Our end-of-year “Predictions for Journalism” package has grown and grown and grown since its first iteration back in 2011. For the 2019 iteration, we published more than 200, and it’s possible I am literally the only person alive to have read all of them.

So over the next few days, we’ll be running what I’m calling Prediction Playlists — collections of predictions centered around a particular theme. Hopefully they’ll give you a point of entry into what can be an intimidating pile of #content. Today’s theme: the business model — a.k.a. how do we make enough money to pay for all that journalism we produce?

By far the biggest topic of predictors thinking about business models was subscriptions and memberships. The collapse of the digital advertising marketplace for publishers has led most to realize that an increasing share of their revenues going forward will have to come directly from readers, in one way or another. Subscriptions won’t save journalism, but they’re the best option many publishers have in 2019.

Borja Bergareche, chief innovation officer at Vocento:

That said, there are real questions about how well most digital news organizations will move from the old world to the new. To start with, will young people see news as something worth paying for?

Alexandra Svokos, an editor at ABC News:

And if someone does decide to pony up for a subscription — will they sign up for two? Three? Subscription fatigue seems a few clicks away.

Brian Moritz, assistant professor of digital media production and online journalism at SUNY-Oswego:

Relying on readers’ money also means constantly pitching yourself and your value to your user and society writ large — and marketing has rarely been publishers’ strength.

Gabriel Snyder, former editor at The New Republic, Gawker, Newsweek, and The Atlantic:

There’s still room for (and need for) a lot of innovation in paid-content models. The metered paywall and the hard paywall aren’t the only options available! For some publishers, a membership pitch that unlocks content for everyone will make sense.

Tim Carmody, newsletter writer for Kottke.org:

So besides subscriptions, what are some potential new — or at least newly important — sources of revenue for publishers? Maybe we’ll develop products that fight information overload rather than contribute to it.

Carl Bialik, data science editor at Yelp:

Or the pathway from news story to Hollywood movie might become more important — I hear Hollywood still makes money.

Reyhan Harmanci, executive editor of Topic.com:

Or perhaps sports publishers will see big rewards from newly legalized sports betting. (A similar argument could be made about marijuana.)

Dan Shanoff, publishing strategist:

The U.S. has seen relatively robust funding for news projects from foundations — perhaps that trend will cross the Atlantic this year.

Adam Thomas, director of the European Journalism Centre:

And maybe there’s still some blood left in that advertising stone — especially if we can shift from a reliance on stale display-ad products to something more interactive:

Tushar Banerjee, head of product at The Quint:

The United States has long been comparatively averse to government funding of news — but perhaps the unmet information needs of communities will spawn more local governments to get involved:

Craig Aaron and Mike Rispoli of Free Press:

Though a similar process is currently unfolding in Canada, and not everyone’s optimistic about it.

Jesse Brown, publisher of Canadaland:

2019 could be a year when the shift from legacy to digital media — slowed a bit by Donald Trump’s own news habits — accelerates again.

Ben Smith, editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed News:

So what probably won’t work? Newspapers have limited their losses from canceling subscribers by raising the prices for those who remain — but that trick has a limited life expectancy.

John Garrett, founder and CEO of Community Impact Newspaper:

The large digital media companies used to be able to plan on eventually being bought by a cable, phone, or old-line media company. That exit’s harder to see now.

Mike Isaac, technology reporter for The New York Times:

There were a number of predictors who, frankly, aren’t optimistic that anything will work particularly well.

Peter Bale, president of the Global Editors’ Network:

What most publishers are offering now just isn’t good enough to survive in a reader-revenue world.

Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, director of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism:

Maybe the inevitable market failure of most journalism will force a broader rethinking of what a digital news ecosystem aimed at meeting public needs would look like.

Victor Pickard, associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania:

Or maybe we’ll just find ourselves missing the old days of clickbait and Chartbeat.

Gideon Lichfield, editor-in-chief of MIT Technology Review: