Beyond saying that journalism is paid for

Since the bulk of global advertising investment has been absorbed by the big tech companies that trade in our data, there is a consensus among the press that sustainability will only come if readers are the ones who fund newsrooms. Newspapers repeat this mantra in image campaigns because it looks good and is a pat on the back for the communities they serve, but too often it is a hypocritical cry, because headlines that champion this discourse with the other hand explode subscription rates. You can't say journalism is paid for and sell a whole year's access to your production for only 9.99 euros: you are devaluing your product in the name of uncertain positioning. It only serves to stave off hunger, basically. One of the discreet jobs we try to do at ARA is to break this inertia, but the sector's current is not favorable.

I was thinking about it following the news published by the New York Times where they explain that they have surpassed 13 million subscribers. This is the basic data, but they immediately reveal that there is another, more key figure, when examining the health of these subscriptions: looking at how much they cost on average (9.77 dollars a month, in their case). As long as the Spanish press undercuts prices in an absurd dumping strategy, it is difficult for the sector to rationalize itself and leave room for those who do want to live off their readers. By the way, the Times includes another interesting piece of data: almost 10% of its revenue – and rising – corresponds to licenses of its content so that AI engines and the like can train. Therefore, a dialogue with tech companies is needed about fair compensation for vampirized content, but this is only achieved by having the strength of the

New York Times... or by going together. I have the feeling, however, especially seeing the cutthroat price war that has been set up, that it's better to grab a chair.