impact tactics her team uses to bring in readers despite running one of the strictest paywalls in media.

 Three low-lift moves worth testing
> Build one segmented "win-back" email targeting lapsed-but-recent visitors
> Test an exit-intent registration wall instead of loosening your paywall
> Turn your best columnist into a short email course for readers who aren't ready to subscribe yet

The paywall is genuinely strict, and getting stricter

FP offers essentially no free content. Osnos was upfront that this is unusual – freemium is perhaps the most popular model in Europe, whilst in Canada a lot of content is freely accessible and many media are government supported. And their model has only gotten more restrictive over time. In 2018, the meter allowed around five free articles a month. Today it’s practically zero. Because there’s no ad revenue to fall back on, every article needs to justify its existence through subscription value.

Four problems sitting underneath that strategy

Osnos framed FP’s current position around four challenges, several of which will be familiar to most publishers reading:

• Top-of-funnel erosion. Organic discovery through Google search, historically a major channel, has dropped off significantly, even though FP isn’t chasing traffic.

• A demographic gap. FP’s core paying audience skews over 50. But it also has a large 18-to-23 segment, driven almost entirely by university group subscriptions. Those students are a meaningful exposure channel (Osnos says it’s one of the most common things she hears from subscribers she meets: “I used to read FP at university”), but they arrive through IP-authenticated access, meaning FP has no contact information for them, and loses nearly all of them the moment they graduate.

• High pricing on a strict meter. Because there’s no ad revenue, FP has to price for value and hold the line on access, which creates real friction for readers who aren’t ready to pay upfront.

• Rising competition in a moment that should otherwise favor FP. Geopolitics is dominating headlines, which sounds like a tailwind, but it also means FP is now competing directly with much larger outlets like The Washington Post and The New York Times for the same coverage. Osnos noted that FP used to see clear, isolated traffic and subscription spikes tied to major geopolitical moments (the clearest being the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war). More recent moments, including developments around Venezuela, have still moved the needle, but far less distinctly, because so many outlets are now covering the same stories simultaneously.

Given a small team (3 on the individual subscription side, 2 focused on group subs), Osnos’s operating principle is to prioritize low-effort, high-impact tactics, three of which she shared with us in Montréal: 

Win 1: The weekly trending digest

This is a weekly email combining a curated feed of articles, with marketing messaging at the top and bottom. Its effectiveness comes almost entirely from precise targeting and testing, not from the format itself.

Targeting: the email goes to users who visited the site in the last 30 days but haven’t visited in the last 7, a segment the team calls “Active 30, Dark 7.” These readers haven’t seen the last week’s stories, so the email surfaces what’s new rather than repeating content they may have already seen, and it re-engages them before they drift into a fully at-risk state. Readers still inside that 7-day window get more direct subscription-offer messaging instead, since they don’t need a content refresher.

Article selection: the team tested a blend of signals (last-touch conversion attribution, subscriber engagement time, and Apple News performance as a proxy for general news interest) against Sailthru’s personalization engine. Curated selection matched or outperformed the automated personalization engine consistently. Osnos’s read: curation still beats algorithmic personalization here, even though full automation would have been the lower-effort path.

Format specifics, tested directly: seven articles per edition, chosen after testing five, seven, and ten; seven won. The email always ends with an “end unit,” a final clickable item (a magazine issue, a new feature, a limited offer) so the reader has somewhere to go after the content rather than the email simply stopping. The top of the email is segmented into four different versions depending on who’s reading it, students and academics with .edu addresses see different pricing and messaging, former subscribers see a different version again, and existing subscribers never see price or offer messaging at all (they instead see messaging to reinforce sub benefits e.g. gift links, new issues, FP Live).

Effort and what’s next: the whole build takes under 30 minutes a week and consistently lands in FP’s top 10 monthly conversion sources (by campaign). The team is now testing an internally built AI tool that analyzes FP articles for conversion and subscriber-traffic performance and generates optimized headlines and decks, since the email leans almost entirely on headline and deck to pull readers back to the site.

Win 2: The exit-intent registration wall

FP has tested hard paywalls against softer meter strategies repeatedly, across every audience segment (known, unknown, newsletter subscribers, everyone), and hard paywalling consistently converts 5x better. That’s why 80% of FP’s traffic sees a hard paywall 100% of the time.

The remaining 20% is where the exit-intent wall comes in. When the system detects a reader about to leave the page (or swipe away on mobile) without paying, it offers a registration prompt instead: create a free account, get that one article. This avoids cannibalizing the primary hard-paywall conversion moment while still capturing readers who weren’t going to pay this time but are worth keeping in the funnel.

What happens after account creation matters as much as the wall itself. New registrants go through on-site onboarding and a structured nurture sequence: an explanation of why FP exists, a set of “greatest hits” articles with the paywall temporarily removed, a note from a subscriber-favorite columnist, and promotion of newsletters, which the team has found to be one of the strongest drivers of paid conversion among registered-but-not-subscribed readers, along with FP Live, FP’s video series. The average time from account creation to paid subscription across this flow is 14 days.

