> The Economist has launched a dedicated subscription tier for access to audio and video formats, priced lower than the core digital subscription to attract new audiences

> The "Halo Effect": From early signals, the team has observed an uptick in core Premium sign-ups. Seeing a cheaper, format-specific option next to the full product acts as an anchor, nudging undecided visitors to pay a little extra for the full suite.

> Net-New Audience: Conversions through Play have been driven almost entirely by brand-new readers rather than existing subscribers trading down.

> Play is part of The Economist's wider strategic development (alongside podcasts, short-form video and "Insider") towards building deeper, more "human" relationships with audiences

The reasoning behind building it as a tier rather than a separate product, in Arnot’s words, was straightforward: a growing audience across all age ranges, not only younger readers, is consuming news in audio and video form specifically in the in-between moments of a day, commuting, walking a dog, running errands. The Economist wanted a way to show up at this moment without asking people to pay full price for a format mix they didn’t want yet. It’s also, deliberately, a lower-priced entry point aimed at bringing younger demographics into The Economist’s orbit before they’re ready for the full written product.

Arnot was clear that this is not a sign of declining interest in text. Older subscribers still demand “the whole buffet” of text, audio, and video. However, AV formats are specifically what attract the next generation, audiences who are likely to skew toward 90% audio-video consumption and 10% print.

How Play is marketed and priced

On the acquisition side, paid media campaigns in test markets lead directly with the Play proposition. However, when prospects land on the offer page, they see all three tiers side-by-side: Play, Premium (Digital), and Premium Plus Print.

Play receives the same intro mechanics as the core subscriptions: 30% off an annual pass or a one-month free trial.

Early signals, three weeks in

So far, subscription growth is looking very promising and, critically, existing Premium subscriptions in those markets have stayed healthy. Arnot even noted an uptick in Premium sign-ups that they attribute partly to Play’s presence on the offer page. Seeing a cheaper, format-specific option next to the full product seems to be nudging some undecided visitors toward paying a little more for everything, rather than pulling people down to the cheaper tier. So far, everyone acquired through Play has been genuinely new to The Economist, rather than existing subscribers trading down.

Importantly, Arnot’s team is watching closely to check that the new lower tier isn’t cannibalising their classic subscription. The logic they’re applying: it’s fine to accept some cannibalization risk as long as incremental new subscriptions outweigh it, and so far, that hasn’t materialized as a problem.

Product portfolio realignment: Play vs Espresso

The Economist already operated a lower-cost daily news offering, Espresso, alongside Economist Podcast Plus. However, Espresso offers only a handful of written pieces per month—a materially thinner proposition than Play’s full audio-video catalog.

To prevent audience confusion and eliminate product overlap:

1. The Economist delisted Espresso from app stores entirely within the Play pilot markets.
2. The team funneled all lower-friction entry points toward one unified brand experience inside the primary app ecosystem.

The wider relationship-building strategy

For Arnot, Play is one piece of a long-term evolution toward human-centered publishing:

1. Podcasts (top of funnel): Un-paywalled podcasts introduced audiences to journalists as real people—a shift for a publication that historically ran without bylines.
2. Short-form video (mid funnel): Put journalists directly in front of the camera, deepening visual familiarity.
3. Insider (retention & loyalty): A premium feature launched in late 2025 that brings subscribers into the newsroom through editor-led shows, biweekly newsletters, and newsmaking interviews with global leaders. The value of these “human” formats was echoed by Diana Babei, Principal Product Manager, at Audiencers’ Festival London, who shared that insider is already proving to build loyalty and trust in ways that article text doesn’t, including high engagement with this product (75% of subscribers) and lower churn among Insider viewers. 

4. Play (acquisition & conversion): Uses the same human-first AV formats that drive Insider’s loyalty, but packages them at a lower price point to build habits and acquire audiences who haven’t yet subscribed

Arnot connected this directly to the pressure AI search and AI-generated summaries are putting on publishers broadly: as it becomes easier for a reader to get information without ever visiting a publisher’s site, the case for a human-centered, personality-driven product only gets stronger, not as a defensive move, but as one of the few remaining things a subscription can offer that a summary can’t.

Insider and Play, in that sense, aren’t two separate initiatives so much as two different answers to the same underlying bet: that in an AI-saturated information environment, the publishers who win will be the ones readers feel some kind of human connection to, whether that connection starts with a $15 audio tier or a premium interview.

Key takeaways for publishers

• Lower barriers, high intent: Play acts as both an affordable entry tier for news consumers and a funnel toward the full-fat product
• Single-app ecosystem: Consolidating tiers inside one core app keeps brand equity intact and simplifies the upgrade journey
• Format-led segmentation: Rather than gating by topic, gating by format (AV vs. text) aligns naturally with mobile habits and daily routines
• Human-first defensibility: Prioritising formats that showcase real journalists builds trust and retention that AI summaries cannot replicate. 

With a hard paywall leaving practically zero articles for free, Foreign Policy prioritizes low-effort, high-impact tactics, three of which were shared at Audiencers' Festival Montréal:
> 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.

> Product decisions at most news organisations get made by whoever's loudest in the room, or by instinct built from experience. To overcome this, Germany's FUNKE Mediengruppe built a framework to replace that with something structured and evidence-led instead: a KPI tree

> Start with one metric at the top, not a dashboard. Funke picked Engaged Time, then broke it down layer by layer: what drives sessions, what drives active users, what drives new vs. returning. Each layer down gets more specific, until you hit something Stefan calls a movable metric, one a single product decision can actually shift

> Once you have even a partial tree, run a basic sensitivity check. Move two input variables by 5% each and see which one moves the KPI above it more. That tells you where to run your next sprint, not guesswork

> Only after the tree exists, build the org around it. Funke's four pillars (Reach, Engagement, Monetisation, Infrastructure) came directly from the tree's branches

> Don't start with the whole tree. Stefan's advice is to instrument one branch, show your team what it reveals, and let that build the internal case before you expand

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.

> 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.

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.

The Guardian doesn't have a paywall, anyone can read it, whether they pay or not. So the 1.4 million people who choose to give money anyway aren't paying for access, they're paying for something else entirely

> Ownership is the product: The organisation's value proposition comes down to three words - global, independent, free. Owned by the Scott Trust, their sole purpose is to ensure The Guardian can keep publishing. It's this that's sold to readers

> One email, built entirely around that pitch, generated $2 million. When The Washington Post and LA Times pulled their 2024 election endorsements, The Guardian sent readers a simple message - we published ours, and always will, because no billionaire can tell us not to

> But it's the method that's worth noting rather than the moment: The Guardian surveys readers right after they give, with the goal of understanding the why. The top answers include protecting the free press, editorial independence, or the journalism itself

> These surfaced motivations don't just become a slide that's presented once to the team, they're used to build every single message that asks for support. They keep telling the story, deliberately and repeatedly

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.

> According to OpinionWay, the average French person consumes about 6 media families a day, 20% already use a generative AI to get informed, but a majority say they feel overwhelmed, even fatigued, by the news

> Faced with information fatigue, unlimited access is not the answer. Les Echos is instead making the opposite bet, that of selection

> "La Sélection" consists of between 9 and 15 articles a day, chosen from a daily output of 120 to 150 pieces, following a reader-needs grid (inform, reflect, get inspired, develop, unwind) and a strict quota discipline

> Three platforms (a dedicated tab in the app, a section on the site, a daily newsletter), a weekly long read on Saturdays, and 5 shareable articles a month. Early bird price sits at €9.90 a month

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…

> Le Monde has wanted to launch an English edition for 50+ years, but technological advances (AI translations) and digital subscriptions (delivering value internationally with ease) finally made the project possible in 2022. It's also an important move for the brand to continue to grow beyond the limited French market

> Content: Le Monde in English doesn't create original content; it exclusively translates a curated selection of the French edition (30% of all articles from Le Monde)

