The Pivot to Profit: Why Fact-Checkers Must Rethink Their Funding Models
At the GlobalFact conference in Vilnius, Lithuania, media executive Peter Erdelyi issued a stark warning to the global community of misinformation researchers and fact-checkers: the era of relying solely on philanthropic grants and government subsidies is rapidly coming to an end. Erdelyi, the founding director of the Center for Sustainable Media, argued that the shifting political winds—particularly in the United States, where efforts to combat misinformation are increasingly being branded as censorship—have rendered traditional funding streams precarious. As the consensus on public benefit shifts, fact-checking organizations must transition from viewing themselves as “public goods” toward embracing consumer-driven, market-based business models to ensure their long-term survival.
The crux of Erdelyi’s argument lies in the inherent instability of public and charitable funding. Historically, fact-checkers have operated under the assumption that their work serves the public interest, attracting support from foundations and state-aligned grants. However, Erdelyi posited that this framework is no longer sufficient to maintain a robust enterprise. By framing fact-checking as a “public good,” organizations have inadvertently hampered their own potential for financial self-sufficiency. As political environments become more hostile to these institutions, the reliance on external patronage creates a vulnerability that only a commercial, service-oriented model can mitigate.
To illustrate the potential for a consumer-facing revenue stream, Erdelyi shared his own experience as a subscriber to health-related information services. When searching for reliable data on GLP-1 weight-loss medications, he found himself willing to pay a monthly subscription fee for verified, trustworthy analysis. This realization formed the foundation of his pitch: fact-checkers must pivot to solving concrete, immediate problems for individuals and businesses. By identifying specific areas where misinformation causes direct harm or confusion, organizations can transform their mission from a nebulous, donor-funded social service into a high-value, paid utility for informed consumers.
The proposed shift, however, requires a radical change in organizational behavior and target demographics. Erdelyi suggested that success lies in identifying audiences with both “disposable income and democratic sensibilities,” specifically highlighting lawyers and healthcare professionals as prime candidates. Rather than relying on academics for validation, he proposed that fact-checkers develop bespoke, high-value products—such as misinformation-monitoring tools for insurance companies or authoritative guides for pharmacists overwhelmed by customer queries. By providing services that offer tangible, professional utility, fact-checkers can cultivate a paying customer base that operates independently of ideological shifts in government or philanthropy.
As evidence of this necessary transition, Erdelyi cited internal research indicating that the most stable outlets in the sector are already diversifying their revenue through consumer and business-to-business markets. Of the 20 organizations analyzed, nearly all are moving away from total reliance on donations, with many developing exclusive, paid products to bridge the funding gap. Erdelyi emphasized that this transition requires more than just a change in editorial focus; it demands a significant, often painful, internal restructuring. Many media organizations that began as purely journalistic endeavors must learn to scale by dedicating roughly half of their workforce to business development, customer service, and growth strategy.
Ultimately, Erdelyi’s message was one of proactive adaptation rather than alarmism. He did not suggest that organizations should immediately abandon their current funding sources, but rather that they must prepare for a future where those sources may evaporate. The reality of the modern media landscape is that if outlets continue to pursue the exact same funding strategies of the past, they risk irrelevance or collapse. By investing in the complex, resource-heavy process of retooling operations, media organizations can secure their independence and ensure that the vital work of information integrity continues, sustained not by the fluctuating goodwill of donors, but by the tangible demand of a market that values the truth.