In today’s digital-first newsrooms, journalists often report live, publish updates in real time, and interact directly with audiences as stories unfold. The result is tension between speed and accuracy. It is no longer just a professional challenge but, increasingly, an ethical one shaped by the systems and workflows that define real-time journalism.

Our latest research with student and early-career journalists, drawing on interviews and survey responses, highlights how strongly this concern is felt. Many young reporters say the expectation to publish quickly, correct later, and keep the feed moving can feel like pressure to take risks. When verification occurs after publication rather than before, accuracy becomes reactive instead of foundational.

For media executives, this shift raises an important question: how can news organizations deliver the speed audiences expect while protecting the credibility that sustains trust? Addressing that question requires more than reminding journalists to “be careful.” It requires rethinking the systems, workflows, and newsroom culture that shape real-time journalism.

The ethical pressure of real-time news

Live blogs, rolling coverage, push notifications, and social platforms mean that each new detail can reach audiences within seconds. This immediacy is powerful, enabling newsrooms to inform the public almost in real time. But once information is published, it spreads quickly across platforms and communities, often far beyond a newsroom’s control. Even when updates or corrections are issued later, there is no guarantee they will reach the same audiences. The original version can continue to circulate long after corrections have been made.

For younger journalists working inside these workflows, the ethical stakes feel high. They are often operating at the intersection of reporting, publishing, and audience interaction. In some cases, they are expected to monitor live feeds, write updates, verify information, and respond to audience questions simultaneously.

The intention behind these workflows is understandable. Audiences expect immediacy, competitors publish in real time, and the news cycle moves quickly. But when newsroom systems reward velocity above all else, they risk signaling that speed matters more than judgment.

That perception matters. Trust depends on the belief that news organizations prioritize accuracy even when it slows them down. If journalists feel pushed to publish unverified information, that trust becomes harder to sustain.

When technology accelerates publishing but not verification

Digital publishing tools have transformed how breaking news is reported. They allow reporters to update stories instantly, provide minute-by-minute coverage, and keep audiences informed as events unfold.

Used well, these tools strengthen journalism. They enable transparency, allow corrections to be made quickly, and give audiences a clearer view of what is known and what is still developing.

The problem arises when technology rewards speed without supporting the editorial decisions behind it. Real-time publishing environments can encourage constant updates, even when information is incomplete. If newsroom dashboards or performance metrics emphasize update frequency or time-to-publish above all else, journalists may feel pressure to move forward before verification is complete.

Media executives should consider whether their tools and metrics reinforce the right priorities. Do workflows allow time for verification? Do editors have clear visibility on updates before they go live? Are journalists encouraged to label uncertain information clearly rather than present it as confirmed?

Technology cannot replace editorial judgment, but it can either strengthen or weaken it.

Credibility built through transparency

Accuracy is not only about getting facts right the first time. It is also about how news organizations respond when information changes.

In live coverage, new details often emerge that challenge earlier assumptions. Responsible reporting means correcting inaccuracies quickly and clearly. It also means explaining those corrections so audiences understand what changed and why.

This transparency is essential for maintaining credibility. Audiences are often more understanding of evolving information than silence or defensiveness when mistakes occur.

The same principle applies to audience engagement. Today’s journalists frequently interact directly with readers through comment sections and social platforms. These conversations can build trust when handled well, but they can also spread confusion or misinformation if inaccurate claims are left unaddressed. When false information appears in comment threads or audience discussions, correcting it promptly helps prevent those claims from spreading further.

Newsrooms should be prepared for this reality. That preparation includes setting clear community guidelines, assigning responsibility for monitoring conversations, and ensuring journalists are supported when responding in fast-moving environments.

Responding quickly matters, but so does responding carefully.

Building systems that support ethical speed

The core challenge facing digital newsrooms is not whether to move quickly. Speed is part of modern journalism, and audiences expect it. The challenge is ensuring it does not weaken the editorial standards that define the profession.

That preparation starts with clear expectations. Verification is not optional, even under pressure. When information is uncertain, the responsible approach is to say so.

It also requires practical support. Editors, producers, and audience teams should work together so reporters are not juggling every responsibility alone during live coverage. When someone is responsible for monitoring comments or verifying incoming information, the reporter covering the story can focus on accurate updates.

Training also matters, particularly for younger journalists who are starting their careers in live, digital news environments rather than traditional reporting structures. They need guidance not only on how to publish quickly but also on when to pause.

Finally, newsroom leaders must reinforce that credibility remains the industry’s real competitive advantage. Speed may capture attention in the moment, but trust determines whether audiences return tomorrow.

Accuracy sustains trust

The modern newsroom operates in an environment defined by constant updates and immediate audience response. That reality is unlikely to change. What can change is how organizations balance the demands of speed with the responsibility of accuracy.

Journalism has always required difficult judgment calls. In digital reporting, those decisions simply happen faster and in public view. The goal is not to slow down the news cycle, but to ensure that the systems behind it protect the principles journalism depends on.

Speed may capture attention. Trust depends on whether the systems behind the newsroom protect accuracy when the pressure to publish is highest.

The post Speed vs. accuracy: Journalism’s ethical balancing act appeared first on Digital Content Next.

That makes sense: the platform has grown over the last two decades into a service that’s  too big to ignore. Last year it reportedly generated $60bn in revenue, indicative of its might. Even the most reticent broadcaster has experimented with dropping short highlights onto the service. It has also proven to be an excellent place to host video podcasts, with the visual element acting as a multiplying factor in terms of views.

Most importantly, however, YouTube has been consistent in delivering views to its biggest channels.

That consistency will be a welcome respite for publishers. With AI-powered search results reportedly cutting traffic to news sites’ by up to 79%, it’s understandable that they would look to increase their presence on a platform that is, at least, reliable in at least one way. 

To that end we have seen a number of news sites recruiting for YouTube-specialist video producers, suggesting that the platform is climbing publishers’ priority lists in 2026. The Reuters Institute’s ‘Journalism, media, and technology trends and predictions 2026’ found that “in terms of off-platform strategies, YouTube will be the main focus for publishers this year with a net score of +74, up substantially on last year”.

In the UK, for example, Reach Plc’s CFO Darren Fisher noted that Facebook and YouTube “are increasingly rewarding, engaging content”, in the face of falling digital revenue elsewhere. 

Where before the platform might have been seen as a source of supplementary ad revenue, it is now being factored into audience acquisition strategies more directly, as legacy media seeks ways to turn off-platform engagement into a viable audience development strategy.

In the UK the platform is the second most-watched service in the UK, behind the BBC and ahead of the commercial-powered ITV. That provides media businesses with a reliable opportunity to scoop up new fans, who can either be monetized through ads on the platform or converted to paying subscribers on the business’ own site.

YouTube personalities

Typically, the channels that succeed on YouTube have a recurring team of creators and on-camera talent, which is consistent with video consumption trends and preferences. This format, aping the traditional television content alongside which YouTube increasingly competes on CTV, is increasingly personality-driven. There are YouTube news stars whose fame eclipses that of traditional television.

That presents a big shift for some media businesses who typically put the brand front and center over individual journalists.

Chris Gallipeau, director of video and audio strategy at Canada-based Postmedia notes that, indeed, the team has found personality-led content – or at least videos with consistent hosts – has worked especially well across its brands/ “We’ve also found that having a consistent host or voice makes a big impact on engagement, he said. “Videos with a familiar, regular personality often see viewership double compared to those without. 

“The best performing voices or faces are often well-known contributors and popular names from our opinion and commentary sections of the newspapers where audiences already have a strong connection to their perspectives.”

Similarly, The Sun’s Director of Video Jon Lloyd explains that works well on YouTube, with its reliance on thumbnails that prominently feature the hosts:

“We have found through hosts, shows are more likely to become appointment viewing  with viewers. Our viewers for Tactics Exposed love Dean Scoggins and Will Pugh’s football expertise – and let us know in the comments. They come back to it weekly as they know they’re going to have a clearer understanding of the game. They might stay through any dips if they recognize and trust the person speaking, which leads to longer listening sessions and higher completion rates.”

As an example, the group’s Vancouver Sun editor-in-chief Harold Munro is a frequent face on the paper’s channel, speaking with various members of the team in explainer style shortform videos. Some publications have a leg up on that approach, having monetized their personality-led podcasts on the platform for years. 

Chris Stone, executive producer of podcasts and video at the New Statesman, says: “That video extends our audience reach on YouTube but also on social platforms. The purpose of that is to grow the top of our funnel. Having video helps to expand your reach on socials, that’s certainly what’s happening with us… and the easiest way to produce that is from our podcasts.”

Consistency and growth

Gallipeau explains that, even if the form of the journalism has necessarily changed, the group’s editorial strategy is an extension of its coverage elsewhere: “Postmedia has found success in both long and short-form video content on YouTube especially for our major news brands. 

“What seems to really drive success is the topic. For brands like National Post and The Toronto Sun, there is a big appetite for federal and provincial political content. When we produce videos on those subjects, regardless of length, it generally outperforms the average video.”

That lines up with research about the news consumption habits of US adults. Per a Pew Research Center study, 35% of US adults self-report that they ‘regularly’ get news from YouTube channels.

The big question is the extent to which YouTube will remain consistent and prioritize that sort of news-led content within its algorithm. Writing for Nieman Lab, Joon Lee argues that, as it gets squeezed by Netflix, YouTube has recognized the need for legitimacy of the sort that legacy media can confer. 

As Lee puts it, “YouTube doesn’t need journalism to boost ad revenue. It needs journalism to anchor its reputational power in the same way newspapers once anchored civic life.”

Shorts and resources

While YouTube might want legacy content to increase its legitimacy, publishers do have to tailor their content to each platform if they want to succeed. 

Charlie Carmichael, Head of Audience at talkSPORT, states that the brand has seen some significant uptick in subscribers as a result of taking advantage of the subchannel option on YouTube. “This platform-first mindset helped us grow our YouTube revenue by 30% YoY in 2025,” he said. “In addition to diversifying our audience and reducing the talkSPORT main channel’s share of views from 81% to 67%. It’s also unlocked new partnership opportunities, and we’ve increasingly experimented with live-streaming non-traditional rights.”

However, despite a media brand’s popularity on shelves or screens, there is plenty more competition on the video site. As a result there are examples of best practice that even the biggest news brands have to adhere to, particularly with regards to recurring personalities and recognizable series.

Gallipeau explains: “On some of our larger brands, we work to apply YouTube best practices to help our video content stand out. We’ve also found great success in using formats like YouTube Shorts to raise awareness and drive traffic to our channels. This has a significant impact on subscriber and viewership growth.”

The benefit of committing to the Shorts format is that – while tweaking is still required – it allows media business’ YouTube efforts to bear fruit elsewhere. 

At the New York Times, for example, the video team is investing heavily in vertical video of the sort that can sit on YouTube Shorts in addition to TikTok and Instagram. The paper’s video director Solana Pyne told The Hollywood Reporter that “our videos live both on our own platform and on a whole range of social platforms, Instagram, TikTok, also YouTube. We don’t make video that would live only or thrive only on one platform.”

Unsurprisingly, many other newspapers are making their video content work harder on the platform. 

The Guardian, for example, repurposes sections of its longform explainers for the Shorts section. It acts as both a trailer for the ‘main’ video and an antennae that reaches the subsection of the YouTube audience that primarily consumes Shorts.

As YouTube climbs publisher and broadcasters’ priority lists in the face of uncertainty elsewhere, they are to some extent dancing to the platform’s tune in terms of video format Personality-led videos and the parasocial relationships they create with an audience are the order of the day, and Shorts are practically mandatory for discovery.

Alex Rothwell, Head of Video for The Times and The Sunday Times, notes that the team has identified that different forms of video on the platform work towards different ends. He said, “We have different approaches to our multiple YouTube channels to serve specific goals; revenue, audience growth, or a combination of the two.”

He does note, though, that maintaining a consistent identity across those channels is key: “Across all of our YouTube output, we maintain a consistent visual identity by using The Times thumbnail branding. We’ve also developed repeatable formats – such as Explains, Investigates, and Documentaries – which help build a loyal audience over time by establishing a clear and recognisable editorial identity.”

YouTube, then, presents legacy publishers with an opportunity to widen the top of the funnel when it comes to acquiring audiences. It is, though, still a platform over which publishers and broadcasters have next to no control; the trick is in gaming its ability to concentrate audiences around a news channel while increasing investment with the brand itself.

The post Publishers rethink YouTube strategy as search traffic erodes appeared first on Digital Content Next.

• NiemanLab | A lot of journalism folks are offering editing advice as Grammarly’s AI “experts” (5 min read)
• The Verge | Grammarly says it will stop using AI to clone experts without permission (3 min read)
• NPR | Trump is using immigration policy to suppress speech, lawsuit claims (15 min read)
• The Hollywood Reporter | YouTube Lays Claim to Another Crown: The World’s Largest Media Company (5 min read)
• The New York Times | Judge Voids Mass Layoffs at Voice of America (4 min read)
• Digiday | GEO hype busted: How it differs (and how it doesn’t) from SEO (11 min read)
• Futurism | Evidence Grows That Google’s AI Overviews Have Eviscerated the Media Industry (4 min read)
• MSNow | High-stakes First Amendment suit against the Pentagon heads to court (8 min read)

The post DCN’s media industry must reads: week of March 12, 2026 appeared first on Digital Content Next.

A new study examining X offers fresh insight into the question. The research finds that algorithmic feeds increase engagement compared with chronological feeds while also shifting certain political attitudes and altering the mix of political content users encounter. The findings help clarify how recommendation systems shape the information environment in which audiences consume news and commentary.

The study tracked nearly 5,000 active U.S. users of X over a seven-week period. Participants used either an algorithmic feed or a chronological feed, enabling researchers to compare how each format affected engagement, content exposure, and survey responses related to policy priorities.

Researchers randomly assigned participants to one of the two feed experiences. Throughout the study, they analyzed survey responses, the content appearing in each user’s feed, and behavioral signals such as likes, reposts, and comments.

Patterns emerge in engagement and content exposure

Posts surfaced by the algorithm generated substantially more interaction than those appearing in chronological feeds. On average, recommended posts received about five times more likes and several times more reposts and comments. The higher level of engagement reflects how algorithmic systems elevate posts that spark strong reactions or conversation.

Participants who moved from chronological feeds to algorithmic feeds were also more likely to maintain or increase their use of X. In practice, the recommendation system steered attention toward posts that generate ongoing engagement, reinforcing activity on the platform.

The algorithm also altered the composition of content appearing in users’ feeds. Recommendation-driven feeds contained more political posts overall and a greater share of content from political activists. At the same time, posts from traditional news organizations appeared less frequently.

Across users with different political affiliations, the algorithmic feed increased the share of conservative political content appearing in feeds. As exposure shifted, so did the issues users emphasized. Participants became more likely to prioritize policy topics commonly highlighted by Republicans, including immigration, crime, and inflation.

Algorithms shape information networks

Public discussion about social media algorithms often focuses on how platforms rank individual posts. Earlier research examining Facebook and Instagram during the 2020 election suggested that ranking alone may not significantly alter political attitudes. In those experiments, removing algorithmic feeds did not produce measurable changes in users’ views.

The new research on X suggests that the political effects of algorithms may emerge through a different mechanism. Recommendation systems influence which accounts users discover and choose to follow, gradually shaping the networks that define their information environment.

The study finds that the most noticeable changes occur when users first move from a chronological feed to an algorithmic one. Exposure to recommendations encourages users to follow new accounts, particularly those run by political activists. Once those accounts become part of a user’s network, their content continues appearing in the feed even if the ranking system changes.

As a result, turning an algorithm off does not necessarily reverse the earlier effects. The recommendation system has already reshaped the user’s information network, influencing which voices appear regularly in the feed. In that sense, algorithms operate not only as ranking systems but also as engines of network formation.

The study also indicates that algorithmic exposure may influence politics indirectly. Rather than shifting party identification, recommendation systems appear to affect how users interpret events and which policy issues they view as most important.

The authors note that the findings apply specifically to X and to the time period examined in the experiment. Algorithms evolve frequently, and different platforms may produce different outcomes. Even so, the research provides rare experimental evidence showing how recommendation systems shape political information flows online.

For publishers and policymakers alike, the implications extend beyond a single platform. As algorithmic feeds increasingly mediate access to news and public debate, understanding how those systems influence engagement, exposure, and information networks remains essential.

The post Algorithms alter political information flow on X feeds appeared first on Digital Content Next.

That was the question Jonny Kaldor, CEO of Pugpig, posed on stage at Arc XP Connect NYC.

After years dominated by platform distribution, algorithmic volatility, and pageview economics, publishers are once again sharpening their focus on direct relationships. In that recalibration, the mobile app is stepping back into the spotlight, not as a companion product, but as a core offering.

On stage with Kaldor were Ariscielle Novicio, CTO & SVP of Product & Digital Strategy of the New York Post, Kathy Colafemina, VP of Program Management of The Boston Globe, and James Cooney, VP of Product Engineering of Condé Nast. Their organizations differ widely in brand, audience, and business model. Yet one theme surfaced repeatedly: apps may represent a smaller slice of total reach, but they consistently deliver the most engaged, most loyal, and often the most valuable users.

Here’s what that shift means for publishers thinking seriously about mobile strategy in 2026 and beyond.

The most engaged audience is already there

Novicio was unequivocal about the value of the New York Post’s app users: “The most engaged users that we have — and we know this from a lot of research and studies — is with our app.”

These readers don’t just visit. They return multiple times a day. “I’m actually really impressed at how often they come,” she added.

Cooney described a similar pattern at Condé Nast. While apps are not the primary scale driver across its portfolio, “they’re the most engaged audience and they’re paying audiences” on key brands. The Vogue app in particular delivers standout engagement levels.

The takeaway isn’t that apps replace the web. The web remains essential for scale and discovery. But when it comes to direct, habitual relationships, the app environment performs differently.

Retention is the core function

When asked whether apps are retention or acquisition tools, Cooney was direct: “It’s a retention tool.” That clarity shapes how success is measured. At Condé Nast, repeat usage over time is a leading signal. If a user becomes a multi-times-per-month visitor into month three, churn likelihood drops significantly.

Retention isn’t measured by downloads alone. Teams look at weekly users, DAU/MAU ratios, and sustained engagement across months. Habituation is the goal.

The Boston Globe’s strategy reinforces this approach. Colafemina explained that the Globe rebuilt its app in 2024 specifically as a retention product. It is embedded into subscriber onboarding immediately after purchase, making the app part of the reader’s daily routine from the start. Today, more than 40% of Globe subscribers access content through the app.

For them, the app is a mechanism for reinforcing loyalty from day one.

From chasing pageviews to building depth

The renewed focus on apps reflects a broader strategic shift.

“In earlier discussions, we were chasing page views,” Novicio said. “Now we still want to maintain scale, but we’re focused on future-proofing the business by building for loyalty and depth.”

That evolution has shifted product priorities within the app experience. Instead of optimizing primarily for raw reach, the team now looks closely at engagement metrics such as daily active sessions per user, repeat visits per day, and screen views per session. As Novicio explained, the focus is on how often people return each day and how deeply they engage once they’re there.

While depth can be more difficult to earn than traffic, it’s also more durable once established.

Monetization is catching up to engagement

Historically, apps were framed primarily as subscription vehicles. Advertising often lagged behind web performance. But that is changing.

At the New York Post, Novicio described plans for premium areas within the app dedicated to direct sales and high-value sponsorships, alongside expanded e-commerce integration. “I’m focused on the CPMs,” she said, underscoring the importance of monetization and her own goal of achieving web and app CPM parity. Investments in data infrastructure are enabling stronger signal delivery across all audience types. “We’re applying that to 100% of the audience that comes to us,” Novicio explained, referencing anonymous, registered, and opted-in users alike.

At Condé Nast, advertising conversations are similarly accelerating. Rather than replicating every piece of web-based ad logic inside native apps, Cooney described a more focused approach: start with advertiser use cases and design purpose-built solutions.

There is also a competitive lens. Internal comparisons increasingly point to app-first platforms like TikTok and Instagram. Advertisers expect immersive, high-quality environments. Publisher apps must meet that experiential standard while preserving editorial integrity.

Exclusivity drives action

While retention remains the primary function, apps can generate acquisition spikes when they host exclusive experiences.

Cooney pointed to Vogue’s app-only Nicki Minaj group chat as an example. The interactive event was accessible solely inside the app and became “one of the biggest single day drivers of downloads and new starts that we had had.”

Exclusivity created urgency and urgency drove downloads.

The lesson isn’t about locking content behind arbitrary walls. It’s about designing experiences that feel inherently mobile, and valuable enough to justify the download.

Competing on experience, not volume

Vertical video and swipe-based storytelling also surfaced as key areas of experimentation. Publishers recognize they cannot match the output scale of social platforms. The objective is different.

“We’re trying to compete in the sexiness of the experience,” Novicio said. “But as far as content, we still truly want to be ourselves.”

That means adopting intuitive interaction patterns — seamless swiping, strong visual storytelling, easy sharing — without sacrificing brand voice.