Win 3: Newsletter courses

FP’s first newsletter course, an introduction to core international relations theory, was launched in 2026 and authored by Stephen Walt, a Harvard professor and one of FP’s top-converting columnists (also featured in the onboarding nurture sequence above). The format is a five-part email series covering foundational IR concepts.

The logic behind it: geopolitics is increasingly relevant to people well outside FP’s usual readership, but without some grounding in the basics, a general reader has a hard time getting real value from FP’s actual coverage. The course is designed to meet a younger, less specialized audience where they are and bring them into FP’s orbit gradually.

In its first six weeks, the course drew roughly 9,500 signups. 40% of signups were net new to FP, meaning they’d never previously been in FP’s email system. Paid acquisition for the course is running at a $1 cost per lead, against FP’s normal average of roughly $3. These users are driven to the FP website rather than using an ad platform email capture, a strategy that may lead to higher CPLs but means higher quality leads.

The course also functions as a self-contained subscription funnel. Throughout its five parts, it embeds subscription messaging: “homework” assignments using gift links to relevant FP coverage, and promotion of specific benefits, like FP’s podcasts, that the team believes will resonate with a similar audience. Rather than offering a broad free trial that risks prompting cancellations among existing subscribers, FP built a narrower incentive: completing the course earns a 30-day free trial, available only to that specific, already-engaged cohort. So far, 18% of readers exposed to the trial offer go on to claim the trial.

Because the course is built once and requires no ongoing maintenance to keep running, it fits the same low-effort, high-impact principle as the other two tactics: a small team’s structural bet, built on the front end and left to keep converting on its own.

For any publisher weighing a stricter paywall against the traffic it might cost, Osnos's session is a useful reminder that the constraint didn't stop growth, it forced the team to continuously innovate and develop tactics precise enough to convert when article access can’t.

Stefan Schneiderbauer is Senior Product Manager at Funke Mediengruppe, where he is responsible for product and development across 13 regional news app brands. Speaking at Audiencers' Festival London in June 2026, Stefan shared a new framework that he developed to make product decisions in a more structured, data-led way. Not to replace editorial judgement, but to better serve the audiences that journalism is trying to reach.

 Where to actually start after reading
Pick one metric that matters to your business, then map what feeds it, layer by layer, until you hit something specific enough that a single feature could move it. Start with one branch, not the whole tree.

How are product decisions actually made?

It is worth asking this question honestly, about your own organisation.

Is it the most senior person in the room? Is it instinct built from years of experience? Or is it different departments each pushing their own priorities, without a shared picture of what the product actually needs? Some news organisations have already built strong product cultures, where decisions stem from shared data and clear goals. For many others, the reality is messier.

The problem is not that any single input is wrong. The problem is the absence of a shared view, one where decisions are understood in relation to each other rather than evaluated in isolation. In practice, what often happens is that each team or department sees a part of the picture and acts on it. Everyone is doing something, but it does not click together, and a lot of value gets lost in the gaps.

When data is also missing from the equation, the risks compound. In product discussions about what to build next, maybe the loudest voice, the most confident person, or the most senior stakeholder gets their way. And maybe their suggestion is the right one. But without a shared framework to evaluate it against, there is a real chance that a lot of value gets lost. Hello, agency theory.

There is also a structural challenge specific to product development: new features are expected to have long-term impact, but evaluating that long-term impact after release is genuinely hard. Who hasn’t heard the famous “We simply have to implement Feature X, then in 6 months PV will have increased by xy%”. Too many things change between shipping a feature and having enough time to assess results. This makes it easy to keep moving by instinct, because instinct, in this environment, is rarely held to account.

So ultimately, the goal is to ground product decisions in evidence, not to take judgment out of the process.

Build the tree first

To solve this, the first thing we did was build a KPI tree.

For us as a news organisation, the metric at the top of that tree is Engaged Time, the total time users spend meaningfully interacting with content in our apps. Users choose to spend their time with us rather than somewhere else. The more intentionally they do that, the more value we deliver to them, and the more value we can generate commercially. When Engaged Time grows, the downstream indicators follow: ad impressions increase, subscription conversion improves, churn decreases.

Starting from Engaged Time, you break it down: what drives it? Session length and session frequency. What drives sessions? Active users. What drives active users? New users coming in, and existing users returning. How do new users arrive? Through different channels, direct, social, newsletter, search, each with its own conversion rate and return behaviour. How do existing users come back? Through habit, through push notifications, through content that gives them a reason to return tomorrow.

At each level of the tree, what you are really working with are ratios. How many visits convert to downloads? How many downloads become active users? How many active users encounter the paywall, and what share of those convert? Each ratio is a product decision waiting to be made. And there is something important about working with ratios rather than absolutes: it is easier to move five ratios by a small amount than to move one ratio by a large amount. The more levers you identify in the tree, the more opportunities you have to create meaningful impact.

The further down you go, the more granular the metrics become, and the closer you get to what we call movable metrics. These are metrics specific enough that a concrete product decision can actually shift them. You cannot ship a feature which directly increases Engaged Time. But you can ship a feature that improves how the homepage surfaces content, which changes the click-through rate to articles, which increases time in session, which moves Engaged Time. If you understand the chain, you know exactly what you are building toward.

Building the tree also means filling it with data. Some of it already exists. Some requires new tracking. The more granular you go, the more likely you will find instrumentation gaps. But as the picture fills in, something useful happens: you stop describing what the product produces and start understanding how it produces it.

The tree can also be filtered by user segment. The ratios look different for subscribers, registered users, and anonymous visitors. Understanding where those differences appear tells you where the most valuable product work is concentrated.

What the tree reveals

One of the most useful things a completed tree enables is simple calculation.

Once you have your first tree filled with data, even if only some branches, you can start to model the relationships between metrics. Take any KPI in the tree that is influenced by two variables below it. Increase each of those variables by five percent in isolation and see what happens to the KPI above. Which one has the bigger effect? A basic sensitivity analysis like this tells you quickly where the highest-leverage opportunities are in your product, and where effort is likely to be wasted.

Once you have identified a movable metric worth pursuing, the next question is how to actually move it. This is where mapping opportunities and solutions becomes important. For any given metric, there are usually multiple opportunities to influence it, and for each opportunity, multiple possible solutions. A structured approach, which opportunity has the highest potential, which solution is the most feasible, is what connects the diagnostic work of the KPI tree to actual product decisions. That process deserves its own deep dive, but it is the natural next step after the tree has done its job.

With that kind of visibility, prioritisation conversations change. Where should product investment go? What should marketing focus on? The tree does not make those decisions for you, but it makes the trade-offs visible. And visible trade-offs are easier to act on than invisible ones. That is the practical value: better prioritisation, and therefore better return on the investments you are already making.

A concrete example: once the tree was in place, we started observing new users as a specific segment. Sessions and page views among this group were dropping off within the first 30 days, pointing to a retention problem the aggregate numbers had been masking. Looking at what differentiated users who stayed from those who did not, the data pointed clearly to push notification subscription as a key factor. Push subscription rate during onboarding became our movable metric for this branch of the tree. We ran a series of A/B tests across the onboarding funnel, which increased push subscribers as a leading indicator, and significantly grew engaged time for this user segment, resulting in a higher 30-day retention rate as the lagging indicator.

From tree to organisation

Once the KPI tree was in place, the structure of the team followed naturally from it.

The tree has distinct branches, and those branches became four operational pillars:

Reach covers everything connected to bringing new users into the app and converting existing web readers into app users. App store presence, referral channel performance, cross-platform conversion. Reach asks: how do we grow the active user base?

Engagement takes over once a user is inside the app. Its mandate is habit formation: building the product and editorial conditions under which users return regularly and spend meaningful time. Onboarding, notification strategy, content personalisation, homepage design. Engagement asks: how do we make the app worth coming back to?

Monetisation is the commercial result of Reach and Engagement doing their jobs well. Ad revenue, subscription conversion, ARPU. Monetisation asks: how do we convert engaged attention into sustainable revenue?

Infrastructure is the supporting pillar: technical stability, data pipelines, analytics instrumentation. Without it, the other three pillars cannot move with speed or confidence. Infrastructure asks: are the foundations strong enough to build on?

And beneath all four pillars sits journalism, not as a pillar but as the foundation. Great editorial content influences all four. It drives Reach through word of mouth and search. It drives Engagement through loyalty. It drives Monetisation through willingness to pay. It makes Infrastructure worth investing in. The product framework serves the journalism, not the other way around.

The four pillars themselves are not a new idea. What matters is what sits beneath them: clear ownership, defined KPI sets, and the mandate for each team to break those KPIs further down within their branch of the tree. Downloads is a Reach KPI. But how are downloads generated? Through app store visits and the download conversion rate. Which of those can be moved? That is where the actual product work begins.

The pillars are independent in ownership but interdependent in practice. Reach without Engagement produces churn. Engagement without Monetisation produces a great product that does not sustain itself. A decision in one pillar usually affects the others.

Working together across pillars

Having clear ownership per pillar solves one problem. It creates another: how do you keep four teams, each focused on their own metrics, moving in the same direction?

This is where the organisational question becomes as important as the product question. Each pillar needs to understand what the others are working on, how prioritisation decisions are being made, and how a new feature or product change in one area will affect the others. Without that shared understanding, you end up with well-run silos rather than a well-run product.

What we built is a cross-pillar structure where all relevant stakeholders, from editorial and data to advertising, subscriptions, and tech, sit down together with the same data in front of them. Each pillar shares its learnings, its priorities, and its dependencies. Where one pillar needs something from another to move forward, that gets named and resolved together.

The goal is not process for its own sake. The goal is to get genuinely data-oriented as a group, not just in individual teams, but across the whole organisation. When everyone is looking at the same KPI tree and asking the same questions about what is moving and why, the conversation shifts. It becomes less about opinions and more about what the numbers are actually showing.

That shift is harder to achieve than it sounds. But it is where the real value of the framework sits.

A new way to think about what comes next

The KPI tree has changed how we make product decisions. The next opportunity is to apply the same thinking to strategic planning.

A user-centric planning approach starts with an understanding of how users move through the product: where they drop off, where they convert, and what drives them to return. Leading indicators first, active users, retention rates, engagement depth, push notification reach. The lagging indicators, including revenue, follow from those.

A subscriber target becomes meaningful when it is anchored to retention rate assumptions, conversion rate assumptions, and active user trends. A combination of leading and lagging indicators, connected through the KPI tree, gives every team a clear view of which part of the tree they are responsible for moving and how their work connects to the overall goal.

But the KPI tree also points toward something bigger. Every data point collected across all KPIs is a training signal. The logical next step is a statistical or AI-driven model that operates on top of the tree and surfaces the highest-leverage actions automatically. Imagine a system that tells you: sending four percent more push notifications related to sport, at 4:30pm, has a 78 percent probability of increasing MAU by two percent, which flows through to a 1.5 percent revenue effect. (Numbers are illustrative to get the point across.) The tree helps you understand your product and it can become the foundation for a system that actively tells you where to act next.

Even if we are not fully there yet, the tree gives us the language and the structure to get there.

Where to start

If you are thinking about building something similar, start with the first draft of the tree.

Start with one branch, not the whole tree. Instrument what you can, show your team what it reveals, and let the results build internal confidence in the approach. The framework earns trust the same way any good product does: by demonstrating value before asking for full commitment. Then expand.

It does not have to be complete. It will not be. Gaps in tracking will appear. Assumptions will turn out to be wrong. Metrics you thought were independent will prove to be connected. Correlation is not causation.

That is the process, not a problem with it.

The value of the tree is not in its perfection. It is in the discipline of building it, because building it forces you to ask, at every level, the question that product decisions too often skip: what needs to happen for this metric to change?

Ask that consistently. Break each number down until you find something specific enough to act on.

And when you find it, build toward that.

Jack Riley, Chief Customer Officer at The Observer, explains why the 233-year-old title launched with a single umbrella subscription rather than tiers, how Culture Club became a central retention bet, and why the hardest part of the build has been saying no.

TL;DR
- The Observer launched its first-ever digital subscription in November 2025 at £16 a month or £144 a year, with a single umbrella tier covering print, digital, audio and Culture Club benefits from spring this year.
- Culture Club, a set of arts and culture perks worth more than £800, is given to every subscriber instead of being held back for a premium tier.
- Early data shows subscribers who engage with multiple parts of the product, from Nigel Slater’s recipes to the puzzles to podcasts, are significantly less likely to cancel.
- The Salt Path investigation and its podcast and documentary afterlife have been the single biggest growth catalyst since launch.

Key lessons:
- A single, transparent subscription can beat early tiering when you are reintroducing a brand to its audience.
- Retention comes from breadth of engagement across a product, not from any one flagship story.
- Old brand equity can bridge readers into new daily habits, but only if the product is built to earn that habit.

Why there are no tiers

Where many publishers reach for tiers early, The Observer launched with a single umbrella subscription covering print, digital, audio and now, Culture Club (see below). “We wanted the subscription to be simple to understand, great value for money and comprehensive,” Riley says. Reintroducing a heritage brand to an audience that may not be familiar with it, or has never encountered it digitally at all, is not the moment to ask people to choose between packages.

A separate audio-only subscription, a legacy of the Tortoise audio model, exists through Apple Podcasts and Spotify for readers who want nothing else, and there is real cross-pollination between formats. But the umbrella model is deliberate: with only six months of data, Riley says tiering decisions now would rest on very little evidence. Simplicity was the safer bet, leaving room to see where the value lands before carving up the product.

Culture Club, for every subscriber

The Observer’s most visible product launch since the initial rollout is Culture Club, a set of arts and culture benefits bundled into every subscription: two-for-one tickets to the National Gallery, exclusive cinema screenings with directors, author events and book clubs held in the newsroom, and discounted theatre tickets. “It’s your cultural life, curated,” is how Riley describes it.

Rather than a separate product built for a distinct audience, Culture Club is included in the standard subscription and goes to every reader who pays for it, with no separate tier. Riley frames it as adding significant partner benefits to those that The Observer was already quietly offering, like giving a 70% discount on home cinema memberships through their partner MUBI and turning them into a coherent proposition tied to the brand’s editorial identity. Arts and culture were the deliberate focus rather than, say, food or travel: Riley sees it as a standout interest for Observer audiences that other subscription products in the market have overlooked. The commercial logic is retention as much as acquisition: subscribers who attend an event or use a benefit build a tangible relationship with the brand that a login alone cannot create.

Riley traces the conviction to the i newspaper, where he launched reader events and saw that most people find news organisations distant and faintly mysterious right up until they are sitting in a room talking to a journalist. Subscribers who have had that kind of experience with a brand, in his experience, are simply more likely to stay, which is the logic Culture Club now builds into the subscription itself.

Pricing without the tricks

The Observer priced its subscription at £16 a month or £144 a year, deliberately avoiding 99p-style pricing. “That was part of just trying to be really clear about what we think the value is of the work that we’re doing,” Riley says. An under-35 price point at 50% off acknowledges that younger readers are often priced out of premium subscriptions, with 35 chosen as a deliberate life-stage threshold.

The Observer has no obvious competitor to benchmark against. The Guardian’s UK voluntary model and the Times’ hard paywall represent decades of pricing evolution aimed largely at winning back or re-engaging audiences a mature business has already exhausted. The Observer has no such legacy to correct for, which Riley treats as an advantage: the headline price can reflect where the business is now, without unwinding years of promotional pricing.

