Hi there.

I’m delving into something controversial today: the Google survey that came out showing the impact of removing news in Europe. Not with a hot take on the study (sorry!), but why I think we need to keep a place at the table. 

We also look at how good audio products are — almost indistinguishable from humans at this stage. And what that means for us as news organisations. 

Drop me a note if there is anything you’d like to see in this newsletter, whether it’s on a particular subject or a feature you’d like to see. I’m at Jodie.hopperton@INMA.org.

Thanks, Jodie

News isn’t core to Big Tech’s business, yet support still might be

The news industry and Big Tech have a complicated relationship. 

Google last week released a study which showed that news is not significant, amounting to less than 1% of ad revenue decreased when it was removed. 

I have been asked more than once how I can possibly continue to push for joint projects with Big Tech. Or, as one post on LinkedIn said: “It is difficult to believe Google’s claims they are a friend and ally to news and media businesses whilst at the same time Google so actively seeks to prove these businesses provide them with no value.” And went on to call on associations and organisations not to have Google at events. 

I think these comments miss the point. News not being important to Google’s business and it wanting to support the news industry can both be true.

This isn’t just a Google conversation; this is a Big Tech conversation. 

Public companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. And they must work within the confines of the law. We hope they would work with integrity, and for platforms this means a responsibility to provide accurate, truthful, balanced information. As we, the news industry, have accuracy, truth, and balanced information as our main purpose, we see this as synonymous with paying us to provide this information. This is an oversimplification. 

For the most part, the legal confines don’t give them a responsibility to pay all media companies. And their fiduciary duty most certainly doesn’t. So we end up with arguments about content licensing and, as one of my colleagues put it, “throwing studies at each other” to prove these points. 

This is not new. We’ve seen it play out before. And for the most part, we have lost. 

While in some countries agreements have been reached, these are for limited periods of time and appear to be falling apart. In fact, Meta has decided that it’s far too much hassle and is not only easier not to pay but has pulled out as much news as it can — as the Canadians well know know as there is a complete halt on all professional news on Facebook.  

It is true that fact-based, professional content is needed as a corpus of search. Is the care of duty to showcase journalism or support the news business? 

It’s a fine balance. Tech companies don’t want to become newsrooms or create content. But they do want access to professional, trusted content. And it’s a lot easier to understand and cater to the guardrails of an organisation that ensures trusted factual information — essential for grounding data, especially around high-stakes news events — than it is around individuals.  

As the news industry, we need to start finding common ground for what “accurate, truthful, balanced” information actually is. We need to figure out sustainable business models. We need to be clear what our fact-checking and other guardrails are and convey those. We need to improve our products to offer customers the best possible access. After all, isn’t that what we’re here for?

All this is becoming even more important as AI and answer engines become more commonplace. 

But what we really need to do is break the cycle of arguments and counter surveys. We’ve seen it before. I believe that we can only do this through dialogue and working together with the individuals who can help effective change. And we need to do that together. 

Because, like it or not, we all have a reliance on tech. For discovery of our products. For our business operations. For our own personal lives. It’s an ecosystem of which we must be a part. We have no choice in the matter.  

So do we really want to pull out of everything Google or everything Big Tech? If we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu. If we talk, we have the opportunity to lead the conversation. I sincerely hope we can opt for the latter and come together as a community to discuss forward-looking approaches that serve the public and enable a sustainable news ecosystem because ultimately that will make tech products better.

Date for the diary: April 9 Webinar on unlocking premium products 

In this free-to-members Webinar, Unlocking Premium: How to Elevate Your Digital Product — and Its Price Tag, we’ll look at how premium functionality can unlock new revenue streams and elevate your product’s value. 

As news media companies rethink and iterate digital strategies, one challenge is clear: How do you redefine your app or Web site to justify a premium subscription price?

This Webinar explores a fully user-centered approach to product transformation — covering design, features, and navigation — to create a premium digital experience, potentially replacing high-value print offerings or enhancing existing digital tiers without additional content. 

Sign up here or if you have a story to share, please contact me at jodie.hopperton@inma.org.

Have you noticed how good AI voice products are getting?

A few months ago, I wrote about OpenAI’s voice assistant and its remarkable ability not just to answer questions but to do so in multiple languages, with natural intonation — basically, to act like a human. You can see the short example video I made here.

On the ever-insightful New York Times podcast Hard Fork, I recently heard about Sesame, which may be the most realistic AI voice out there today.

If you’ve followed my work, you’ll know I use the RayBan Meta AI glasses daily, and yes, the voice is impressively lifelike. Amazon’s newly announced updates to Amazon Echo Plus will no doubt bring even more sophisticated voice capabilities.

But it’s not just about how these voices sound. It’s about what AI makes them capable of. You can now have intelligent, nuanced conversations with these tools. Their intonation, timing, and even breathing patterns are exceptionally realistic. 

And yet, there’s another layer to this shift — one that’s particularly important for us as news organisations.

It’s what we can now create, almost instantly, with these tools. We’ve moved beyond simple speech-to-text or text-to-speech. These systems can adapt language to context — and tailor tone and delivery to fit the moment.

One of my long-standing frustrations with narrated articles is that they’re written to be read, not heard. A media friend said the same thing to me last week: When listening to an article, it felt jarring that the narration dived straight in. Humans don’t do that. We say, “Good morning.” We set the scene. We ease into the conversation.

Now, we can do that. ElevenLabs, one of the leaders in this space, highlights these capabilities right on its homepage. Take a piece of text and instantly turn it into a podcast intro or a voiceover for video. It’s fast, flexible, and increasingly human-like.

If you haven’t already, take five minutes to try these tools. It’s like talking to a person — a friend or an assistant. As you play with them, notice how intuitive it starts to feel. You might begin to imagine a future with fewer screens. A future where instead of asking your device to remind you to do something later, you just ask it to get it done.

However you imagine using these tools, that’s how your readers will interact with them, too. Their habits, their expectations, and their media consumption patterns are going to change — fast.

We’re approaching a step change. We can now hold real dialogue with voices that are, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from human. It’s exciting. It’s unsettling. It’s full of possibility. And it’s coming.

The question is: Are we ready?

About this newsletter 

Today’s newsletter is written by Jodie Hopperton, based in Los Angeles and lead for the INMA Product and Tech Initiative. Jodie will share research, case studies, and thought leadership on the topic of global news media product.

This newsletter is a public face of the Product and Tech Initiative by INMA, outlined here. E-mail Jodie at jodie.hopperton@inma.org with thoughts, suggestions, and questions. Sign up to our Slack channel.

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