That is something apps offer that social platforms cannot: full control over the environment, the data, and the relationship.

A strategic reset

So, is this round two of apps?

In many ways, yes. But it is not a repeat of 2010 enthusiasm. It is a more disciplined, data-informed reset.

The web will continue to play a critical role in driving reach, and social platforms will play a role in discovery. What emerged from this conversation, however, is that the app holds a distinct and increasingly strategic position within that ecosystem. As Novicio, Colafemina, and Cooney underscored, the app environment is uniquely suited to cultivating habit, strengthening loyalty, and generating monetizable engagement within a publisher’s own infrastructure.

For publishers shaping their mobile strategy in 2026 and beyond, the conversation has moved forward. The real opportunity lies in building apps with clear purpose, cross-functional alignment, and a long-term view of audience value.

The post Retention over reach: the strategic reset behind publisher apps appeared first on Digital Content Next.

Despite progress, there remains cultural challenges that could stymie their growth outside of the Far East. As Tom Harrington, Head of TV at Enders Analysis points out, “People have been trying to make drama more snackable in the West for a long time and it has never really taken.” 

Jen Cooper, a vertical drama critic and journalist, sees a change though, with experimentation and interest growing. “America is beginning to tip … people are aware of them and willing to kind of talk about it now. I know from friends in New York that [say they] see people on the subway watching vertical dramas.” However, “America is nine to 12 months ahead of both Europe and the UK,” she says. 

The primary audience is “women aged about 25 to 65 who were looking for romance,” according to Cooper. Henry Soong, founder of US-based microdrama company, Watch Club, notes that many in this category have disposable income to be spent on those microtransactions. 

While several apps have sprung up, there are currently two major players in the field – China-backed Reel Short and Singapore-based Dramabox. According to Sensor Tower’s State of Mobile 2026 report, downloads of Reel Short increased 115% year-on-year in 2025, with the researchers finding there were 2.3 billion downloads of Short Drama apps over the 12-month period.  

Unsurprisingly, the global media industry has started to take notice.  

Making mega money from Microdramas 

Microdramas are generally monetized via microtransactions; viewers are lured in with free episodes before being asked to cough up cash. Big name brands such as Shein and Crocs are starting to take interest though and back projects, according to Cooper 

Research from Omdia back in October estimated that microdramas would bringing n $11billion globally last year. They said: “60% of global microdrama revenue comes from subscription or transactional payments, often following a free introductory model.” At that time, China accounted for 83% of total revenue. 

The basic monetization model involves making the first seven to 10 episodes of a show available for free. The companies producing the shows then ask for “about 50 cents per minute long episode, or they charge you a weekly subscription, which could bring in $17 USD per week,” explains Soong. Some also provide the option to purchase digital coins or watch an advert in-app.  

The audience hook 

The shows find their audience through heavy marketing on social media, drawing viewers back to the platform on which the show is based. That is how Cooper, a bookseller before becoming an expert in the medium, discovered them.  

Marketing spend is around nine times the production costs. “It’s all about really aggressive customer acquisition, working around the clock with social media ads, pushing them out, seeing what takes off, experimenting,” she says. 

“Spreading on social media is the key. “You want the show to go viral,” says Dan Lowenstein, a director on a many vertical dramas 

Crucial to turning people from casual viewers brought in by social media into paying customers is the hook – the episode at which people are required to pay. This is not just a responsibility of the business team, but the creatives too. Lowenstein says it is “part of…my job to make that hook a reality. So, you can play with that a lot. And that’s the that’s the kind of good part of this format is that there’s room to play and room to experiment.” 

Cooper outlines that a show has production costs of $100,000 to $200,000. That number is ridiculously low compared to traditional film budgets. 

Costs are kept down by very quick shoot times. “The whole thing is that you have these six, seven days to shoot basically a feature film,” explains Lowenstein. “The business plan is about smaller budgets, less risk… you’re shooting on average 12 to 13 pages a day.” That is considerably more than on traditional TVs or movies. The vertical nature of the output helps with this. “You’re not seeing as much you can shoot faster, says Lowenstein. 

Another key element of the revenue strategy is making a huge amount of content, possible due to those low shoot costs. “There’s been a race to just put out more and more,” says Cooper. There is an element of throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. Cooper believes that “it does feel with some of the apps it’s kind of quantity over quality.” 

Niche content ripe for growth

The truth is, many of these shows are schlocky and low grade, with an emphasis on romance. Some even veer towards the pornographic. (There is a BDSM tag on Reel Short, for instance.) The acting and story lines are basic and hammy. The range of subject matter and quality may need to mature for the format to gain wider traction.

“I would categorize all of these shows on Reel Short and Drama Box as romance” says Soong. “And the reason why people are willing to pay per episode is because it fills a similar emotional need as OnlyFans does.” I’m sure various show creators and actors would dispute this, but the comment is largely a fair one.  

Platforms like Reel Short and Drama Box have a huge amount of power and, to access their particular shows, you must have their app. Of course, these firms, which, as Cooper explained, are essentially media ventures back by massive tech companies, can further exploit the IP they create. At a smaller scale, Soong is hoping his firm can build a social network around the vertical dramas, again keeping viewers on the platform. 

The content is certainly addictive. I began watching one show when researching this piece and found myself increasingly intrigued as to what would happen next. I later realized I’d watch 26 episodes of a certain show over a couple of different sittings, including navigating adverts to keep going. It wasn’t exactly HBO-style prestige TV, but I had been reeled in.  