What’s driving retention

Six months in, Riley says the clearest signal in the data is breadth of engagement. Subscribers who touch multiple parts of the product, reading Nigel Slater’s recipes, doing the crossword and listening to a podcast, are significantly less likely to cancel than those who arrived for one thing and never explored further. Because the product is still young, many subscribers do not yet know everything they have access to.

That is why subscriber messaging pushes Culture Club so hard: highlighting more than £800 in available benefits is a fast way to demonstrate value to someone who subscribed for a single podcast series before they reach a cancellation decision. The Observer has also seen a healthier-than-expected skew towards annual plans, which Riley reads as an early show of faith, buying time to build a relationship before the first renewal.

The Salt Path’s second life

The Chloe Hadjimatheou investigation into the bestselling memoir The Salt Path was a hit before the subscription even existed, driving millions of readers to the open-access site last summer and helping build the registration base the launch depended on. In January, a narrative podcast series built on the investigation became, in Riley’s words, the biggest catalyst for subscriber growth in the first few months after launch, driving uptake in both the standalone audio subscription and the full subscription that includes it. A Sky documentary over Christmas had extended the story’s reach further. A new Hadjimatheou series, We Call Her Emma, has just been released, an investigation focusing on the extraordinary rise of Asma al-Assad from West London girl to the heart of Syria’s brutal dictatorship: the next test of whether a story that brings subscribers in at scale can hand them on to the rest of the product.

Building fast without the legacy costs

The Observer’s product team has moved almost entirely to an agentic coding approach, using AI tools to handle the bulk of feature development. A small team of engineers from an outside agency works alongside an in-house tech lead and product manager. Claude writes most of the code for new features, while the engineers concentrate on harder technical problems and on testing and quality assurance, checking that the output does what it was meant to. The approach lets a young, lean organisation compete with newsrooms that have far larger legacy technology teams, freeing more of the business’s resources for journalism itself.

Riley applies the same instinct himself. After seeing a story-support widget demonstrated by a US publishers’ collective at the recent Audiencers Festival in London, he built a rough version of it within an afternoon, not to launch it but to show his own team the idea. Prototyping, he says, has become quick enough that showing is often faster than telling.

On the harder question of AI companies and publisher content, Riley is careful not to stake out a fixed position. The Observer has partnered with Particle News, an AI-powered aggregation app, as its first UK publisher, and Riley points to Reuters Institute research showing a growing share of global news journeys now beginning inside a chatbot as a signal publishers cannot ignore, whatever position they eventually take on direct deals versus industry coalitions.

The hardest part isn’t the technology

Asked what has been harder than expected, Riley doesn’t hesitate: discipline. A brand this old, with this much editorial breadth, invites endless extensions: more tiers, more products, more features, especially now that the barrier to building any of them has collapsed.

“When Claude can build you a recipe site in an afternoon, you have to ask yourself: is that really what we want to build?”

Riley has previously cited The Atlantic’s decade-long path to a million subscribers as a realistic model for the kind of timeline this takes. His ambition for The Observer is to build a sustainably profitable media business on reader revenue and other income streams, and he argues that doing so without the legacy cost base of an older company changes the calculation. He won’t share subscriber numbers this early. Six months in, he says, The Observer is on track. There is, by his own admission, still a long way to go.

Jack Riley is Chief Customer Officer at The Observer, where he leads customer revenue strategy across subscription growth, marketing, data and product. He joined in 2025 from The London Standard, where he was Chief Digital Officer, and previously led Huffington Post’s turnaround to profitability as Managing Director. The Observer is owned by Tortoise Media.

At the Audiencers’ Festival Montréal, Emilie Harkin, SVP of Growth at The Guardian, broke down what actually motivates readers to give money to a publication with no paywall.

 Steal this before your next campaign
Survey the people who just converted, while the reason is still fresh, then write your next fundraising or marketing copy directly from their words, not your assumptions about them.

The starting point: ownership as the product

The Guardian was founded just over 200 years ago as The Manchester Guardian, a local UK paper. It’s now the fifth most visited news site in the world, pulling in roughly a billion page views a month. Its US team is small, about six people, working alongside a much larger marketing and reader revenue team of around 90 people at the London HQ.

The organization’s value proposition, as Harkin frames it, comes down to three words: global, independent, free. The independence part is structural, not just marketing language. The Guardian has no billionaire owner. It’s owned by the Scott Trust, established 90 years ago with a single purpose: ensure The Guardian can keep publishing in perpetuity. The Trust isn’t built to generate returns for shareholders. It exists to keep funding journalism.

That structure becomes the actual product sold to readers, not just backstory.

Ownership isn’t just a backstory

In the lead-up to the 2024 US election, both The Washington Post and the LA Times pulled their presidential endorsements, reportedly at the direction of their billionaire owners. Inside The Guardian, an editor suggested sending readers a simple message: we published our endorsement, and we always will, because no billionaire can tell us not to.

That email went out to The Guardian’s list. It generated two million dollars.

