Recently, my boss sent me a link to a really interesting LinkedIn post.
Those numbers are freaky for anyone in marketing. And freaky, not necessarily in a bad way, but like an "Ok, so what do we do now?" kind of way.
However, as a former journalist and a typical skeptic, I wanted to know where these numbers were sourced, mainly because there was no link in the post, and the attached image was static.
The author put the article link in the first comment. Perfect, great, let's go.
Paywall.
Awesome.
Running into walled content is happening to me more and more, especially with content that I am interested in and want to access for information.
But also, how do I see if what this guy is saying in his post is true? It seems accurate, but is it?
It's pretty much redundant at this point to say that we are living in a time where content is more abundant than ever (like 90% of the world’s data was created in the last two years), yet human attention is increasingly scarce. In this environment, a growing conflict is shaping not only the future of news but also the way we as individuals, professionals, and communities consume, process, and trust information.
On one side of this divide are publishers, working to sustain quality journalism in the face of shrinking advertising revenues and the rise of AI-generated answers that often bypass the original reporting entirely.
Once, a well-written article could draw steady traffic for months or years. Now, AI-powered search and chat tools summarize…and sometimes outright repackage…that same reporting without credit or referral, eroding the publisher’s ability to monetize their work.
Recent studies show that Google’s AI Overviews are cutting into publishers’ traffic in meaningful ways: one analysis found that organic search referrals to The New York Times dropped from about 44% to ~36.5% over three years.
On the other side are readers, many of whom have grown accustomed to free, on-demand access to news. When those expectations collide with paywalls, the response is often to click away rather than pay.
Data from a June 2025 Pew Research study underscores this reality: only 6% of Americans say they frequently pay for news when faced with a paywall, while 65% report they “never” or “hardly ever” do so.
And this isn’t just a U.S. phenomenon. PR Daily reports similar hesitancy worldwide, with most consumers citing “too many subscriptions” and “cost” as top reasons for not paying.
The tension deepens when you consider the broader digital economy.
Take streaming as a parallel: Netflix reported 84.1 million U.S. subscribers in early 2025 (Statista). That’s nearly one in four Americans paying for a single entertainment service. The model works because the value is immediate, personal, and consistently worth the investment.
News publishers, by contrast, are asking readers to subscribe not just to one outlet, but potentially to several in order to get a full picture of events. Only 6% of Americans pay frequently when faced with a paywall — underscoring the challenge. The economics of sustaining journalism are far steeper when your audience has to stack multiple subscriptions to access diverse, trusted reporting.
It’s the same feeling when you’re driving down the highway and you hit yet another toll. Paywalls are the digital tollbooths standing between readers and information. But in reality, they are a necessary response to an increasingly unsustainable digital ecosystem.
Paywalls aren’t about greed. They’re a practical response to the challenge of sustaining quality journalism now that anyone and everyone can write with AI.
For decades, advertising revenue was the backbone of the news industry. But that model has been steadily eroding, accelerated by the rise of AI-driven “zero-click” searches. These AI summaries often surface the core findings of original reporting without sending any traffic back to the publisher, undercutting both audience growth and ad impressions.
The result is that publishers have little choice but to seek revenue directly from readers through subscriptions, memberships, and other paid models. Still, most audiences are unwilling or unable to subscribe to multiple publications.
According to Pew Research, 99% of Americans who encounter a paywall either leave the page or look for a free alternative. That narrowing of access means fewer perspectives reach the average reader, which has ripple effects far beyond individual inconvenience.
When audiences only see articles from a limited range of sources, it reduces diversity of thought, narrows awareness, and can skew public discourse (misinformation, anyone?).
This shrinking of the information pipeline doesn’t just affect readers who enjoy news; it creates real barriers for professionals who need credible, timely journalism to inform their work and bolster their thought leadership.
This isn’t just about blocking content—it’s also about undermining trust. Nearly 94% of B2B marketers say that trust is key to their success, and 81% say that working with those who produce real news content helps establish trust. When journalism is locked behind paywalls or summarized without attribution, it erodes that foundational credibility.
Digital communications in regulated industries like finance, healthcare, and law, where the stakes for sharing information are high and compliance rules are strict. In these contexts, a paywall isn’t just a momentary inconvenience; it can be a total conversation-stopper.
The [good] reason is compliance. In these sectors, any piece of content that is shared externally must be reviewable in its entirety by a compliance or legal team, both for archival purposes and to ensure it meets industry regulations. If the content sits behind a paywall and is inaccessible to those reviewers, it’s effectively unusable.
The structures meant to protect publishers’ revenue streams can also limit their relevance in a high-value professional context.
So should publishers eliminate paywalls entirely if they are causing problems for both readers and professionals? Or does this mean it's time to rethink how we balance access with sustainability?
It’s not unlike what happened in the music industry. Remember when you had to buy an entire album just to get the one song you wanted? The shift to buying single tracks—and later to streaming—sparked fears the music industry would collapse.
Instead, it evolved. Now listeners can stream individual songs, build playlists, and share music more easily than ever. While the model isn’t perfect, the industry is thriving (looking at you, Taylor Swift).
Is there another way to share and consume good information that doesn’t feel like a dog chasing its tail? We think so.
UpContent is taking a similar approach to premium news content. Rather than viewing publishers as content to be mined, UpContent treats them as partners. Through direct licensing agreements, it unlocks a curated subset of paywalled content for compliant, trackable sharing without undermining the subscription value of the publisher’s whole catalog.
We work not only with licensed, paywalled content, but also with non‐paywalled pieces, always directing readers back to the publisher’s site. In doing so, we help drive ad revenue for publishers as well as expose new audiences to their work, creating opportunities to convert casual readers into subscribers.
In practice, we’ve seen curated, non-paywalled content with a custom banner CTA delivers far greater click-through rates vs standard display ads, helping publishers gain visibility, engagement, and ultimately, more subscription leads while preserving the value of their premium content.
Essentially, we see publishers as friends, not food.
This approach preserves the full, original reading experience, drives traffic back to the publisher’s site, and generates licensing revenue for the newsroom. For professionals, it means they can share credible, timely journalism within compliance rules, creating richer conversations with clients and colleagues.
The benefits are multifaceted:
UpContent’s model also acknowledges something AI alone can’t replicate: the enduring human desire for depth, nuance, and trusted authorship.
Generative AI isn’t saving anyone time - if credibility isn’t established, it merely shifts inefficiencies from the author needing to verify their claims to the reader needing to ensure what they are consuming is accurate.
By filtering vast content sources and surfacing the most relevant, high-quality articles for each audience, UpContent enables professionals to lead with substance.
Instead of sending a client a paywalled link or an AI-generated summary stripped of context, they can share an authoritative piece of journalism that sparks conversations grounded in credibility, not conjecture.
The future doesn’t have to be a binary choice between locking down all content or making it freely available. A hybrid approach of selectively unlocking high-value articles for strategic distribution could preserve both accessibility and sustainability.
As more publishers retreat behind paywalls and AI systems consume the open web without returning value to creators, the diversity and quality of public discourse are at risk.
Partnerships that respect both the economic realities of publishing and the informational needs of audiences could help us find a model that supports trust, discoverability, and sustainability.
Because in the end, the future of journalism won’t be decided by AI models or paywall policies alone. It will be decided by the partnerships we build to keep truth in circulation.