While the recent growth of microdrama’s is certainly exciting, one high-profile failure looms large in media memory: Quibi. The app, launched by Jeffrey Katzenberg and led by Meg Whitman, which garnered $1.75B and folded six months after launch, was meant to bring shortform streaming to the US.   

Maybe it was just bad timing, as we headed into the pandemic and people were at home on big TVs, not swiping on the go on their phones.  Maybe the West was not yet ready to consume content in this way, before audiences became acclimated to TikTok, Instagram Reels and YouTube shorts.  

Vertical dramas have been popular in China for a while now. Though it’s not yet clear whether their growth elsewhere will be a fad or a genuine shift in consumption habits, however the future plays out, there is currently enough interest in microdramas that the format is worth a look. There is a real sense that this is an area for creativity and a way to capitalize on the audience appeal of social vertical video.

The post How microdramas hook viewers and drive revenue appeared first on Digital Content Next.

• The New York Times | Tech, TV, Movies and News: Ellisons on Brink of Colossal Empire (3 min read)
• The Hollywood Reporter | As Broadcast Slowly Dies, Niche-casting Is on the Rise (4 min read)
• CNET | A Long-Running AI Copyright Question Gets an Answer as Supreme Court Stays Mum (2 min read)
• The Wall Street Journal | Can AI Save Local News? (3 min read)
• Growtika | The Internet’s Most-Read Tech Publications Have Lost 58% of Their Google Traffic Since 2024 (5 min read)
• The New York Times | Paramount-Warner Deal Promises to Shake Up Streaming (4 min read)
• CNN | Trump says he will attend White House Correspondents’ Dinner for the first time as president (2 min read)
• NiemanLab | “Same values, same mission, same ethics”: How the Houston Chronicle chooses creators to work with (17 min read)

The post DCN’s media industry must reads: week of March 5, 2026 appeared first on Digital Content Next.

Ad tech firms argue that behavioral tracking improves efficiency across the ecosystem. They maintain that it delivers more relevant ads, reduces wasted spending, and increases publisher revenue. The concern, however, is not simply whether tracking improves performance. It is whether, in a concentrated market, tracking reinforces the firms that control the infrastructure rather than delivering broad gains for advertisers, publishers, and consumers. 

New research puts that debate to the test. 

Economic Rationales for Regulating Behavioral Ads, by Pegah Moradi, Cristobal Cheyre, and Alessandro Acquisti, reviews economic evidence on behavioral advertising. The authors evaluate whether tracking delivers the efficiency gains intermediaries claim. They find that when a small number of firms control key parts of the system, behavioral advertising often strengthens those firms rather than delivering broad gains across advertisers, publishers, and consumers. 

A federal judge reached a similar conclusion about market structure in United States v. Google LLC. The court ruled that Google unlawfully maintains monopoly power in key segments of the ad tech market. It found that Google’s control over both the publisher ad server and the ad exchange enabled it to entrench its dominance across multiple layers of the stack, restrict alternatives, and distort competition. The case now moves into a remedies phase that will determine whether structural or behavioral changes are required. 

Together, the research and the ruling point to the same issue: control over infrastructure shapes outcomes in digital advertising. 

Intermediaries capture a large share of revenue 

The research examines how digital ad auctions allocate value as advertiser competition increases. As more advertisers bid to reach the same users, bidding pressure rises. The intermediaries operating those auctions capture a significant share of that incremental spending. Studies cited in the report show that dominant ad tech firms can take 30 percent or more of each advertising dollar that flows through the system. 

The authors do not argue that advertising lacks value. They argue that who controls the trading systems strongly influences how that value is divided. 

In the Google case, the court examines how control over publisher ad servers and exchanges affects competition. By maintaining dominance across multiple layers of the ad tech stack, Google gains the ability to influence pricing, auction mechanics, and access to demand. The court concludes that this structure harms competition. The ruling supports the conclusion that control over ad tech infrastructure plays a central role in shaping market outcomes. 

Behavioral targeting and market adjustment 

The report explains how behavioral targeting allows firms to group users based on data and earn more from certain audiences. It then examines whether this practice expands total value in the market or mainly shifts revenue among advertisers, publishers, intermediaries, and consumers. The authors find limited evidence that tracking consistently produces substantial new gains across the ecosystem. 

This finding shapes the debate over privacy regulation. Critics argue that limiting tracking would damage innovation and eliminate free digital content. After reviewing evidence from GDPR and Apple’s App Tracking Transparency framework, the paper finds little support for predictions of market collapse. Digital advertising continues, firms adjust their strategies and markets adapt. 

The report finds that when tracking declines, companies adapt. Competition shifts, but digital advertising and content remain in place. 

Ad infrastructure determines outcomes 

The debate over behavioral advertising comes down to two competing explanations. One holds that tracking improves ad performance and increases revenue across the ecosystem. The research challenges that claim. It shows that when a few firms control the data and auction systems, tracking often strengthens their market power rather than delivering broad gains. 

The court’s ruling in United States v. Google LLC reflects the same concern. Its findings about monopoly power and harmful tying focus on how control over key ad tech systems can distort competition. 

For premium publishers, this is not an abstract policy question. The rules of the system and who controls them shape outcomes. The federal ruling signals that the structure of digital advertising markets warrants continued scrutiny. As the remedies phase proceeds, changes could alter how value flows among advertisers, intermediaries, and publishers.  

