My dear friend Gianni Catalfamo (link) complied a list of “viability questions” for a new form or a journalist enterprise (actually, for a post-journalism mass media). What do I have to say:
“How possible is the media company that follows this list of principles?”

Question 1. – is online only (no paper) – I would even say it should be mobile-only, with web version as a supplement rather than main front-end. There are some attempts to follow this model – like Circa (cir.ca), Associated Press Mobile news and some others.

Question 2. – has no offices, meets online – Not sure at all; a strong part of the media identity is created exactly when a team meets, discusses and works physically together. Virtual office media startups had been around for a while (Slon.ru initially established a virtual office model as early as 2009), followed by a great number of followers. Since than, Slon established a physical office both for editorial staff and management/sales – virtuality is not yet welcomed by the media buyers/advertisers.

Question 3. – published continuously 24/7, similar to the CNN continuous news model – Again, this is something that is arguable: news consumption cycles rather suggest that some sort of “important deadlines” still should work better, even for mobile-only and web-only. Of course, breaking stories have to be covered 24/7, but “slower” content, opinion and features must be tied to spikes in demand and consumption. Different markets may differ – generally with the morning spike (some nations have “very early morning” habits like USA and China, some – like Russians – wake up later), and with mid-day spike (lunch habits also differ).

Question 4. – authors apply all the best practices of quality journalism, such as fact-checking, second source, separation between facts and opinions – Probably the easiest to manifest and the toughest to implement. Iteration-based editorial models – developed as a technological opposition to “yellow”, sensational journalism – are the human algorithm to oppose breaches in the best practices. Yet, they never are 100% effective and they usually slow down both reporting and contextualization of the news. Also, if the founder decides to pursue a fully virtual office, the procedures become dependent on some additional factors, i.e. the quality of editorial CMS (how good it’s tuned for a collective job), the quality of communication routines both for the reporter on spot and for the “internal” team.

Question 5. – authors are compensated at market rates, with an incentive proportional to the “activity” of each of their published articles (reads, comments, shares, likes, etc.) – Not working, never will work. Direct economics has been disputed in media for a while – both with some practical experiments (like Gawker or early Buzzfeed), and with theoretical models (INSEAD did quite an extensive testing when they worked on Media Management course in mid-2000’s). Direct economics (pay for performance of the content item) pushes authors into non-news domain, celebrity reporting and “sex-violence-mean world” texts and pictures, rather then to news reporting and fact checking. Mass attention is always more keen to entertainment-based stories; politics, economy, local events and culture will never (almost never) compare to scoop in the bed of the pop-star. Also, direct economics – even with the toughest editorial control – pushes the whole system of the media to opinion-based content, as people somehow manage to get their news elsewhere and usually appreciate “the explanation of news” from a trusted source, rather then additional reporting.

Question 6. – articles are rated and commented (as in most online papers) and the rating determines the front page – This is an interesting one; Huffington Post used to experiment with the dynamic front page, that (except of the “top three” articles that were editor-selected) constructed itself every hour; RIA Novosti also tried this with 2012 release of the front-end. Those tries showed flaws in the rating models – neither “views”, nor visits, nor social rating (share, like, retweet) – reflected the relevant picture of the day/week/hour. As was said above – people generally are more interested in some vanity content, scoops and practical features (ranging from social stories to food recipes to health-related scoops like cancer treatment or “25 methods to minimize your heart pain risk”). If the construction of the front page is delegated to the algorithm, even VERY CLEVER, it is – at least for now – flawed by default. Humans will see the mistakes, will decide to intervene and, finally, will remove the robot from service. News aggregators like Google News and Yandex Novosti maintain extremely clever robots in charge of the news selection for the front pages; still, both digital monsters maintain full control over “unusual situations” when some irrelevant or false or “managed” content rises in the aggregation engine and – without a worthy news purpose – occupies the top lines/places.

Question 7. – every major story is offered with at least two opposing views – Basically, the most interesting idea so far. This is more possible with a fully digital publication as every “major story” could be a “call for papers” to present alternative or opposite view and opinion. But in some cases, the reporting becomes either impossible or even harmful: with the “war on ISIS” that happens now, should the proposed mass media have ISIS “opinion” and “reporting” published? Still there should be clear guidelines and limitations, and the suggested principle will not be universal.

Question 8. – offers both national columns and very local columns – In my experience, this varies SO MUCH from culture to culture, that no universal principle could be applied. Some cultures divide local and national media completely – readers will never look into “local sections” of the national papers, will switch to other TV-channels when “local news” are reported as a compliment to global/national. Americans or Russians never expect global news (or even national agenda) to be covered by a community/local media; meanwhile, Germans will expect local newspaper to cover international affairs. I have a lot of failed “local” projects in my records; often the reason for the failure was improper mixture of the different agendas. Still, this is clearly a zone for exploration; globalizing local news with the context and “relational explanatory journalism” could be a good try (“Global warming and our community”; “What do our community gives to the world and what it means locally” – this ideas propel localism and pride/danger feelings, powerful and unifying, so this type of content MUST be produced to foster local audiences).

Question 9. – allows for a granular subscription model, i.e. my subscription price varies as a function of the columns (=RSS feeds) I subscribe to – No, this is a wrong idea, at least for now. I would rather suggest an extension of the traditional membership/subs model, that allows the subscriber OR ADVERTISER to “support” a particular section, theme, even author (NPR-type sales). Would it be additional “pay-only” content, or “choice content” (our reporters can do that, if we raise that much…). But the pay model should not, in my opinion, undermine both “brand understanding” and “basic equality” of the readers.

Question 10. – receives no government subsidies – No doubt.

Question 11. – accepts no advertising – Doesn’t make sense at all. Ads are not evil, the dependence on ads is. Advertising should be based on clear and non-negotiable principles (place, space, form, right of rejection etc) and could not be conditional for readers (like banners/videos the reader must see before accessing the content). No “native advertising”, of course.

Is this possible? Has it been tried before somewhere? – As I mentioned earlier, Slon.RU was initially conceived exactly like this model, except of direct economics for authors. In 2009 and at the Russian market, this system produced a great product that had no sales. The investor changed his mind, replacing both editor and the model with more traditional one, and it still works, delivering one of the best Russian web-based publications.

What is the breakeven point for such a product assuming a monthly ARPU of around 30 euros? – Not enough data to make reliable calculations. Jeff Jarvis had made some modeling way back in 2009-2010 for US market (cannot find immediate available link, but will do it later); some consultants did similar calculations for EU markets. Basically, the model MAY work if the investor maintains commitment for 4-5 years, invests rationally both in the editorial part and marketing/distribution and limits the ambitions to some steady existence of the project. Unless one allows such models to grow organically until they have sufficient market weight and awareness (build on trust rather than advertising/promotion), the customers never become reliable source of income.