Fighting for Survival: Media Startups in the Global South

"The need for free and independent media is greater than ever....[D]emand for investigative and accountability reporting has increased, along with readers' support. But this has not translated into financial stability."

This paper is a follow-up to a 2015 report Publishing for Peanuts, which surveyed 35 media "global muckrakers", mostly small-to-medium size independent media outlets in the Global South who want to hold power to account. In 2018, the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) decided to go back and see how the outlets had fared in their efforts to become self-sustaining; this paper includes detailed profiles of 26 outlets and a summary of some of the relevant literature published since 2015.

Returning to the 35 outlets, SIPA found that 3 had failed, and 6 had been seriously reconfigured or renamed. Ultimately, SIPA spoke to 21 outlets from 2015 and 5 outlets they had not interviewed before. In hour-long interviews conducted between July and December 2018, the researchers asked the editors and founders to describe their business models and to reflect on their mission, their successes and failures, and how they survive.

Key findings:

• As in 2015, founders and editors want to fill an information gap in society. The people who were interviewed believe the work they are doing is not being done by others and that it is crucial for societies to function properly. They believe in truth telling, in deep analysis, and in holding power to account. Some see other media outlets in their country as captured and unable to report on the stories that matter.
• Most outlets disseminate information via the web and mobile. Thirteen out of 16 outlets have expansion plans; some want to create apps. Daily Maverick (South Africa) wants to make films, and Horizontal (Mexico) hopes to begin podcasting. Gram Vaani was well known for its radio network and use of mobile telephony to provide entertainment, share useful information, and promote accountability. But as technology changes, the development of new products becomes essential to their future.
• Those at the helm are not motivated by money: 43% of the founders and editors used their own money, or that of their family and friends, to fund the initial investment, and 84% have not earned back that investment. They have volunteered their time for little compensation; 42% of the founders do not draw a salary, and of those who do, 16% describe that income as insufficient to live on.
• Financial survival is the biggest worry for the media outlets; in large part, they remain dependent on donors. Advertising is hard to come by, and raising funding from audiences has proven difficult. In the context of challenging political climates, the rise of right-wing demagogues, and attacks on the media, the outlets recounted tales of support and encouragement from their audiences. But this sentiment does not translate into sustainable forms of funding.
• The outlets have professionalised in the sense that many now have accounting software, bookkeepers, and full-time staff working on grant writing. (There is a strong correlation between employing a full-time marketing staffer and generating revenue.) Many outlets still rely on unpaid contributors, and some use office space that was provided for free or rented at a discount.
• Journalists in dangerous places take enormous personal risks to cover stories they think are essential. For example, Mexican journalists report on crime and human rights violations in states where there is little protection for journalists; journalists have been murdered in Mexico in the past 10 years, most killed with impunity, and many others have gone permanently missing. This is not an isolated example.
• Political transitions can make or break an outlet. Those interviewed described their own experiences of dealing with uncertainty in the wake of political transitions. For example, early hope for democracy in Myanmar was dashed when the government became more repressive and the media climate tightened again. Conversely, in South Korea, after a left-of-centre government was elected in May 2017, there was less audience excitement for investigative reporting.

Reflections and recommendations related to viability:

• The findings suggest continued dependence by media outlets on philanthropy. SIPA urges donors to collaborate more and think about the larger media ecosystem as they make funding decisions so there aren't too many small outlets competing for the same pots of funding.
• SIPA contends that membership models, while able to provide niche funding, are even less likely to scale and provide core funding than crowdfunding. Selling memberships puts an additional demand on audiences, asking them for not just their money but also their time.
• It may be time to consider a general industry body that would assist with peer-to-peer learning and fundraising, channel funds from donors, and do capacity building. Such an industry-wide body could assist small civic-minded outlets. The Global Investigative Journalism Network is making attempts in this regard and has been answering requests for assistance and helping with business strategies. They have also added a section on the GIJN website's Resource Center devoted to sustainability issues. In 2018, GIJN offered well-attended workshops on best practices for sustainability. These were held at GIJN's flagship investigative journalism conferences in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.
• There has also been discussion about creating a global media fund; such a fund could help the outlets profiled in this report while supporting a public good. The Media Development Investment Fund has been working for years on promoting media viability.

SIPA asked some of the founders and editors interviewed for their tips for beginners, which are shared in the report. Mostly, they said that it's important to have a business plan and a sense of who your audience will be.