Market structure determines who sets the terms of pricing, how bids clear, and whether investment in trusted content is rewarded through open competition. Sustainable digital markets require competition, transparency, and balanced bargaining power. Strong markets reward content creation and innovation rather than control over infrastructure and data extraction. The research and the courts have made one thing clear: digital advertising has reached an important inflection point. 

The post Ad tech dominance defines market power and pricing appeared first on Digital Content Next.

Based on what we’re seeing across the market, and reinforced by data shared in MediaRadar’s State of the Industry: 2026 Advertising Predictions webinar, let’s dive into three trends we’re predicting will shape how buyers allocate budgets in 2026 and how publishers must evolve to capture share.

1. Buyers are planning around outcomes, not environments

In 2026, advertisers are entering the market with fewer experimental dollars and clearer performance mandates. According to EMarketer data, U.S. media spend is projected to grow from $622B in 2025 to more than $838B by 2028. But that growth is flowing disproportionately to channels and partners that can demonstrate impact.

At the same time, open web display advertising continues to lose ground. MediaRadar data shows open web display spend flattening and declining year-over-year through 2024 and 2025, as budgets move toward higher-impact video and direct, curated buys.

Buyers are now planning backward from outcomes (awareness lift, site traffic, and performance signals). They are also asking sellers to prove how inventory, formats, and creative directly contribute to those goals.

• Budgets are consolidating with fewer partners as buyers look to simplify execution and measurement. 
• Packages need to align to use cases (launches, seasonal moments, competitive conquesting, etc.) rather than impressions alone. 
• Performance benchmarks and historical proof points are increasingly required in RFPs.

Publishers that can clearly connect their offerings to outcomes, and support that story with data, are earning larger, more strategic commitments.

2. Creative is becoming the primary lever for differentiation

As addressability narrows, creative has emerged as the primary driver of performance. There’s a clear shift in where attention, and budgets, are going. Programmatic video ad spend alone is expected to approach $150B by 2027, according to EMarketer data, and CTV is no longer treated as  an incremental reach-only channel.

Across industries, CTV ad spend is growing aggressively. For example, according to EMarketer and MediaRadar data, automotive CTV spend is projected to grow from $3.1B in 2025 to $5.2B by 2028, while CPG is expected to nearly double from $2.6B to $4.9B over the same period. 

These gains are being driven not just by audience reach, but by creative formats that move people. Simply put, message-level performance is shaping buying decisions. Celebrity-led advertising increased 42% year-over-year, rising from 9.8% of total ad spend in 2024 to 13.9% in 2025 — a signal that advertisers are leaning into creative that builds trust and emotional connection.

The implications are clear:

• Creative effectiveness is increasingly used as a proxy for media effectiveness.
• Category-level creative insights (tone, format, spokesperson strategy)  strengthen both upfront and scatter conversations. 
• High-impact and custom units perform best when informed by performance data, not intuition.

The most effective sellers in 2026 aren’t just selling space. They’re helping advertisers tell engaging stories and make smarter creative decisions before campaigns go live.

3. First-party data needs to be activated, not just collected

Nearly every publisher has invested in first-party data, but one point is clear: possession is no longer enough. Activation is what buyers value.

As programmatic buying shifts away from the open exchange, control is consolidating. Today, according to data from ANA via Marketing Drive, 59% of programmatic ad spend flows through private marketplaces versus 41% through the open marketplace. And, when CTV is included, that split widens to 66% private versus 34% open.

At the same time, discovery behavior is changing. According to EMarketer, AI-driven search is projected to grow from just 1% of total search ad spend today to 13.6% by 2029, compressing the path from intent to action and reducing the role of the traditional click altogether. In this environment, vague audience claims quickly lose credibility.

• Audience segments must be clearly defined, transparent, and tied to real outcomes.
• First-party data should support planning, creative strategy, and optimization, not live in isolation. 
• Context, creative, and data must work together to drive measurable performance.

Publishers that can explain how their data enhances effectiveness—rather than simply replacing targeting—will stand out in an increasingly competitive market.

What media sellers need to do now

The opportunity in 2026 is real, but so is the competition. To protect and grow share, media sellers should focus on three priorities:

• Lead with outcomes, supported by proof
• Use creative intelligence to guide advertiser strategy
• Turn first-party data into a clear, buyer-friendly value story

2026 is not about chasing the next new thing. It’s about execution. Media sellers who adapt their approach now won’t just keep pace with buyers, they’ll help define how the market moves next.

MediaRadar will continue exploring these shifts in our State of the Industry webinar series. Our next session, Video Everywhere—Winning in the New Era of CTV, takes place on March 19. It will dive deeper into how streaming, CTV, and digital video are converging — and what that means for media sellers navigating a rapidly evolving video landscape.

About the author

Fan Shi Blackwell is the VP of Strategic Partnerships at MediaRadar, where she focuses on building high-impact alliances across AdTech, programmatic, retail media, data, and e-commerce. With over 15 years of experience, she helps platforms, brands, and agencies turn marketing intelligence into measurable growth, profitability, and ROI through omni-channel strategy, data-driven decisioning, and performance optimization.

The post Media sellers face a performance reset in 2026 appeared first on Digital Content Next.

In Canada, the Act now delivers roughly $100 million annually from Google to support journalism. This isn’t theoretical.  All of the arguments on why news bargaining would fail are out the window now that it’s working.  The cash is flowing directly into newsrooms across the nation.  