> Because an international reader is highly likely to already hold a primary subscription to a domestic title like The New York Times or The Guardian, Le Monde in English positions itself as a "second read," with a highly accessible pricing structure (starting at €2.50/month for the first year)

> Performance so far: around 16,000 active subscribers, 50% of whom are from the US. Approx. 5 million monthly visits, and subscriptions are the core business driver, representing 66.2% of revenue, followed by licensing (16.9%), B2B (12.3%) and advertising (4.6%)

> "It's not about translation": success comes down to content market fit, product distribution, and understanding the distinct profile of your international audience. And whilst AI has driven productivity gains on this front, it's also created journalism jobs - AI handles the mechanical translation, freeing human journalists to focus purely on editing, nuance, and curation

2. The tech triggers

Two key factors finally made the project feasible in 2022:

• Artificial Intelligence: AI finally matured enough to drastically lower the financial and temporal costs of translation.
• The digital subscription model: Unlike the 1970s print attempt, which incurred immense logistics costs to print and ship copies across the UK and US without any guarantee of sales, digital distribution completely eliminates the friction of international expansion.

Aubron contrasted this with The New York Times, which launched a Spanish edition in 2016 but shuttered it a few years later. The New York Times relied heavily on manual translation without AI and built a business model dependent on advertising rather than subscriptions, a strategy that ultimately proved unsustainable.

The launch and operational workflow

Following Aubron’s appointment in September 2021, the project launched in April 2022 to coincide with the French presidential elections.

At launch, the assumption was that AI could handle the heavy lifting, followed by a quick proofread. In reality, it required much more human intervention.

1. DeepL translation: The software was used to generate the initial baseline translation. While highly rated, the technology in 2022 still required heavy editing to meet Le Monde’s journalistic standards.
2. Professional freelance translators: To ensure maximum quality for a premium subscription product, two translator agencies were brought in to meticulously review and correct the AI-generated text.
3. In-house editorial team: A dedicated team of 8 journalists was embedded directly within the French newsroom. This physical proximity allowed them to collaborate, anticipate news, and edit translations seamlessly alongside the original authors.

Article selection: quality over quantity

Le Monde in English does not create original content; it exclusively translates a curated selection of the French edition.

• 30% of French articles translated: The team skips live coverage, podcasts, and strictly local French wire stories (e.g., specific domestic politics, local school or banking issues) that hold little relevance to an international audience.
• +10 daily dispatches: They supplement translated deep-dives with roughly ten English news dispatches per day to provide hot news.

Pricing: A “second read” strategy

Because an international reader is highly likely to already hold a primary subscription to a domestic title like The New York Times or The Guardian, Le Monde in English positions itself as a “second read.”

To account for this, the pricing structure had to be highly accessible:

• Introductory price: €2.50 per month for the first year.
• Standard price: Loops up to €10.00 per month progressively.
• Average price point: As of March 2026, the average revenue per user sits at €4.66.

Aubron noted that an attempt to raise prices in 2025 stalled subscriber growth because the price increase came at a time when audience acquisition hadn’t scaled sufficiently to absorb the change. Lesson learned: a secondary read strategy demands highly sensitive, highly competitive pricing.

Four years later: audience & subscription performance

The strategy has paid off, yielding steady traffic and subscription growth since the launch 4 years ago.

• Current Subscriber Base: Hovering near 16,000 active subscribers.
• The American engine: A staggering 50% of all subscribers come from the United States. Aubron attributed this to a stark cultural difference in the propensity to pay for news: while only roughly 10% of French consumers pay for digital news, closer to 20% of Americans do. The subscriber base consists heavily of students, retirees, and individuals with an existing personal, educational, or marital link to France.
• Global traffic footprint: The platform pulls in approximately 5 million monthly visits.
  • United States: 38.5%
  • United Kingdom: 12.2%
  • Canada: 9.5%
  • France: 7.3% (although access to the English edition from France is limited to subscribers on higher-tier plans)
  • India: the fastest-growing traffic segment
  • Germany: the first non-anglophone country.

