As of fall 2024, about one in five<\/a> people in the United States get news from individuals rather than organizations. This trend is even more common among young people. It\u2019s one of the indicators that indie info providers \u2014 people who are working to provide verified factual information with a personality- or voice-driven brand that leverages the creator economy \u2014 are on the rise<\/a>. This is partly due to the increasing use of platforms<\/a> and technological tools that also make it easier to run a solo or small indie info provider business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Featuring individual voices over institutional brands has been paying dividends in terms of both audience trust and the flexibility to try out different formats, tools and platforms. Legacy media<\/a> is paying attention to this trend and newsrooms like The Washington Post<\/a> and ESPN<\/a> are now partnering with indie info providers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Existing research on this trend<\/a> is sparse and has largely focused on the broader landscape of content creators, including entertainers, politicians and other creators who do not necessarily focus on informing their audiences. Most research to date has focused on content sourcing and linking strategies. To enable a future for a plurality of fact-based sources that readers and viewers find relevant, our project sheds light on who indie info providers are, and how they approach their role in the broader news landscape. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In partnership with Project C<\/a>, CNTI recruited 43 adults in the U.S. to take a screening survey and chose 25 for a 60- to 90-minute virtual interview. (Project C<\/a> is one of many U.S. networks supporting indie info providers. They have a large mailing list beyond their core network, which primarily serves former journalists building independent ventures. Other organizations in the space include the Tiny News Collective<\/a>, News Creator Corps<\/a> and the Evidence Collective<\/a>.) CNTI selected interviewees to represent a range of professional backgrounds. This report is based primarily on insights from the interviews, with data from the survey as a secondary source. One additional interviewee was invited to participate later to provide a perspective that was missing among the original 25 people. (We have also conducted a similar set of interviews with these types of providers in South Africa, which we look forward to<\/a> reporting on soon.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n In keeping with Project C\u2019s focus, most interviewees are former journalists \u2014 but we prioritized interviewing people from non-journalism backgrounds, and we were able to interview science communicators, subject-matter experts and civic-minded community members without journalism experience. Throughout this report we call out contrasting examples that suggest larger differences between former journalists and indie info providers from other backgrounds. We also spotlight examples from indie info providers outside our sample, where relevant to point to the broader diversity of backgrounds and experiences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In interviews, we asked participants about their backgrounds and motivations, audience engagement, their relationships with other indie info providers and legacy news outlets, platforms and algorithms, revenue and business strategies, and their view of success and satisfaction with their own work. <\/p>\n\n\n\n We developed codes using a bottom-up and iterative approach as themes emerged through the analysis. Code categories largely reflected the range of interview topics as well as the addition of two broader themes: \u201cfreedom\u201d and \u201csmall business owner.\u201d These methods provide richness and depth; however, it\u2019s not possible to generalize about the frequency of behaviors from these interactions, so we limit our use of quantitative terms to our interviewees throughout this report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n CNTI research and professional staff prepared this report. This project was made possible by the financial support of the Lenfest Institute and a second anonymous donor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Using Project C\u2019s public mailing list, CNTI invited indie info providers to participate in a survey focusing on baseline information, such as background, audience size, revenue and platform choice. We used this information to determine eligibility for the interview.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Beyond ensuring that interviewees were focused on providing information (by reviewing their work), we took a maximum variation approach to several variables. We prioritized including those who do not identify as journalists and did not have a journalism background. We also attempted to capture perspectives across a broad range of audience size and revenue amount.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The full recruitment questionnaire and topline demographics of our interviewees are available here<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Our research protocol included six semi-structured modules:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The researchers who designed the protocols, collected the data and analyzed the data are based in the United States. In addition to a relatively high educational attainment, our team as a whole has a strong affinity for and knowledge of journalism. These attitudes may have colored our interactions with the interviewees. All questionnaires and protocols for additional countries were reviewed and adapted with the support of local partners.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Interviews were conducted with Google Meet, and Google Gemini produced a first transcript. Researchers reviewed each transcript for major errors before coding, and all quotations that appear in this report were reviewed by a researcher before publication. Each transcript was anonymized before it was imported into Dedoose qualitative analysis software.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The codes were developed with a bottom-up approach as themes emerged in the data. The CNTI team\u2019s coding schema focused on the following nine categories: <\/p>\n\n\n\n Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In this category, codes cover how creator journalists prepared for and entered the work, including the skills they needed, their professional backgrounds and how they set themselves up to succeed. We coded for their reasons for starting, whether they identify as journalists, how prior jobs shaped their readiness and how they acquired the skills they lacked. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Audience <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Codes in this section examine the indie info providers’ relationships with their audience. We coded for how they think about trust and credibility, how well they can describe who their audience is, how they interact with them and how the broader information environment shapes their content and engagement choices. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Challenges <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Codes in this category cover challenges the indie info providers face throughout their projects, including financial pressures, time constraints and mental health struggles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Technology tools<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The codes in this category cover what technology tools indie info providers use to make their work easier. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Professional relationships <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Codes that fall under this category cover what relationships the indie info provider had with others in this space and with legacy media. This included employees or contributors they work with on their project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Platforms <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This category examines the relationship between indie info providers and the platforms they use. Codes covered audience data ownership, content tailoring across platforms, variations in content engagement and experiences with content deletion or shadowbanning. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Revenue and business strategies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In this category, codes cover the business elements of the indie info provider\u2019s project. This includes their business plans, their revenue streams and if they were funded through other means, such as an unrelated job, savings or spousal income. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Success and happiness<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Codes in this category focus on the creator\u2019s reflections on the project, such as their level of happiness, how they define success, and changes or different strategies they would use if they were to start the project over again. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Bottom-up themes <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n After the initial analysis, we added two categories. We were struck by how frequently participating indie info providers used the language of \u201cfreedom<\/em>\u201d and working as a \u201csmall business owner<\/em>.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n After all documents were coded, we reviewed all excerpts with the same code to inductively identify further themes and patterns within each larger category. <\/p>\n\n\n\n All identifying information (including consent forms and video recordings of interviews) were saved on a password-protected, encrypted cloud drive that is only authorized to the core research team at CNTI. All interviews were conducted using our team\u2019s video conferencing software. Google Gemini was used to create first-draft transcripts; our team uses a workspace account that does not share data or use it for training purposes. Interviewees could opt out of automated transcription, although none did.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Moreover, transcripts and screenshots were anonymized to the extent possible before export for analysis in Dedoose. Information like names and specific locations were redacted, as were photos of individual faces. We present demographic information only in the aggregate (see topline) to prevent anyone from identifying individuals who requested their participation in this project remain anonymous. All individuals acknowledged in this report gave express consent to be acknowledged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Research plans were reviewed and approved by TERC<\/a> Institutional Review Board.<\/p>\n\n\n\nHow we collected our data<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Recruitment<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Interview protocol<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Researcher positionality<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Transcription process<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Coding and follow-up analysis<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How we protected the research data<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Ethical review<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Continue Reading<\/h4>\n\n\n\n