Making money

Like many countries, South Africa has faced multiple media crises in recent decades, resulting in “an increasingly constrained business environment.” Larger media organizations had intermittently paused hiring journalists before COVID-19, and the pandemic exacerbated this trend. Major publishers began to cut staff in larger swaths, publications were closed, and of those who did not lose their jobs, many saw their salaries cut. As a result, many journalists have turned to freelance opportunities and short-term contracts to stay in the industry. In 2026, South Africa began taxing content creator income, which adds even more complexity to making a living as a journalist. Given this overall financial uncertainty, it is critical to understand whether, and how, indie info providers are making money.

Making a living is one of the biggest challenges for South African interviewees.

More than half of our interviewees highlighted monetization as one of their biggest challenges. “How do we keep this afloat?” one interviewee asked. Others described the “uncertainty and financial insecurity of this kind of work” as stressful even for those who are doing relatively well. Several interviewees said that it is harder to monetize in South Africa than elsewhere, while others see the problem as field-wide, rather than tied to any particular location.

In the pre-interview survey, just four of 18 participants said they were fully able to support their lifestyle, while six said they were not able to do that at all. The other eight fell in between.

South African interviewees were divided roughly equally between those who struggled to articulate goals, those who had goals but not yet clear plans, and those who had a fully articulated strategy for making a living.

Some take a “build it and they will come” approach to business, driven by passion for their work, and view profit as a distraction, if not a necessary evil.

Many South African interviewees contrasted the aspects of the job they love — creating content or doing journalism — with aspects that interest them less, specifically strategy and business operations. “I’m not there to build the brand, I’m not there to do a PR job for them. I’m there to do good journalism,” one interviewee said of their relationship with sponsors. Some interviewees even described the two as mutually exclusive. As one put it, “The problem with podcasters generally is they think it’s a business model and it’s not. It’s an obsessive model. It’s almost religious.” This person’s business strategy and advice amounted to “build it and they will come,” although industry publications have long been skeptical of this approach. Several interviewees were even more explicit in endorsing this logic, like one person who said that “my strategy is around creating content that will be readable.”

Those who use more strategic approaches rely on intentionally diversified forms of revenue to promote their independence — and they are largely more financially successful.

The interviewees with the most strategic approaches have diversified their revenue streams, and do it thoughtfully. They have learned which forms of revenue work well for them and which aren’t worth the time and effort. In some cases, they work backwards from their needs and rely on different sources of income to pay for different expenses. One person explained their logic in detail: “We need to make this many shows a month at this level of views to get this amount of YouTube ad revenue to pay one sum. And then, if I’m going to pay another salary, we need to get a brand partnership deal…” Some interviewees have diversified even within a single form of revenue: one balances three different forms of sponsorship (direct, a separate advertorial platform that subsidizes the editorial platform, and premium corporate subscriptions), and another is “donor and philanthropy funded” but makes a point of cultivating different types of funders for different types of work.

Many South African interviewees sponsored their own work through independent businesses or day jobs.

At least seven of the 18 interviewees described serving as their own sponsors, funding their indie brand directly. Three of them have a for-profit arm that creates content or runs events on a work-for-hire basis, while their journalism is produced under a non-profit entity. The others work in largely unrelated fields. In most cases, the subsidizing branch of the business is legally separated — like the person who said they “had to start another business to fund” their journalism or the person who runs “just a boring old business that makes me money.” 

Several interviewees had gone to extreme lengths to subsidize their indie brands, although they were still trying to make the work pay for itself. One of them had built a business in a different sector to underwrite this work. Instead of “skiing holidays, I put all the profit into this loss-making entity called journalism that no one can seem to monetize unless you’re, like, Financial Times or New York Times,” they said. Another person had given up many middle-class creature comforts to keep doing this work, selling their house to escape debt. All the same, they said, “I love what I do. I don’t need to own a house or have a retirement plan.” Journalism, in the view of these interviewees, is fundamentally not a profitable enterprise.

As a central component of many interviewees’ business models, events serve to build credibility, expand audiences and generate revenue.

About half of the interviewees see events, community connections or both as a key element of their business models. For some, events are another way to reach their audience, show up and build a grassroots sense of community (see “credibility”). For others, events feel like a side business rather than an integral component of the work. There is no single model for events: some indie info providers stage live versions of their online content in theaters, while others host exclusive industry awards or participatory online webinars. The three Rastafarian interviewees raise money through artistic performances and community festivals; all three described themselves expansively as artists and activists in addition to journalists or creators.

Two groups of interviewees are particularly financially successful with in-person events: B2B info providers and satirists. For the B2B providers, trade shows, lecture series and awards raise their profile in the field. At the same time, these events bring in sponsorships and partnerships within their industry that could support the media production work. The satirists have large followings, which means they can rely on external speaking gigs as well as ticket sales from their own events.