Harkin described it as one of those moments where you assume your analytics dashboard is broken, because the spike looks impossible for a normal day. What it confirmed for her team was that US readers are far more media-literate about ownership structures than publishers often give them credit for. People understood exactly what billionaire ownership can do to editorial decisions, because they’d just watched it happen at two major outlets, and they responded to a publication that structurally couldn’t be pressured the same way.

What people say when you ask them why they paid

The Guardian surveys readers immediately after they support the organization, while the motivation is still fresh. The consistent, top-ranked answers: protect the free press, protect editorial independence, protect the journalism itself. Further down the list, at roughly position six, is a motivation specific to The Guardian’s model: keeping the journalism free and open for everyone, not paywalled.

Further down still, in positions eleven through fourteen, is a newer and growing motivation: dissatisfaction with other media sources. Harkin ties this directly to visible cases of ownership interference, citing Jeff Bezos later restricting which topics The Washington Post’s opinion pages were authorized to cover. Readers notice, and it shows up in what they tell you when they give.

How this research becomes the actual email copy

The endorsement email wasn’t written as an abstract mission statement. It was built, deliberately, around the specific motivations the research had already surfaced, worded so it read as natural rather than like a fundraising checklist:

• Dissatisfied with other media: named exactly what The Washington Post and LA Times did, and what The Guardian did instead
• Wants editorial independence protected: explained the Scott Trust ownership model in plain terms
• Wants work that holds power to account: made clear that only the editor-in-chief, never a business owner, decides what gets published
• Wants to protect the free press: the direct ask

Harkin’s point in walking through this line by line: the research isn’t a slide you present once internally and then forget. It’s the literal structure of the copy you send.

The revenue mechanics underneath it

Readers who want to support The Guardian financially see three recurring options: a five-dollar monthly contribution, a fifteen-dollar tier called Supporter Plus that comes with added benefits, and a higher Digital Plus tier with more on top. There’s also a one-time support option and a recently launched student discount.

Alongside the main organization sits theguardian.org, a registered nonprofit. Harkin pointed to US philanthropic culture, Americans give roughly half a trillion dollars a year to causes, ranging from small one-off donations to major gifts, as a real reason this structure matters specifically in the US market, even though The Guardian itself isn’t a nonprofit. The motivations that drive nonprofit giving (mission alignment, wanting to sustain something you believe should exist) map closely onto why people choose to pay The Guardian.

The Guardian currently has 1.4 million digital subscribers. The UK has the largest paid supporter base, but North America, US and Canada combined, is the fastest-growing region, now at 14% of the base.

The takeaway

Her closing point applies well beyond publications without a paywall: figure out the full range of motivations and emotional connections your audience has with your organization, not just the functional value proposition of “you get access to the app.” Then keep telling that story, deliberately and repeatedly, across your marketing rather than assuming people already know it.

For The Guardian, that story is ownership. For another publication, it might be something else entirely, a specific beat, a founding mission, a community it serves. The method Harkin described, survey people right after they convert while the reason is still fresh, then build your actual marketing copy around what they tell you, works regardless of what that story turns out to be.

At its stand at VivaTech, on Tuesday 17 June 2026, Les Echos devoted a session to a question every publisher knows: "What is the answer to French readers' information fatigue?". On the agenda: the data-backed diagnosis from Jean-Baptiste Leroux (OpinionWay), the brand's values presented by Célia Pénavaire (journalist and digital editor-in-chief at Les Echos), then the product answer led by Yasmine Maslouhi, Director of subscription activities and revenue at Les Echos: a new offer called « La Sélection ». Here is what to take away.

Presented in the opening by Célia Pénavaire, the title’s values break down into three guiding axes for this selection: reason over ideology (an economic DNA that calls for a rational, almost mathematical reading of the world), optimism over fatalism (giving room to success stories and to solutions that work), and ambition over declinism (investigations and analysis to handle professional and personal challenges).

On the production side, it is a genuine editorial discipline, run by a dedicated team (two full-time journalists, according to our information). Each day, the newsroom produces between 120 and 150 articles; this team selects 9 to 15 of them, spread across a reader-needs grid (inform, reflect, get inspired, develop, unwind) with fixed quotas per category, several times a day. Concretely, “develop” accounts for around 20% of topics, while “get inspired” and “unwind” are capped at 10% each. A culture piece or a roundup of the best summer crime novels thus has its place alongside the conflict in the Middle East.

Three platforms, a weekly long read, and sharing

“La Sélection” is designed to be identifiable on the three most consulted platforms: a dedicated tab in the app (in the form of immersive cards), a section of the same name on the Les Echos site, and a daily newsletter in your inbox (at 8:30am, signed by the newsroom). On the app, choosing your interests unlocks additional articles; on the site, subscribers can access the full history of past selections. All with some personalisation, but deliberately limited, to preserve a common core shared by all subscribers. On top of that, every Saturday morning, an exclusive long read looks back on the week’s key events, signed by the editors-in-chief Christophe Jakubyszyn and Clémence Lemaistre. And because information is meant to be shared, the offer includes 5 articles to share freely with those close to you each month.

Pricing: a deliberately accessible positioning

Conceived as a daily intellectual companion, the offer is meant to be accessible to as many people as possible, and gives access only to this daily selection (site, app and newsletter). The early bird price is €9.90 a month. Yasmine Maslouhi claimed a positioning “cheaper than Canal+, cheaper than Netflix, and even cheaper than Le Monde today”. A special VivaTech offer was available on the stand: two months free. Note that the AI assistant for professional use was presented right next door, on the same stand.

