When "Free" is the Most Expensive Word
Why one newsroom's decision to "save money" on data is really a decision to fly blind.
I was speaking with a colleague at an online news site who had been a Parse.ly customer, the audience intelligence vendor, for about five years. He explained that when the current contract expired, the organization decided that it couldn’t justify the five-figure cost and chose not to renew.
What are you using now? I asked.
Google Analytics, it’s free, he responded.
Have you customized it at all or brought in anyone to help you better understand the data?
Nah, it’s fine, we didn’t want to spend any more money.
There it was. After five years of custom reports, segmented audience data, and a strategy that was metric-centric, they’re throwing it all away for a “free” metrics platform. One that emphasizes uniques, pageviews, and time on site, what I call speedometer metrics.
They didn’t just cancel a subscription. They canceled their capacity to learn.
What my colleague’s organization threw away wasn’t just a fancy dashboard. It was the ability to ask strategic questions. Questions that actually matter. Things like: How many of our newsletter subscribers read our top investigative series this month? Or, which topics are most effective at converting casual readers into paying members or donors? Or, are the visitors we’re getting from social media loyal, or are they just one-and-done fly-bys?
I’m sure they aren’t alone. As expenses continue to climb and revenues tighten, many news organizations are faced with the same question: What do we cut, and what do we save? Some will make good decisions, and some won’t.
Let’s be clear. The real tragedy here isn’t the switch to Google Analytics. GA is a powerful tool, but only if you know how to use it. The tragedy is in that “Nah, it’s fine.” It’s the decision to fly blind.
The problem is, “free” GA is free in the same way a “free” puppy is. That five-figure contract didn’t just buy a piece of software. It bought installation, customization, ongoing support, maintenance, and most importantly, saved time. The vendor did the work.
That “free” alternative? It requires an expert. It requires someone to spend dozens, if not hundreds, of hours. Hours to set up custom events and goals, build the reports that actually answer those strategic questions, and then teach everyone else how to find and read them.
Did they hire a data analyst or a consultant to do that? No. They “didn’t want to spend any more money.”
They didn’t just make a simple swap. They traded a full-service, professionally run restaurant for a hobby-grade meal prep kit.
But nobody has the time or the expertise to read the instructions, let alone cook the meal. So that “free” tool will sit in the box, unused. That’s the definition of penny-wise and pound-foolish.
That “free” tool, with no customization and no one to interpret it, is arguably worse than nothing. Why? Because it gives the illusion of being data-informed while only serving up those surface-level speedometer metrics.
When your only guide is raw pageviews, every pageview looks the same. A click from a disengaged user who bounces in three seconds counts the same as a 10-minute read from a loyal subscriber.
A newsroom guided by this “free” data will, slowly but surely, start chasing the wrong things. They’ll prioritize the car crash story that gets 100,000 “uniques” over the zoning board investigation that gets 5,000. But that investigation is the reason your core audience pays you.
They think they’re saving money, but they’re actively eroding their own value.
One of the most significant errors I’ve seen in decades of journalism is editors and leaders believing they know it all, that they know what the audience wants or needs.
This isn’t just a financial decision. For many, it’s a cultural one. Being data-informed is hard work. It’s uncomfortable. It forces you to confront the facts. It proves that your brilliant “gut” instinct was, well, wrong.
That budget cut isn’t just a problem. For some leaders, it’s a convenient excuse. A financially sound, perfectly justifiable reason to go back to what they’ve always known: “I’m the editor, and I know what a good story is.”
It’s a full-scale retreat from the hard work of modern publishing, all disguised as fiscal responsibility.
The Smarter Cut
So what’s the alternative? Let’s grant their premise. Let’s say that the five-figure contract truly was too expensive. Fine. That’s a real constraint.
The strategic failure wasn’t cutting the vendor. It was giving up on data.
The smart move, the strategic move, would have been to say: “Okay, we have to cut this. We have one month left on the contract. What are the three, maybe five, essential reports we get from this? The ones that actually inform our decisions.”
Then, use that month to hire a freelancer for a few hundred bucks to replicate just those few reports in GA. The smart move is to scale down your intelligence, not to gouge your own eyes out.
While I didn’t and still don’t believe in blind allegiance to data, I do believe in using data to help inform the decisions that I make.
So, I have to shake my head when I hear news organizations believe that data can be considered a cost-savings item.
In this budget climate, knowing exactly what your audience values isn’t a luxury. It’s the only path to survival. Cutting the tools that give you that insight isn’t saving money.
It’s sawing off the branch you’re sitting on.
My colleague’s story is just one example, but I’m sure many of you have seen something similar. What’s been your experience? Have you been forced to trade a GPS for a compass? Or have you found a ‘smarter cut’ that actually works? The comment section is open. I’d love to hear your take.
This entire post is about the problem... the fact that so many newsrooms are flying blind with “speedometer metrics”.
If you’re interested in the solution we’re building at the American Press Institute to help newsrooms measure their mission and impact (not just their traffic), I wrote about it in detail here: The Case for the Impact & Trust Platform.
P.S. — Did this analysis provide you with a breakthrough strategy?
If so, please consider making a one-time tip to support the deep research and analysis that goes into every Backstory & Strategy post.
Additionally, if you found this post helpful, please restack it and share it with your audience. This spreads the word and keeps me writing the types of content you enjoy.