‘Confidence born of adaptation’: Why 63% of news executives are bullish on 2026
One of the main findings of the World Press Trends Outlook 2025-2026 report was that, despite facing serious challenges, news executives worldwide are optimistic about the future. The report found that 63 percent of them feel positive about their prospects for the year ahead.
We spoke to the report’s co-author Dr François Nel, Reader in Media Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the University of Lancashire, about the reasons for this optimism. We also discussed how publishers’ revenue model is evolving, the common barriers for AI adoption, and whether digital subscriptions have really hit a ceiling.
Read more about the report’s key findings here. WAN-IFRA Members can access the full report in our Knowledge Hub.
WAN-IFRA: The report describes a “surprisingly buoyant” industry mood, with nearly 63% of executives optimistic about the next 12 months. And yet, most traditional metrics show the industry is shrinking. What are the foundations for this confidence?
François Nel: It’s important to be clear about who this optimism reflects. Our survey draws on a self-selected group of senior executives engaged in the WAN-IFRA network. These are leaders who are actively looking up and around – benchmarking, learning, and testing new assumptions – rather than just looking down at legacy dashboards.
Their confidence doesn’t come from traditional metrics suddenly improving. It comes from no longer relying on them alone. Many organisations have become leaner, more diversified, and more honest about what success looks like in today’s market. Growth expectations are modest, but control and strategic clarity are higher.
In that sense, this isn’t about rowing harder in the same direction – it’s about recognising that yesterday’s course no longer works, and deliberately choosing a more survivable one.
In sum: What we’re seeing isn’t denial of decline – it’s confidence born of adaptation.
One striking finding is that the projected revenue growth for publishers working in developing markets is more than triple that of those in developed markets (24.8% vs. 7.8%). Can you pinpoint the factors that are driving this divergence?
In many developing markets, publishers are still reaching audiences that were never fully served by legacy news. In countries such as India, Nigeria, and Kenya, news consumption has been largely mobile-first, often via social platforms, messaging apps, and video. Many publishers also avoided the heavy fixed costs of print, giving them more flexibility.
Of course, larger audiences do not automatically translate into revenue. In these markets, as elsewhere, global platforms still capture most digital advertising, which limits how much value publishers can extract from reach alone. That’s why the optimism we see isn’t about guaranteed returns – it’s about headroom and choice. These publishers still have room to experiment with advertising, partnerships, events, services, and emerging reader-revenue models as markets formalise.
In developed markets such as the United Kingdom and the United States, the challenge is different. Audiences are already saturated, subscription fatigue is real, competition for attention is intense, and operating costs are higher. Growth there is about defending and optimising mature models, not expanding into new demand.
The divergence, then, is not about who is doing better journalism – it’s about where there is still space to build sustainable business models, rather than simply extract more value from crowded, mature markets.
While AI implementation is advancing, especially in newsrooms, it remains relatively weak in monetisation and audience engagement. What are the barriers for using AI effectively in these areas?
AI is being used first where it saves money – and held back where it affects trust.
For news executives, AI isn’t just a technology question. It’s a trust question. That’s why most organisations have started with newsroom workflows, where the benefits are clear and the risks are easier to manage.
Using AI in monetisation and audience engagement is different. These areas sit right at the heart of the relationship with readers. They require confidence in how data is used, clarity about who is accountable, and reassurance that the publisher – not the tech provider – stays in control.
There’s also growing concern about reliance on large technology companies. Many publishers are wary of handing over audience insight, pricing logic, or customer relationships to systems they don’t fully trust. As a result, leaders are moving carefully: the opportunity is real, but protecting trust matters more than moving fast.
A major finding is that digital revenue growth appears to have stalled at roughly 31% over the last few years. Is this proof of a “ceiling” for digital subscriptions, or are there other reasons for this stagnation?
It’s less a ceiling than a pause – a sign that first-generation digital models are maturing. But it is also a reminder that digital subscriptions have limits.
When Rupert Murdoch put a paywall on The Times in 2010, he argued that there simply wasn’t enough advertising in the world to pay for everything online. His logic was blunt: fewer readers paying reliably was better than chasing scale with no revenue. At the time, that view was heretical. Today it’s mainstream. Most major publishers – and an increasing number of small ones too – now rely heavily on reader revenue.
But there’s a catch. Just as there wasn’t enough advertising to fund everyone, there isn’t enough reader revenue in the world to do so either. Globally, the majority of people still do not pay for online news. In South Africa, for example, only around one in ten say they do. The reasons are consistent: lack of trust, limited ability to pay, low perceived value – and, for some, the sense that news consumption is emotionally exhausting rather than enriching.
This is where the idea of a “ceiling” becomes less about technology and more about social reality. Subscription growth surged during periods of crisis and novelty. What we’re seeing now is normalisation. The next phase of growth will come from bundling, pricing innovation, differentiated value, and deeper engagement, not simply adding more subscribers. Digital revenue can still grow – but it won’t grow on autopilot.
Zooming out, there’s a deeper tension. Only around 10% of people globally pay for news – and that same top 10% also holds the vast majority of global wealth. Long-term research I’m currently leading suggests that a significant share of declining trust in news is linked not to platforms or disinformation, but to rising income inequality. That raises an uncomfortable question for the industry: why do we expect the bottom 90% to fund a media system they often feel doesn’t represent them?
So the stagnation we see isn’t just a market signal. It’s a reminder that reader revenue is a powerful pillar – but not a universal solution. Sustainable journalism will depend on a mix of models, and on rebuilding a sense that journalism serves – and speaks for – more than just those who can afford to pay.
“Other” revenue – income from non-traditional sources like events and partnerships – has nearly doubled since 2021, jumping from 13.2% to 25.4%. Can you comment on what is fuelling this shift and how much higher this “third pillar” can go?
This isn’t a sudden discovery – it’s a question the industry has been circling for more than a decade: where else is the money?
I first posed that question in 2009, in the wake of the financial crisis, and explored it in a paper published in 2010 and previewed at the Society of Editors conference in Luton. At the time, the idea that publishers would need to look beyond advertising and circulation was still contested. Today, it’s mainstream.
What’s driving the growth in “other” revenue is a recognition that publishers have valuable assets beyond content alone: trust, expertise, data, relationships, and convening power. As advertising became harder to scale and subscriptions reached natural limits, organisations began monetising those assets through events, training, research, partnerships, philanthropy, and specialist services. In that sense, this shift is less about novelty and more about strategic maturity.
As for how high this third pillar can go, it depends on the publisher. For specialist, B2B, or mission-driven organisations, “other” revenue can rival – and sometimes exceed – reader revenue. For general-interest newsrooms, it is more likely to function as a stabiliser rather than a replacement. These activities demand different skills and governance, and they only work when they align with editorial purpose and audience trust.
The opportunity isn’t infinite – but it’s real.
In practice, “other” revenue won’t carry the system on its own. But as a third pillar, it can reduce risk, smooth volatility, and give publishers more strategic breathing room – exactly what many are now using it for.
It’s not about finding a silver bullet; it’s about building a broader base.