In addition to in-person events, two interviewees are exploring ways to monetize online member communities. These two said their audiences have shared values, professional identities or both, so they want to offer paid access to other audience members for networking and joint problem solving.

For the most part, South African interviewees don’t see subscriptions or memberships as viable.

Most South African interviewees agree that subscriptions and memberships are not an effective business model. Several of them tried to build a product based on user revenue and were unable to. A few think they may be able to succeed once they have a larger audience. “But why would someone subscribe to me?” one asked, adding, “To get the why, I need to first build a credible reputation.” Many interviewees said that South Africans simply aren’t willing to pay for news or content, which is consistent with a study of 48,000 South Africans that showed just 5% paid for news. The one interviewee who receives consistent donations has an audience that’s mostly based in the U.S. For at least one interviewee, avoiding direct user revenue is a matter of mission: “I feel strongly about keeping it free because … the whole reason I started it was, people don’t follow the news and are excluded from the news.” That is, South Africans may be unable to pay, not just unwilling to pay. Even if direct user revenue were a viable business model, interviewees simply aren’t comfortable asking for individual donations. They describe it as “embarrassing” and “tasteless.”

Advertising is less common than sponsorship, advertorial and “spon-con.”

True advertisements are less common than advertorials and sponsored content, though no consistent trend emerged regarding which indie info providers found this strategy effective. For example, a political comedian, a B2B publisher, a consumer product reporter and a hyperlocal brand all reported that advertorials and sponsored content are among their largest sources of revenue. One of them first realized their indie brand could be a full-time job “when I got to a level on TikTok when very large brands were saying, ‘Hey, can you make a video for us?’”

This source of revenue may become tenuous due to increasing competition. Two of the interviewees who have been succeeding in generating revenue said they are moving into events because they noticed sponsorship starting to wane. Another noted that there are seasonal trends in advertising, making consistent revenue a challenge.

Even so, some indie info providers who have not yet been successful in making money in this area are exploring what it would mean for advertisements to become “an actual meaningful income stream.” For now, advertisements and sponsorships are one-off deals when someone approaches them or responds to their outreach.

Grants are important sources of income for many of the indie info providers, but they are not seen as reliable.

For many, grants and donations are important sources of income. For some, the grants help with core funding and others have specific projects, maybe focused on a specific event or improving a specific capability. One interviewee had set up their indie info project as a nonprofit and is reliant almost exclusively on donations and philanthropy, but is actively working to expand commercial revenue and has hired a salesperson to help improve revenue from commercial sponsorships.

Another interviewee is reliant on a university fellowship and a foundation grant to continue their work. They explained that they tried to utilize social media and continue to pitch their work to outlets to gain an audience, but they said, “I know that at least I’ve got funding until the end of 2027, and I’m really sure that the project will have gotten enough momentum that I might be able to get other funders on board so that I could keep going.” 

For some, their grant applications result in funding every once in a while, but they are not a source they can rely on. As one explained it, “Randomly over the years, [I] have applied for grants. Unsuccessfully, mostly. I’ve had a few successful grants, but I know my business model needs to be part marketing budgets, part grant funding.” For another, government grants are on the top of their mind, but remain elusive. They said, “So if we are doing the government’s work without the funding, we would like the government to give us our funds that we are doing because it’s their work.” Grants are an important part of many interviewees’ bottom lines, but how consistent they are as a funding source varies greatly from person to person.

South African interviewees are highly attuned to the ethical implications of their business models, especially if they rely on sponsors and advertisers.

Several interviewees highlighted the importance of finding “morally acceptable” sponsors and advertisers, raising concerns about conflicts of interest and editorial independence. They vary in the lines they draw, which depend on their audiences and the topics of coverage. Some organizations have “hard limits,” ruling out sports betting and online gambling in one case, or fossil fuels, alcohol, weapons and political parties in another. One interviewee rules out very large categories of potential sources of funding like “large corporates” because “it would be a conflict of interest and ethically compromising.” The challenge is not new to the field. As one person pointed out, “That’s always been the awkward position of journalism. It’s the only profession that I know of where you’re not working for the people who pay your salary. You work for the audience, but it’s the advertisers that pay your salary or the state or whatever it might be.” However, the gap between the two may feel more acute for indie info providers, because the same individuals are involved in both coverage and sponsorship conversations.

Self-sponsoring interviewees are not exempt from these concerns. They are selective about partners and clients, even on the for-profit market and consulting side. In some cases, they choose not to cover particular industries because their for-profit “sister company” is too well-connected in those fields.

Continue reading