The Integration of Commercial Audience Development into Editorial Workflows is Essential for Survival, yet Faces Deep Cultural Resistance in Legacy Media.
The first core argument derived from the presentation centers on the structural and cultural convergence of commercial goals and editorial integrity. Lars, who occupies a hybrid role within the commercial department but works intimately with the newsroom, articulates a fundamental tension in modern media: the necessity of audience development as a discipline that is not “business,” but rather a core function of journalism itself. This argument posits that for a legacy organization like Berlingske—which has existed for 276 years and covered events as far back as the French Revolution—to survive, it must overcome the “rage against change” and view audience needs not as a corruption of journalism, but as its modern evolution.
The “Cousins Party” and the Insularity of the Industry
The presentation opens with a metaphor describing the Danish media industry as a “cousins party,” a small, incestuous world where professionals circulate between organizations. This sets the stage for a broader discussion on the insularity of newsroom cultures. In such environments, tradition often dictates practice. The speakers highlight that Berlingske is an organization steep in history, a factor that provides both prestige and paralysis. The “legacy” mentioned is not just a badge of honor; it is a fortress of habit. When a commercial figure introduces concepts like “User Needs” or “paywall conversion ratios,” it is frequently met with skepticism. The reporters often view themselves as guardians of democracy, distinct from the “webshop” mechanics of selling subscriptions. However, the argument presented here is that this distinction is becoming obsolete. As Dimitri from Ringier is quoted, audience development roles are increasingly being moved into the editorial side because “audience development is a core part of journalism.” If a tree falls in a forest and no one pays for a subscription to read about it, the journalism cannot sustain itself.
The Hybrid Role: Bridging the Silos
Lars’s position is a case study in this argument. He is technically in the commercial department, yet his daily work is entirely editorial—influencing headlines, story angles, and content selection. This ambiguity is intentional and strategic. By remaining in the commercial department, he retains a mandate to focus on profitability, paywall sales, and business health, which allows him to speak “hard truths” to the newsroom that an internal editor might shy away from to preserve relationships. However, to be effective, he must shed the skin of the “outsider.” The transcript details his efforts to “get close” to the Editor-in-Chief (Pierre) and the newsroom staff. He attends editorial meetings, sits in the newsroom, and frames his data not as “business requirements” but as “journalistic insights.” This underscores the argument that successful integration requires high emotional intelligence. Data alone does not change culture; relationships do. The commercial side must understand the “sweaty palms” of an editor facing a newsroom of crossed arms. They must prove that they are not there to turn the newspaper into a clickbait farm, but to help the journalism find the audience it deserves.
Redefining Journalism through the Lens of the Audience
The resistance mentioned—the “276 years of built-up rage against change”—stems from a fear that focusing on the audience dilutes the authority of the editor. Traditionally, the editor decides what is important. The “User Needs” approach flips this, suggesting that what is important is defined by what the audience values, needs, and is willing to pay for. The argument here is that audience development is not about pandering; it is about relevance. When Lars mentions that “User Needs” is both how a story is developed and how it is presented, he is arguing for a holistic integration. It is insufficient to write a traditional news story and simply slap a “commercial” headline on it. The commercial insight must travel upstream to the very inception of the story idea. If a story does not serve a specific user need (e.g., “Give me an edge” or “Connect me”), it is likely to fail commercially, regardless of its journalistic merit. Therefore, the commercial reality of the paywall is not a barrier to journalism but a filter for quality and relevance.
The Danger of the “Other”
A critical component of this argument is the danger of externalizing audience work. If the newsroom views audience development as “someone else’s job” (Lars’s job), the culture will never shift. The reporters will continue to produce content in a vacuum, expecting the commercial team to magically monetize it. The goal, as evidenced by the newsletter strategy and the eventual creation of Nina’s focused desk, is to make audience thinking a reflex for every reporter. The transition from “Lars sends us charts” to “The Editor-in-Chief quotes Lars’s newsletter” signifies the success of this argument. It marks the moment when commercial data becomes editorial intuition. The ultimate victory for this argument is when the “commercial” agent is viewed not as an interloper, but as a partner in the editorial mission, helping to secure the financial future of the institution so it can survive another 276 years.
