This is a challenging time for legacy media. As an editor, I frequently encounter concerns about the financial health of media houses. It is evident that society is becoming increasingly aware of the problems that the media industry is facing. Traditional media outlets are in the midst of an existential crisis, as both advertisers and audiences are migrating to digital platforms.
Historically, the media has weathered technological shifts. The rise of radio in the 1920s did not significantly impact print, and radio itself managed to survive the television era despite visual’s strong appeal. However, the emergence of digital platforms is different; it is pushing all traditional media to the brink. This is why legacy media are now desperately working to develop a viable blueprint for survival. At this point, the primary goal for legacy media is to survive, if not thrive. To this end, for better or worse, they are working on two broad areas.
First, they are restructuring newsrooms to reduce staffing and administrative costs. While most layoffs have already been carried out, the new model, referred to as the integrated newsroom, is still taking shape. At the same time, media houses are exploring alternative revenue streams, as income from traditional sources, particularly advertisement, is fast declining. The idea of integrating radio, television and print newsrooms into a single space has gained momentum since the 2000s. In principle, it holds promise, especially if the goal is to foster collaboration among journalists across platforms, thereby enriching content. However, if the integration is pursued purely to cut costs, it risks undermining the very strengths of radio, television and print in the long run.
We must recognize that radio, television and print each have unique characteristics that have enabled them to survive for over a century. While they may report on similar issues, each platform has its own style of storytelling, audience engagement and distinct target audience. For instance, radio content often caters to both literate and illiterate audiences. This is something print and television may not fully accommodate. Delivering the same content across all platforms may offer short-term financial relief, but it will ultimately weaken the media’s overall impact. In Nepal, some experiments have already been done and they have been proved harmful rather than good outcomes in terms of securing the advertisement.
Consider this: why did radio survive in the age of television? Because it offered something television could not. It had unique strengths that remained relevant despite the appeal of video. Over sixty years ago, Marshall McLuhan introduced the ‘medium is the message’ concept, suggesting that the characteristics of a communication medium influence how messages are perceived. Applying this idea today, we must be cautious about full-scale integration which may reduce costs marginally but compromise content quality and diversity in the long term.
International experiences show that poorly executed integration often leads to generic, homogenized content, sacrificing depth and specialization. In reality, if a media house is committed to delivering quality content, integrated newsrooms offer limited cost savings; perhaps only in administrative overheads or rent. In some cases, integration has even led to revenue losses, as clients are unwilling to pay separately for nearly identical content across platforms.
In the pursuit of financial sustainability, media houses are now experimenting with new revenue models. However, they are still unsure which model works best in Nepal. Globally, dozens of new models are being tested, but most are still in the experimental stage. One thing is clear: While no alternative has matched the scale of advertising revenue, these new streams are providing a crucial lifeline for media houses, at least for survival. The Nepali context is even more complex. While internationally available revenue models can be useful for academic discussions, they may not be practical in Nepali society. A copy-paste approach to these models risks losing existing readers and audiences, especially if implemented without a clear understanding of Nepali society and its media consumption patterns.
Since the late 16th century, advertising has remained the dominant source of income for media; first for print, and later for television, radio and digital platforms. In addition, the print industry has long relied on subscription and circulation models, while television adopted the pay-TV model. The late 1940s saw the rise of advertorial content—paid content blending advertising and editorial, which, while still present, now contributes far less to overall revenue.
Advertisement continues to be the main revenue source for both legacy and digital media. However, the advertising landscape has changed significantly. Ads are now spread across both journalistic and non-journalistic platforms, ending the long-standing monopoly of legacy media. As a result, advertising alone can no longer sustain either traditional or digital outlets. This is not just a crisis of legacy media; it also affects digital media. That is why media organizations are desperately seeking to adopt new revenue models already in use internationally. Let’s consider the current revenue crisis and examine the strengths and weaknesses of some emerging models. One income stream that Nepali media houses have increasingly embraced is organizing events focused on political, economic and social issues.
Both legacy and digital outlets have generated substantial revenue from these events. Many advertisers now prefer sponsoring such events over placing traditional ads. While this approach is not new or particularly innovative, it has become competitive, with media outlets vying to host high-profile events to generate income. Another growing trend is video advertising, particularly through social media platforms. The volume of digital advertisements is gradually increasing. Some outlets are earning respectable sums from platforms like YouTube and Facebook though some legal hassles remain. Even small revenue from these platforms is offering much-needed support to struggling media houses.
Over the past few years, there has been a debate about the feasibility of a paywall subscription model in Nepal. While the online news portal Setopati has implemented this model, another popular portal Onlinekhabar remains hesitant due to fear that it may lose readership. We, at Annapurna Media Network, are also considering this model. However, we have concluded that further preparation and deliberation are necessary before moving forward.
Broadly speaking, digital platforms offer two types of subscription models: premium where users pay to access content, and freemium where basic content is free and only select content is behind a paywall. The paywall model cannot succeed without ensuring consistent quality in both text and video content. Readers will not be willing to pay for content that is superficial or poorly produced. Without significantly scaling up our current content, this model is likely to fail. At the same time, we must avoid the mistake of comparing ourselves with international media. The fact is that only a small segment of the Nepali population is willing to pay for content, even when it is of high quality.
A close study of quality content produced by media houses shows that very few people are actually reading it. One major reason is that the private sector, intellectuals, academia and society as a whole have become highly politicized and polarized. As a result, a wider section of the population tends to consume partisan and biased news that reinforces their perceptions and views rather than content that is accurate, balanced and impartial. While Nepal’s population is not small, the country’s economic conditions limit people’s ability and willingness to pay for news content. In short, the first major challenge is to consistently produce high-quality content tailored to different segments of the population.
As mentioned earlier, there is no lack of revenue models; the real challenge lies in identifying which models are suitable for our context. Potential models include live streaming, monetizing content through social media, generating income from memberships and newsletters, corporate social responsibility (CSR) support from businesses and funding from international organizations, among others. Unlike in the past, no single platform or model now dominates the media landscape. The only viable way forward, therefore, is to adopt a mix of revenue sources. Doing so, however, requires a broad strategic plan and upfront investment in these diverse areas. Since advertising alone cannot sustain media houses, it is time to re-imagine how they operate.
One bold step could be to transform media houses into non-profit entities, which would enable them to seek contributions from various sectors of society to support media sustainability. However, the current ownership structure may limit the ability to implement all possible revenue-generating models. Over the past three decades, Nepali media have rarely embraced innovation or entrepreneurship, primarily because they could rely on steady income from advertising. They also did little to engage with or respond to readers’ preferences and feedback. Today, innovation, entrepreneurship and the ability to adapt to changing expectations of readers are not just optional; they are essential for survival.