What do they read?

True to Le Monde’s core strengths, the most read sections are international news, French politics, and economy. Surprisingly, culture and lifestyle pieces perform exceptionally well; articles about new Parisian restaurant openings or art exhibitions see massive engagement from readers living as far away as Texas and Florida.

Subscriber acquisition strategies

To recruit international subscribers, Le Monde deploys a three-pronged approach:

1. Leveraging LeMonde.fr’s SEO hierarchy: Internal debates weighed whether to launch on a standalone domain (LeMonde.com) or a subdirectory (LeMonde.fr/en). Choosing LeMonde.fr proved to be a major SEO blessing, allowing the English edition to instantly draft off the massive domain authority of the main French site.
2. Paid acquisition adjustments: Google advertising is a core driver. Aubron also highlighted a massive breakthrough in their Meta acquisition costs: after peaking at an expensive €86.90 cost-per-acquisition (CPA) in late 2025, optimization strategies successfully drove that CPA down to just €9.30 by March 2026.
3. Strategic publisher partnerships: By setting up reciprocal marketing exchanges with premium Anglo-Saxon publishers (The New York Times, The Guardian, The Atlantic), Le Monde cross-promotes free trial offers directly to highly qualified audiences who are already accustomed to paying for premium journalism.

Achieving break-even

The most significant milestone of the session was the announcement that Le Monde in English has officially achieved financial break-even in 2026, a full year ahead of the initial business plan.

Revenue breakdown:

• Subscriptions: 66.2% (The core driver of the business).
• Licensing: 16.9%.
• B2B: 12.3%.
• Advertising: 4.6%.

Product evolutions: what’s new today?

Since its 2022 launch, the operational model has undergone substantial changes, heavily driven by advancements in generative AI:

AI-driven productivity gains

• The transition to ChatGPT: Le Monde migrated its primary translation workflow away from DeepL to customized ChatGPT protocols. This allowed the team to deeply bake Le Monde’s distinct editorial tone and style guides directly into the translation layer.
• Eliminating the translation layer: The quality of generative AI advancements and the know-how developed by the team of journalists completely eliminated the need for external freelance translators.
• Creating journalism jobs via AI: Instead of using tech to downsize, Le Monde redirected those cost savings into expanding its internal editorial team from 8 to 10 full-time in-house journalists. AI handles the mechanical translation, freeing human journalists to focus purely on editing, nuance, and curation.

Platform and multimedia expansion

• A bilingual app: They integrated a native toggle inside the core Le Monde app, allowing users to switch effortlessly between the French and English editions. While app users represent just 4% of total English traffic, they account for a massive 49% of all English subscribers.
• A dedicated YouTube channel: Rather than merging video content, they launched a standalone English YouTube channel. High-end video investigations have achieved breakout success: their video on Dubai money laundering garnered 760,000 views (vs. 1 million for the French original), and their documentary on the November 13 Paris attacks pulled in 2 million views (nearly matching the 2.2 million views of the French version).
• Apple News+ integration: Le Monde in English is now available directly within the Apple News+ ecosystem to capture a broader layer of casual readers.
• M International magazine: In March 2025, they went “back to paper” by launching a premium, biannual print magazine called M International (themed “The French Touch”). They distribute 25,000 copies across 350 elite newsstands in 20 countries and 37 global cities.

Key takeaways

Aubron concluded his presentation with three definitive lessons learned over the four-year journey:

• It’s not about translation: Translation is now a commoditized utility. Success comes down to content market fit, product distribution, and understanding the distinct profile of your international audience.
• Hard to imagine working in another language: Due to global curiosity around French art de vivre, culture, and global politics, in the US, the English edition works beautifully. However, Aubron noted he would not attempt to launch a Spanish or German edition of Le Monde yet, as those markets lack the critical size and same unique cross-border structural demand.
• AI can create jobs: The project stands as living proof that when publishers embrace automated productivity tools like generative AI, they can reinvest the dividends directly into hiring more human journalists to elevate the final product.