Conclusion
Ultimately, this argument asserts that the survival of legacy media depends on dissolving the church-and-state separation of editorial and business. This does not mean compromising ethics, but rather aligning incentives. The “User Needs” model serves as the lingua franca that allows these two sides to speak to each other. It translates “revenue” into “relevance” and “churn” into “engagement,” allowing reporters to see that by serving the user better, they are not selling out—they are ensuring their work is actually read, valued, and paid for.
Implementing a Structured “User Needs” Model is the Most Effective Way to Shift from Low-Value Volume to High-Value Engagement.
The second core argument is that the adoption of a specific, data-backed framework—in this case, a variation of the Wall Street Journal and BBC “User Needs” models—is the primary mechanism for turning a struggling digital strategy into a profitable one. The speakers argue that without such a model, newsrooms default to “Update Me” journalism (basic news reporting), which is becoming a commodity with diminishing returns. By pivoting to “Give Me an Edge” (utility) and “Connect Me” (identity/experience), a publisher can drastically increase paywall conversions and subscriber retention, even while publishing fewer stories.
The Fallacy of Volume and the “Update Me” Trap
The presentation highlights a pivotal realization in Berlingske’s data analysis: the organization was publishing a massive volume of “Help Me Understand” or general news update stories that generated zero paywall sales and low traffic. This is a common trap for legacy newspapers. The instinct of a newsroom is to cover everything, to be a paper of record. However, in a digital environment where breaking news is free and ubiquitous, “what just happened” is a low-value proposition. The argument here is that the “User Needs” model provides the analytical courage to stop doing things. When Lars presented the data showing the stark ratio between the high effort of producing volume news and the low return in sales, contrasted with the high return of “Give Me an Edge” content, it was a lightbulb moment for the leadership. The model provides a permission structure for editors to say “no” to commodity news so they can say “yes” to high-value journalism.
Adapting the Model: Context is King
A crucial nuance in this argument is that you cannot simply copy-paste a model from another organization. Berlingske started with the BBC model but realized it didn’t fit their commercial reality because the BBC is a public broadcaster with no paywall. They then pivoted to the Wall Street Journal model, adapting “Help Me” to “Give Me an Edge” and redefining “Connect Me.” This customization is vital. For Berlingske, “Connect Me” wasn’t about solution journalism (as it might be for others); it was about identification—stories where the reader meets a person, a case study, or an expert they can relate to or learn from. “Give Me an Edge” became about navigating life, finances, and health. The argument is that the concept of User Needs is universal, but the application must be specific to the publication’s brand and audience. If the model feels foreign or “commercial,” the newsroom will reject it. By translating the needs into Danish cultural concepts (e.g., “Give me an advantage”), they made the model native to their newsroom.
The Mechanics of Conversion: Why “Edge” and “Connect” Sell
The presentation provides a deep dive into why these specific needs drive sales. “Give Me an Edge” promises a return on investment for the subscription price. If a reader pays for an article, they want to walk away with knowledge that improves their life, health, or finances. It is transactional in the best sense. “Connect Me” works on an emotional level. The example of the politician discussing abortion through the lens of her mother’s teen pregnancy illustrates this. A standard political story (“Update Me”) would outline the policy. A “Connect Me” story outlines the stakes and the humanity. The data presented proves that this emotional resonance converts casual readers into paying subscribers because it offers a unique experience they cannot get from a wire service. The argument is that in a paywall era, you are not selling information; you are selling insight and connection. The User Needs model is simply the architectural blueprint for manufacturing those two products consistently.
From Traffic to Quality (The Value Score)
The argument evolves from simple acquisition (sales) to retention (attention). The speakers discuss moving beyond just counting clicks to measuring “Attention Time” and using a “Value Score” (0 to 1000). This shift is critical. A story might get 100,000 clicks but if the average time spent is 10 seconds, it is worthless for a subscription business. It might even be harmful, as it disappoints the user. By using the User Needs model to optimize for attention—shortening intros, placing value up front, ensuring the headline matches the promise—they increased attention time by 10-15 seconds. This demonstrates that the User Needs model is not a static label but a dynamic editing tool. It forces the editor to ask, “Does this story deliver on its promise immediately?” If not, the user leaves. The rigorous application of this model ensures that the “product” behind the paywall is of sufficient quality to prevent churn.