To subscribe to La Sélection, it’s here. See you in a few months for the first results…

If you’re trying to scale a subscription or membership program, look at your current structure. Are you offering a clean, high-signal experience, or are you serving your readers "feature soup"?

At the Audiencers Festival in Montreal on June 25th, audience research leader Emily Goligoski and Rachel Mines, Director of Subscriptions at Skift, took the stage to break down a critical digital publishing dilemma: How do you package subscriptions to drive business growth without alienating the very audience that keeps you alive?

 Before you package anything
> Audit your product's identity before its price
> Ask if your audiences are actually converging, or if you're assuming they are
> Check whether your ops (UX, billing, support) can survive what you're about to combine

The exercise: fill in the blank

To find that sense of uniqueness, Goligoski runs newsroom leaders through simple prompts about their organizations:

• First in the subject, region, or world to ___
• Best compared to competitors in ___
• Only organization to ___

The exercise surfaces an origin story fast. But it’s only half the picture, and it’s the easy half — anyone can answer these questions for themselves around a conference table. The real value comes from asking the same questions of the people you’re trying to reach, who often can’t name your staff or your specific value prop but can place you loosely (“oh, that’s the one about the business of fashion”). The gap between the two answer sets is the actual work. It tells you what you think differentiates you and what has actually landed.

Her rule of thumb for this kind of testing: n+1 is better than n. At a minimum, show your prototype to one more person than has seen it already. You’ll walk away smarter from even one conversation, and Goligoski says fifteen years into doing this work, people still thank her for simply being asked for their perspectives.

But watch out for “feature soup.” When you start testing value props and benefits, it’s easy to try to cram everything onto one page or into one pitch. If a first-time visitor needs a magnifying glass to understand what they’re being offered, you’ve already lost the differentiation you were trying to build.

A few examples she pointed to of publishers getting specificity right:

• Caper, a New York food media outlet, prices its annual subscription against hyper-local reference points: “less than a burrata pizza slice at L’Industrie, a potato pancake at Veselka” instead of the generic “less than a cup of coffee a day.” It grounds the price and quietly reminds readers how many small recurring charges they’re already carrying.

• The New York Review of Books and The Paris Review have a once-a-year summer bundle offer for two publications with possible audience overlap and growth potential, a financially compelling deal rather than a permanent merge.
• Capital B, a Black-media outlet in the US, sent an anniversary email that included an actual screenshot of the text exchange between its two co-founders deciding to launch. It reads as human in a way most subscription marketing doesn’t.

Goligoski’s closing asks for anyone doing this work: 

• Limit friction wherever you find it
• Take a less-is-more approach to any data you collect (only ask what you’ll actually act on)
• Keep a running, visible wishlist of the features and coverage areas you hear people ask for. That list becomes a genuine insight bank over time.

The Skift case study: is your product an audience or a feature?

Mines joined Skift, a B2B travel media and events company, two years ago and inherited what she called “a family I didn’t plan for”: four separate subscription products, none designed to sit together.

• Skift Pro: always-on travel news, home-grown, positioned as “the Bloomberg of travel”
• Skift Research: long-form, data-driven reports, also home-grown, aimed at strategy and analytics buyers making a major decision rather than staying informed daily
• Airline Weekly: a roughly 20-year-old acquired product, once faxed, now a newsletter with its own site, read closely by aviation executives (Delta CEO Ed Bastian has called it “the only thing I read every week”)
• Daily Lodging Report: a similarly old acquisition, a daily digest for hospitality and real-estate operators

Three questions before you package anything

1. Identity: does combining these products strengthen each one’s core value, or dilute it?
2. Audience: are these audiences actually growing toward each other, or are they deliberately separate?
3. Operations: can your UX, billing, and support genuinely hold a bundle together, or will the seams show? Mines runs subscriptions with a five-person team, a small product team, and a small design team, capacity is a real constraint.

Applying these questions to the Skift context

Airline Weekly: bundled the content, not the experience. Skift already had aviation coverage in both Pro and Research, plus an aviation conference. The instinct was to fold Airline Weekly’s coverage into all of it. But the products stayed on separate platforms — readers had to hop between a newsletter, a website, and (for a much smaller group) a conference ticket. Layering content across products without integrating the actual user experience just produced a disjointed one. Nobody complained loudly about it; it showed up quietly instead, in renewal numbers drifting down. 

Mines’ takeaway: audit the identity of what you’re bundling before you bundle it. Packaging without UX clarity is just confusion with a price tag.

Daily Lodging Report: the right move was nothing. This subscriber base — Mines described them candidly as mostly finance and real-estate professionals — wanted exactly one thing: the digest, in their inbox, undisturbed. Skift gave the product a new site and new data tools anyway. The response was, in effect, I don’t care, just give me the newsletter. 

So, they left it alone, and it’s remained one of their steadiest, best-growing products. Leaving a product untouched is a strategic decision, not a lack of ambition. Some products’ value comes directly from their constraints.

