3 ms·

https://assets-c3.propublica.org/pdf/reports/2022-Annual-Report.pdf https://assets-c3.propublica.org/pdf/reports/2022-Annual-Rep... Page 43: - 5.8 million mon

https://assets-c3.propublica.org/pdf/reports/2022-Annual-Report.pdf https://assets-c3.propublica.org/pdf/reports/2022-Annual-Rep... Page 43: - 5.8 million monthly page views - 506,544 newsletter subscribers Page 44: - 2022 revenue $42 million - Online donations $4.3 million - The rest is grants and gifts - Expenses $40.2 This is... not good at all.. it is basically a tiny blog that runs 90% on donations from a few rich people. I've seen single tweets with more views than what they get in a month, propublica sadly can't be sustainable for much longer I wouldn't think. This subject has been giving me anxiety since about 2006. Nothing seems to stem the decline and I am scared what kind of world we will end up in soon as a result.

danso 3y ago
Their business model isn't based on website CPM, but on producing "impact" that gets them recognition and appreciation. Their recent stories on Clarence Thomas [0] dominated the news cycle last week. Even if the website story page got just 1M hits, far more people saw the story via other media outlets and government officials citing it. When PP puts out fundraising pitches, the Thomas story will be a highlight for this year. It's worth noting that investigative work has always been like this. Even before news orgs had web analytics, they knew that a multi-month investigation into government spending/corruption might be a few thousand or just hundred readers, but as long as those readers included people in positions of power and influence -- e.g. a member of congress who can call for a congressional hearing -- then that boosts the newspaper brand and influence as much as any popular story. PP focuses on investigative work rather than general news. It doesn't publish frequently enough, or about any specific topic, to drive regular annual readership (i.e. subscribers) -- I doubt there are many people who'd check PP's homepage on a daily or even weekly basis. So, better to attract charitable foundation grants and small donor contributions than to do a subscriber paywall. [0] https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-un...

danso 3y ago

Their business model isn't based on website CPM, but on producing "impact" that gets them recognition and appreciation. Their recent stories on Clarence Thomas [0] dominated the news cycle last week. Even if the website story page got just 1M hits, far more people saw the story via other media outlets and government officials citing it. When PP puts out fundraising pitches, the Thomas story will be a highlight for this year. It's worth noting that investigative work has always been like this. Even before news orgs had web analytics, they knew that a multi-month investigation into government spending/corruption might be a few thousand or just hundred readers, but as long as those readers included people in positions of power and influence -- e.g. a member of congress who can call for a congressional hearing -- then that boosts the newspaper brand and influence as much as any popular story. PP focuses on investigative work rather than general news. It doesn't publish frequently enough, or about any specific topic, to drive regular annual readership (i.e. subscribers) -- I doubt there are many people who'd check PP's homepage on a daily or even weekly basis. So, better to attract charitable foundation grants and small donor contributions than to do a subscriber paywall. [0] https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-un...