Financial support that matters  

An independent, family-owned publisher in Alberta calls the roughly $28K per year her newsroom receives a “gamechanger.” A mid-sized outlet in Quebec reports hundreds of thousands annually. Both also lead associations representing hundreds of publishers in their respective provinces. All confirm the same: this support matters. It is stabilizing local journalism at a moment when democracy cannot afford further erosion. 

As an industry (notably in the tech and trade press), we are guilty of paying way too much attention to the political food fight while legislation is debated, then losing interest once implementation begins. We saw this play out when a similar law was passed earlier in Australia; the U.S. tech press and influential reporters made it a global story how Facebook was blocking the news neutralizing the efforts of parliaments but then failed to follow up when funds began to be distributed from Google and Facebook. 

The rationale behind Canada’s Online News Act – and its inspiring big sister law, Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code – was straightforward. Policymakers recognized a structural imbalance in bargaining power between dominant digital gatekeepers, primarily Google and Facebook, and news publishers. Antitrust enforcement was moving too slowly to address the harm in real time. Journalism, however, could not wait for multi-year litigation to conclude. These laws were designed as targeted, interim interventions to push platforms to negotiate and get money flowing while broader competition cases played out. 

Balance benefits from flexibility  

Yes, in the United States, antitrust enforcement is finally catching up. Google has been found to have violated antitrust laws in four different district courts. However, only one of these decisions has made its way through the appellate process and will bear fruit this year. In Canada, their Department of Justice is actively suing Google. Meta had an early win in its defense against the FTC but that too is now under appeal. Most importantly, recent court decisions validate the imbalance these news bargaining codes were designed to address. The premise was never radical. It was a bridge to restore a bit of balance while competition law ran its course. 

What makes these laws smart – something DCN and I have emphasized repeatedly in public filings and testimony – is their simplicity and flexibility. They do not attempt to set a fixed price on journalism, attention or (heaven forbid) clicks. They are not overly prescriptive about the value of content. Instead, they require platforms to negotiate in good faith with individual publishers. Sophisticated publishers are free to negotiate based on the strength of their brands, the distinctiveness of their journalism, and their broader strategic goals. Others can opt into models that distribute funds based on easily measured metrics such as the number of journalists employed, a structure Canada has broadly adopted. This hybrid approach respects market dynamics while ensuring broad support for newsroom employment. 

Equally important, these frameworks keep the government out of the business of picking the winners and losers in the press. Funds flow through negotiated bilateral platform and publisher agreements or structured industry mechanisms, not through political discretion.  

That safeguard is not theoretical. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom curtailed funding for a similar measure after it passed into law. At the federal level, under a President Trump — who has repeatedly attacked news organizations and sought to use governmental power against perceived critics — the danger would be obvious. Allowing the executive branch to influence which publishers receive support would be a profound threat to press independence. The Canadian and Australian models wisely avoided that trap. 

Question the Meta narrative 

The one aspect of these new bargaining laws that did not unfold as intended was Meta’s response in Australia or Canada. Rather than negotiating under a democratically enacted framework, Meta chose to block news entirely and leverage its platform to blame the government. That decision eliminated referral traffic for publishers who had relied on Facebook distribution. But despite Meta’s narrative, it was never evidence that the law failed. It is evidence that a platform, often labeled as hostile to journalism and hostile to democracy, chose retaliation over participation under the rules developed through a deliberated parliamentary process. Are we surprised? 

And Meta now argues the law should be dismantled because it supposedly inhibits their AI licensing deals. That claim also collapses under scrutiny. In the U.S. – where there is no such Online News Act, nothing close to it – there has been no surge in voluntary licensing deals for journalism out of Menlo Park. The absence of regulation has not unlocked a growth market of dealmaking here. The deals simply are not happening.  

Instead, both Meta and Google have entangled content licensing within the tentacles of their sprawling platform businesses, blurring any clear precedent for paying directly for journalism. Why? Because direct licensing creates precedent. And precedent matters, particularly as these companies fight consequential copyright litigation over AI training. In fact, internal emails disclosed in discovery of Kadrey v Meta, an early AI copyright case, showed employee concern that even licensing one copyrighted work could undermine the company’s sweeping fair use arguments; the claim that anything publicly accessible on the web can be used to train AI models without permission or payment. Let that sink in. That expansive interpretation of fair use is, at best, aggressive. It has already faced skepticism in court and in the U.S. Copyright Office’s report.  

But the facts remain stubborn for Meta. The Online News Act is delivering real dollars to real newsrooms. It was designed as a measured mitigation to a proven imbalance in market power. It pushes dominant platforms to the negotiating table without dictating deal terms. It protects against government interference in distribution decisions. And it serves as a bridge while antitrust enforcement addresses the deeper structural problems. 

An act to defend democracy 

Journalism is essential infrastructure for democracy. When market distortions threaten it, policymakers have a responsibility to act. Australia acted. Canada acted. And the results show that carefully constructed news bargaining frameworks can work. 

The answer is not to dismantle what is working. It is to refine it, strengthen it against retaliation, and ensure that dominant platforms cannot use their gatekeeping power to avoid accountability – whether in news distribution, competition law, or AI. 

Democracy cannot wait for perfect solutions. It depends on practical ones. And Canada should be applauded for this one.  

Even if America puts the final puck in the net ; )  

The post Goals scored: Canada proved news bargaining works appeared first on Digital Content Next.