Conclusion on Argument
In summary, this argument posits that “User Needs” is the antidote to the commoditization of news. It moves the newsroom away from intuition-based assignments (“we should cover this because it’s news”) toward data-informed commissioning (“we should cover this because it gives our readers an edge”). It challenges the outdated metric of volume, proving that a smaller number of highly targeted, user-centric stories can sustain the business better than a flood of general news. It is the operational framework that turns a philosophy of “audience first” into a daily reality of higher sales and deeper engagement.
Successful Strategic Implementation Relies on Communication, Information Flow, and Decision Rights rather than Structure or Technology.
The third core argument addresses the “how” of change management. Lars explicitly references a Harvard Business Review study to argue that most organizations fail at change because they obsess over structure (org charts, new titles) and neglect the invisible machinery of culture: information flow and decision rights. The presentation details a journey from a “failed” initial implementation—where workshops were held but behavior didn’t change—to a successful one driven by constant, democratized communication and clear mandates.
The Failure of Workshops and the “Monday Morning” Reality
Lars recounts the initial phase where they did “all the right things” on paper: workshops, presentations, and slides. Yet, the curves remained flat. This illustrates a classic corporate failure: the gap between the energy of a workshop and the reality of a Monday morning. In a workshop, everyone agrees on the concept. On Monday, the deadline looms, sources aren’t calling back, and old habits kick in. “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” The argument here is that structural changes (like assigning a “User Needs Editor”) are useless if the daily flow of information doesn’t support the new direction. If a reporter doesn’t know how their story performed last week, they cannot learn how to improve this week. The lack of a feedback loop kills the strategy.
Information Flow: The Power of the Newsletter
The solution presented—and the centerpiece of this argument—is the internal newsletter. While it sounds mundane, Lars argues that this simple, manual, text-heavy email is the primary vehicle for cultural change. Why? Because it democratizes insights. It takes data out of complex dashboards (Power BI), which are intimidating and ignored, and translates it into a narrative that editors and reporters can digest. By manually writing it, Lars adds context and empathy (“I know you’re busy,” “I know the article length is a topic right now”). This human touch makes the data palatable. The fact that the Editor-in-Chief asks for it to be sent to all editors, and that reporters request to be added, proves that the organization was starving for feedback. The argument is that communication is the actual work of change. It is not enough to have the data; the data must travel to the “decision rights”—the people actually writing the headlines and choosing the angles.
Decision Rights and Mandate
The presentation touches on the concept of “decision rights”—knowing who is responsible for what. The turning point in their implementation came when Lars and Jacob asked the editors: “Why has nothing happened?” and “What needs to change?” This inquiry revealed that the editors felt a lack of ownership and practical know-how. They viewed User Needs as a “commercial thing” imposed by Lars. The creation of the “How-to Guide” and eventually the specific mandate for Nina’s team solved this. By clarifying that this specific team has the mandate to ignore breaking news and focus solely on “Give Me an Edge” stories, the organization aligned decision rights with strategy. The reporters on Nina’s team knew exactly what their job was, freeing them from the conflicting pressures of the general news cycle.
The Necessity of “Brutal Honesty” and Feedback Loops
Lars mentions the importance of being able to speak “difficult truths” to the newsroom. A healthy information flow is bidirectional. It’s not just management broadcasting goals; it’s the newsroom reporting back on obstacles. The “why is nothing happening” survey is a prime example of this. Instead of doubling down on the strategy, they paused to listen to the resistance. They learned that the newsroom lacked practical tools (how to interview for user needs, how to write titles). This feedback loop allowed them to pivot from high-level theory to practical tooling (the guide). The argument here is that change management is an iterative conversation, not a decree. If you don’t listen to why the reporters are resisting, you cannot unlock the behavior change.
Conclusion on Argument
This argument concludes that the “soft skills” of management—communication, empathy, listening, and storytelling—are actually the “hard skills” of implementation. You can have the best User Needs model in the world (structure), but without a mechanism to reinforce it weekly (information flow) and a clear understanding of who owns it (decision rights), it will fail. The weekly newsletter is not just an email; it is the heartbeat of the strategy, keeping the organism alive and aligned.
Specialized, Focused News Desks are the Most Efficient Engine for Subscriptions, Disproving the Need for Massive Staffing to Achieve Growth.
The final argument is an operational one: the most effective way to drive paywall sales is not to try to turn the entire ocean liner of the newsroom at once, but to launch a speedboat. Nina’s “Our Life” desk serves as the proof of concept for this argument. With only 4% of the staff producing 3% of the content, this team generates 36% of all new subscriptions. This staggering statistic serves as the foundational proof that specialization, strict adherence to the User Needs model, and “slow news” can outperform the traditional breaking news machine.
The Power of the “Elite Squad” (Small but Mighty)
The presentation details how the “Our Life” team was formed—almost by accident, due to funding cuts, with staff “picked” rather than hired. Despite these humble beginnings, the team outperformed the entire organization. This argues against the common complaint in newsrooms that “we need more resources to grow.” Berlingske proved that you simply need better allocated resources. By taking four journalists and isolating them from the noise of the daily news cycle, allowing them to focus exclusively on high-converting topics (health, relationships, psychology) and high-converting user needs (“Connect Me,” “Give Me an Edge”), they created a conversion engine. This suggests that generalist reporters are inefficient at driving subscriptions because their focus is diluted. A specialist team, breathing the metrics every day, becomes hyper-efficient.
Operationalizing the “User Need” in Content Creation
Nina provides a granular look at how this team achieves these results. It is not magic; it is method. She breaks down the headline writing process for the Ironman World Record holder story. A traditional news desk might headline it: “Copenhagen Ironman Race Happened Yesterday.” Nina’s team headlines it: “He Holds the World Record. Here is His Advice for You.” The argument is that the operational execution of the User Needs model requires a fundamental shift in how stories are framed before they are written. The team ensures two things are in the headline: 1) Authority (Why listen to this person?) and 2) Utility (What do I get out of this?). This rigorous adherence to the formula ensures that the user understands the value proposition immediately before hitting the paywall.
The “Paywall Paradox”: Lower Click-Through, Higher Conversion
A fascinating technical detail supports this argument: the articles produced by the focused team actually have a lower click-through rate on the paywall relative to sales. This sounds counterintuitive, but Lars explains that it means the people who do click are highly qualified leads. They aren’t clicking out of curiosity; they are clicking with intent to buy because the headline and the intro (the “two paragraphs”) have clearly sold the value. This argues that the operational goal is not to trick people into hitting the paywall (clickbait), but to present such a compelling case for value that the user is mentally prepared to pull out their credit card before they even see the price. The specialized desk masters this “pre-sale” pitch better than generalists because it is their sole focus.
Scalability and the “Not My Job” Syndrome
The success of the focused desk creates a new challenge: the “Not My Job” syndrome. Other desks (Politics, Foreign Affairs) look at Nina’s numbers and say, “Great, they are handling the subscriptions, now we can go back to writing important, unread essays.” The argument here is that while the focused desk is the engine, it cannot be the only vehicle. The principles used by the focused desk (identification, utility, clear value proposition) are universal. The presentation argues that a political story about abortion is actually more effective when treated with the “Our Life” methodology (focusing on the personal stakes of the politician) than the traditional method. The challenge—and the ongoing argument—is proving to the “serious” journalists that adopting these techniques does not dumb down their beat, but rather unlocks it for a paying audience.
Conclusion on Argument
The final argument serves as a blueprint for resource-strapped newsrooms. It demonstrates that you do not need a massive budget to turn around a decline in subscriptions. You need a small, dedicated team empowered to ruthlessly apply the User Needs strategy to high-performing topics. This team serves as a laboratory and a revenue generator, buying the organization time and providing a template that can eventually be exported to the harder nuts to crack, like politics and breaking news. It proves that in the subscription economy, specificity, utility, and identification are the currencies of value, and a small team rich in these currencies is worth more than a large newsroom that is poor in them.