Pro + Research: complementary, not interchangeable. These two live in the same sales conversation but serve different budgets and different personas — daily information versus decision-support research. Combining them into one package would have devalued Research and bloated Pro. Skift’s framing: they don’t need the same package, they need the same conversation.

Mines’ shorthand for thinking about all of this is a marriage metaphor: some products should merge households (full integration makes both better); some should keep separate addresses (related, committed, but each keeps its own front door); some need couples therapy first (real potential, but only after the UX and integration work happens); and some are simply happy as they are, and the kindest, smartest move is to leave them alone.

From the Q&A: a few things worth stealing

Don’t let a new feature justify a price increase — check whether anyone asked for it first. When Skift acquired the Women Leading Travel membership group, the team raised prices and then went looking for features to justify the increase — a research report, an add-on. Mines stopped that process to ask a more basic question: did any of these members actually want the research report? They hadn’t. What they wanted was networking and job connections, and that’s where Skift redirected. Goligoski added a comparable example: ProPublica offers a branded t-shirt only after someone donates, framed as a thank-you rather than a subscription perk — about 17% of donors take it, self-selecting into people who’ll actually wear it and become visible advocates, rather than shipping merchandise nobody asked for.

Test new features free before you charge for them. Goligoski’s suggestion for the free-versus-paid feature question: launch new features free first, watch uptake, get people to describe the value in their own words, and work out the rough edges before you decide whether it becomes a paid add-on or a built-in part of the product.

When you research your gap between positioning and perceived value, don’t blend your audiences. Talk to loyal long-term subscribers, low-frequency readers, and non-subscribers separately, and be explicit — internally — about exactly who any given finding came from. Self-reported research also goes stale fast, so treat it as something to refresh regularly rather than a one-time study you cite for years.

---

The takeaway to carry into your next packaging conversation: don’t start with pricing, and don’t start with the bundle itself. Start with audience needs and wants, including the friction points people tell you about. The best package isn’t the one with the most crammed into it — it’s the one your subscriber would actually notice if it disappeared.

Mark Zohar, President and CEO of Viafoura, shares why he believes that Frequency (the F in RFV) is the most important metric to be tracking in an era where content is increasingly a commodity that AI can summarize, paraphrase, and serve without ever sending a click your way.

AI broke the funnel. Community rebuilds it.

The uncomfortable truth is that the open web’s traditional acquisition funnel, SEO at the top, content in the middle, monetization at the bottom, was always borrowed infrastructure. Publishers rented audience from platforms, and now those platforms are keeping the audience for themselves.

The publishers who will win the next decade are the ones who own the relationship, not rent it. And ownership doesn’t come from content alone anymore. Content is increasingly a commodity that AI can summarize, paraphrase, and serve without ever sending a click your way.

What AI cannot replicate is community. It cannot replicate the experience of debating a local election with your neighbors in a comment thread moderated by your newsroom. It cannot replicate a live Q&A with the reporter who broke the story. It cannot replicate the feeling of being recognized, replied to, and known by a brand you trust.

This is where Frequency lives.

The Frequency Loop

When publishers invest in community-building experiences like commenting, Live Q&As, topic-based chats, polls, personalized feeds, and real-time notifications, something powerful happens. Readers stop coming back for the content alone. They start coming back for the conversation.

That shift creates what I call the Frequency Loop

A reader visits for the content. They engage with the community. They get notified when someone replies, when a new live event starts, when a topic they care about is being discussed. They come back. They engage again. They register to keep participating. They subscribe to deepen the relationship. Every loop tightens the bond, increases the visit count, and unlocks more revenue per user.

The economics of this loop are not theoretical. Viafoura‘s data shows that engaged community members visit at a rate that is 6-8 times higher than fly-by users. And the downstream impact is well documented across the industry. Piano’s Subscription Performance Benchmark has found that registered users convert to paid subscriptions at roughly 45 times the rate of anonymous visitors. Frequency is what closes the gap between the two.

More frequency means more ad impressions. More frequency means higher page RPM, because engaged sessions monetize at premium rates. More frequency means a registered-user base that’s actually worth registering. More frequency means subscription offers that land, because the reader has already demonstrated, behaviourally, that they value what you do.

What the F should you actually do?

If Frequency is the metric, here’s the honest diagnostic every publisher should run:

Do you give your audience a reason to come back tomorrow that isn’t a new article? Do you have a place on your property where readers talk to each other and to your journalists? Do you notify them when their participation matters? Do you personalize what they see based on what they engage with, not just what they read? Do you treat your registered users like a community, or like a CRM list?

If the answer to most of those is no, you don’t have a Frequency problem. You have a community infrastructure problem. And in an AI era where every other lever (search traffic, social referral, content differentiation) is getting harder to pull, community infrastructure is the lever that’s getting more valuable, not less.

The bottom line

AI is going to keep getting better at answering questions. It’s not going to get better at being a community. That asymmetry is the single largest strategic opening publishers have right now, and Frequency is the metric that tells you whether you’re walking through it.

So the next time your board asks how you’re future-proofing the business against AI disruption, don’t show them a traffic chart. Show them your Frequency curve.

And if you don’t have one, well, you know what to ask yourself.

What the F are you doing?