When media lose the conversation, value slips away

An erosion that goes far beyond advertising

The recent announcement by The Washington Post — the dismissal of nearly 300 journalists out of 800, following more than $100 million in losses in 2024 — is not an isolated incident. It is a symptom.

In the United States, more than one newspaper out of three has disappeared in twenty years. In Europe, and particularly in France, the trajectory is the same — simply slower, and still sometimes denied.

At the end of January, Arcom reiterated a brutal reality: so-called “traditional media” — press, radio, television — now capture only 33% of the total advertising market, down from 46% in 2021.

At the same time, social platforms continue to record sustained advertising growth, at +14% per year since 2019.

The outcome is well known, but rarely acknowledged: 56% of French media outlets are now operating at a loss, and nearly 80% show low or negative margins.

This is no longer a cyclical crisis. It is a structural erosion of value.

But this erosion goes far beyond an economic issue. It poses a major democratic risk.

Strong, independent, economically stable media outlets are not a luxury: they are one of the cornerstones of a functioning liberal democracy. They ensure the production of verified, pluralistic, prioritised information. They create a common space for understanding reality.

However, as advertising value shifts towards platforms, this foundation is becoming increasingly fragile. Algorithms do not finance pluralism: they optimise engagement. They do not structure debate: they fragment it. They do not expose people to contradiction: they lock individuals into homogeneous cognitive spheres that are often emotional and sometimes antagonistic.

This shift does not organise collective conversation: it segments it, polarises it and, increasingly, pits audiences against each other. Where the media build a shared space, platforms operate by affinity, by reaction, by amplifying strong signals — to the detriment of nuance, context and the long term.

The danger is therefore not only the gradual disappearance of titles, editorial teams or formats. The danger is the silent disintegration of democratic debate, replaced by a juxtaposition of parallel narratives, without common arbitration or a hierarchy of trust.

It is precisely in this context of democratic fragility and fragmentation of public conversation that a central question arises: when trust erodes and the media lose their ability to orchestrate debate, what remains to recreate value — and meaning — between brands, media and audiences?

The paradox that the figures do not reveal

This decline is often explained by a buzzword: attention. Audiences are said to be volatile. Usage is fragmented. Young people are said to be ‘elsewhere’. However, one fact directly contradicts this narrative.

Consumers have never been so keen to give their opinions, comment on their purchases, share their experiences and talk about their interactions with brands.

They do so spontaneously, without financial incentive, sometimes even without being asked. Recent discussions highlighted in the media — notably on France Inter — confirm this: the need for expression, recognition and sharing after purchase is massive, cross-cutting and generational.

In other words: the public has not fallen silent. It has simply changed the space in which it speaks.

However, this reality continues to worry many brands. Consumer expression is still too often perceived as a risk — the risk of criticism, bad buzz, loss of control. This fear is inherited from an advertising model based on a one-way message, where any external communication was seen as a threat.

The data tells a different story. Several recent studies show that consumers are not primarily seeking to punish brands, but rather to help them, provided they are listened to. A majority say they are willing to share their opinions, point out areas for improvement, and recommend a product or service when it truly matches their experience. Post-purchase feedback is not a court of law: it is a space for contribution.

What brands fear is not consumer feedback, but rather the lack of structure surrounding it. When this feedback is left to unedited, uncontextualised platforms, it becomes volatile, sometimes brutal, and often disconnected from the reality of use. Conversely, when it is structured, explained and placed in a clear and credible context, it becomes a lever for trust, education and sustainable value.

Where the conversation went... value followed

This conversation has long been underestimated by the traditional media.

While they continued to think of advertising as a top-down message, platforms built something else: spaces for expression, reaction, rating and commentary.

Result: advertising value shifted towards those who captured not only attention, but post-exposure engagement.

Today, Google, Meta, Amazon, TikTok and their peers account for most of the growth in global advertising.

• Not because they produce more credible information.

• Not because they offer better editorial contexts.

• But because they have managed to industrialise social proof.

What the media lost was not audience, but evidence.

The heart of the problem is therefore not solely economic. It is symbolic and functional.

Traditional media have long been implicit guarantors of credibility: a message disseminated in their environments benefited, by extension, from their authority. But this authority is no longer sufficient.

Today's audiences are no longer satisfied with just hearing a promise. They want:

• see it confirmed by other consumers,

• compare it with actual uses,

• compare it, comment on it, discuss it.

When this proof does not exist — or remains invisible — trust erodes, even if attention is there.

Caution ≠ trust ≠ decision

This is where the misunderstanding persists. Attention has become a key performance indicator. Measured, modelled, optimised.

But attention alone does not trigger a decision. Without follow-through — without proof, without shared experience, without embodied words — it remains:

• short,

• volatile,

• reversible.

What platforms understood very early on is that decisions rarely arise from the message itself, but from what happens after the message.

The missing link in traditional advertising

Traditional media still have three major advantages:

• credible editorial contexts,

• greater attention span,

• strong cultural and democratic legitimacy.

But they often lack a crucial link: the ability to integrate, in a structured and visible way, the real voice of consumers into the advertising chain.

Not in the form of anarchic comments. Not at the expense of editorial credibility. But as structured, verifiable, contextualised evidence.

As long as this evidence remains confined to social media platforms, value will continue to be concentrated there.

What the flight of investment really reveals

The shift of advertising budgets towards platforms is not a rejection of traditional media. It is a rational decision in the face of a lack of proof.

Advertisers are not just looking for short-term performance. They are looking for:

• Messages that stand the test of time,

• promises that are kept,

• credibility that endures.

Where the media no longer provide this continuity between exposure and proof, others do so — albeit imperfectly.

Restoring trust is not nostalgia, it is a strategy.

The question, therefore, is not whether traditional media are “outdated”. They are not.

The question is whether they will agree to rethink advertising as a complete experience, incorporating:

• attention,

• context,

• creativity,

• and proof of use.

Because in a world saturated with messages, what makes the difference is no longer what we say, but what we can demonstrate.

And as long as this demonstration remains elsewhere, value will continue to slip away — silently, methodically — to those who have understood that trust has become the real currency of the advertising economy.