Journalism is in trouble. A combination of economic vulnerability, opaque algorithms, and disinformation threatens the very foundation of independent reporting.
Fortunately, there are people who care deeply about their beloved profession and are finding ways to address these threats.
In this series, I intend to find out how individuals are working to make journalism more resilient. In today’s conversation: why all journalists should apply product thinking in their work.
I meet Fabienne Meijer at COPPI in Rotterdam, a cozy café that doubles as a bicycle workshop. Meijer is Head of Journalism Products at OCCRP[1], an international journalism network investigating corruption and crime with staff across six continents.
She’s on a mission to change how journalists think about their relationship with readers – a philosophy already embraced by bigger outlets like the New York Times and the BBC – but largely ignored in the Netherlands. In her biweekly newsletter “de Durfredactie”, she challenges Dutch journalists to innovate[2].
An Unconventional Route
Although Meijer knew from age four that she wanted to be a journalist, she didn’t it take the easy way.Although Meijer enjoyed writing from a young age, she deliberately avoided one of the many practice-oriented journalism programs.
In the Netherlands, there is a clear distinction between practice-oriented (HBO) and academic (WO) journalism education [3].
“There are many people who already do this”, she explains. Instead, she pursued an academic education and filled the lack of field experience with at least five internships at news outlets.
After graduation, she started to work as a freelance journalist. But something didn’t click: “I get bored pretty quickly,” she admits. “And as a journalist, you have to love the scoop”. Still wanting to contribute to journalism, she decided to pursue a master’s degree at Stanford. She took several business electives and design courses and was introduced to terms like product management.
There, the seed was planted: what if journalism applied these principles?
Product Thinking As Answer
In her daily work, Meijer works as a product manager. As a product thinker, she tries to answer questions like:
- Who is my target audience?
- What problem am I solving for them?
- Why am I qualified to do this?
- What are my current key assumptions/uncertainties?
- How can I test them?
These questions can be applied at all levels: story, product, and publisher.
In short, product thinking is all about creating maximum value for the audience, while also creating value for the organization. So why does product thinking matter in journalism?
The Economics Of Journalism
“Journalism is a market failure”.
That’s what one of her Stanford professors said at the start of a lecture. It puzzled the audience. When I ask what he meant, she explains: “Good journalism is expensive to produce, often costing tens of thousands of euros. But the costs of making these stories simply outweigh what newsrooms can recoup”.
Once published, a story becomes a public good. Public goods are both non-rival and non-excludable[4].
A good is rivalrous if consuming it reduces the availability for others. “If I buy an apple, it’s just for me. That does not apply to a journalistic story”, she says. Once published, a story can be read over and over again. Everyone benefits from its societal impact, even those who don’t pay for it.
Journalism is also non-excludable: readers don’t have to pay for journalism to get the information they need. While some outlets use paywalls, facts themselves can’t be copyrighted. If an outlet puts a story behind a paywall, someone else can summarize the key facts and publish them elsewhere for free, Meijer explains.
This creates positive externalities – spillover effects that benefit society but don’t return to the producer. “Why would we subscribe when you can read headlines on social media?”, Meijer asks. “We all want to be well-informed citizens, but most of us are not willing to pay for it.”
Consider a recent example: OCCRP’s investigation into Credit Suisse revealed systematic fraud[5]. The bank was convicted and will now pay €500 million in damages.
“Just not to us”, Meijer says. “Even though we made the information public, it’s not like a 5% finder’s fee flows back to us”. The investigation created enormous social value, but journalists only capture a fraction through subscriptions and grants.
“Thus, there aren’t enough market incentives to create expensive journalistic articles, as they simply don’t yield enough”.
Persistent Problems
“In any other company, everyone’s focused on keeping the business afloat”, Meijer says, “but journalism works differently: you have a wall between the commercial and editorial sides of the news organization”. This traditional wall can be seen as a good thing, as it prevents advertisers influencing coverage.
“Only, the wall should actually be half a wall”, she argues. Journalists need to recognize their role in sustaining the organization. This high wall has caused a disconnect between the product’s buyers and its makers. Product thinking could help.
“Every story can be told in different ways “, she explains. “Journalists often choose the way they find most interesting, but they forget to ask: for who am I writing this story in the first place?”
“I don’t know a single journalist who says, I’m so glad I told my beautiful story, and nobody reads it'”. There’s always someone you want to reach, she explains, like policymakers or victims. “That’s why it’s important to define who is interested in the story and how these people get the most value from it”.
But doesn’t that risk giving people only what they want instead of what they need? Meijer disagrees. “Every story is worthwhile, but it’s about finding the best way to tell it so it offers the greatest utility to the audience,” she says.
“Product thinking means being strategic about impact – it is not about replacing journalism’s watchdog role.”
Too Much Money
Product thinking is more common practice abroad. So why hasn’t it caught on in the Netherlands? Meijer’s answer sounds paradoxical: there’s too much money.
With multiple funding sources like government subsidies and grants, struggling outlets are repeatedly bailed out. She cites Vrij Nederland as an example. “Helping these news organizations is a good thing,” she clarifies, “but it leaves little incentive to innovate when everyone gets rescued”.
In countries with less funding, news organizations get creative out of necessity. They develop clear profiles and show direct impact on the communities they serve, helping them build closer relationships with readers.
“Knowing that journalism is a public good, we should be careful deciding when journalistic platforms deserve funding”. In other words, shouldn’t we make sure journalism actually reaches and serves the people who need it?
For journalists, all these questions may feel uncomfortable, but for Meijer, they’re necessary.
[1] https://www.occrp.org/en/about-us
[2] https://durfredactie.substack.com/about
[3] https://pure.eur.nl/en/publications/studenten-journalistiek-in-nederland-profiel-motieven-en-rolperce/
[4] https://www.reviewecon.com/rival-excludable
[5] Read the full story here: https://www.occrp.org/en/news/credit-suisse-fined-511m-in-us-tax-evasion-case