“Newsrooms focus on what people use instead of what they need. That is where it goes wrong. Production (what people use) always ends up more important than relevance (what people need).”

These words, in the latest installment of the Audience Dispatch newsletter by Sophie van Oostvoorn resonated with me. In the newsletter, titled “The ‘Traffic Apocalypse’ Might Be the Wake‑Up Call Journalism Needs,” van Oostvoorn argues that many media organisations are focused on the “if you build it, they will come” strategy — make the product as attractive as possible and the audience will surely follow. This, in turn, will boost direct traffic and reduce the reliance on Big Tech.

The problem with that strategy is it assumes that journalism does not have to adapt; people must adapt to journalism, van Oostvoorn wrote.

“To change this, news organisations need to ask: What is our role from the public’s perspective? What do people do with journalism, how does it feel to them, what do they need to enrich their lives, and which problems could journalism help solve? Because let me be clear: They won’t come, even if you build it,” she wrote.

I wanted to hear more, so I reached out to van Oostvoorn. For starters, I asked: How should newsrooms adapt?  

“If you look at the changes that have been made by newsrooms over the last decade or so, it seems they have mainly adjusted the way journalism is packaged and the way journalism is distributed via social media or newsletters,” she said. “The journalism itself has largely stayed the same. So technically newsrooms are adapting, but they’re only making journalism fit these new outlets, not really changing the journalism itself or the way it’s made. It’s the ‘digital-first’ approach.” 

Real adaptation, she said, starts with a structural audience‑centered approach: seeing the public as equals and shifting from what we consider good journalism to what the audience considers good journalism. That requires testing our assumptions about our audience, she noted.

“What do your audiences need from journalism, what impact does journalism have on their lives, and what does it do to them,” she said. “Newsrooms should put the answers to those questions into their strategy.”

Van Oostvoorn said newsroom culture also needs to be more open to innovative ideas about journalism — something we talk about often in the INMA Newsroom Transformation Initiative. 

“The way of thinking, working, and leading in newsrooms does not support exploring and implementing the changes journalism needs, such as the audience‑centered approach,” she said. “Leadership can make a difference here by fostering innovation and collective learning, welcoming new perspectives, questioning the status quo, and encouraging new ways of thinking and the courage to make mistakes.”

“In short: we can’t expect journalism to adapt if newsrooms stay the same.”

Other highlights of our Q&A: 

What should newsrooms do to move from what people use to what people need?

Newsrooms gain insights into what audiences use through data. This is an important source of feedback, but that data is often flawed because of many variables. Mostly, it confirms what people already want but rarely uncovers what they might need. That’s why another source of feedback is needed: qualitative insights. By talking to your reader base — and to people outside it — you can explore what people actually need.

In design thinking, you investigate through experiments whether your product meets people’s needs. Testing and experimenting should be a constant process in journalism to adapt to changing needs.  

You can even design solutions with your audience, like Shirish Kulkarni and his team did in their research for the BBC, which resulted in the News For All report. This great report is filled with solutions for how journalism can fulfill audiences’ needs. 

How should traditional media respond to the rise of the content creator? Replicate some of their storytelling formats? Partner with them? Something else?

Start learning from them. They succeed in what journalism struggles to do: reach broad audiences and earn enough money to keep doing it. 

Sure, you could replicate some of their formats as lots of newsrooms do, but there’s another lesson to learn. If you make journalism‑like content with a fierce focus on your audience’s needs that maybe doesn’t fit all the criteria most newsrooms impose on journalism, you can be very successful.  

From your newsletter: “Does it matter if legacy titles become obsolete?” is a question I sometimes hear when I raise alarms about declining news use. How do you answer that question?

For me personally: It would be a disaster. It’s why I do my job: I want to help newsrooms build a sustainable future. For democracy, there’s also a case to be made that it would be disastrous if legacy titles are like classical music is for most: nice, but I never go to a concert. 

The Digital News Report shows us that legacy titles are (becoming) obsolete for a part of the public, but to do our jobs and keep the powers in check, we must be able to rely on that same public. Our first loyalty is to the citizens; only then can we presume to fulfill our role as the fourth estate or guard-dog of democracy. We must do everything in our power to reverse that trend.  

But again, it’s a question of perspective. Would it matter to a 21‑year‑old who is happy consuming their news from content creators and occasionally reads something from the newspaper their parents have a subscription to? Maybe not, and that’s exactly why journalism needs to change: to become relevant for all, not just the people who want to pay for it.

If you’d like to subscribe to my bi-weekly newsletter, INMA members can do so here.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .