# Guardian CEO Reveals Trust Ownership and AI Agility Strategies

**Podcast:** Masters of Scale
**Published:** 2026-06-06

## Transcript

The very best founders I know are brilliant at building systems.
They connect teams, they remove bottlenecks, and they eliminate single points of failure.
And yet, when it comes to their own wealth, most are running a disconnected stack.
A tax accountant here and a state attorney there, a wealth manager who doesn't talk to either one of them.
Creative planning was built to fix exactly that.
One integrated team of tax professionals, state planners, investment specialists, all coordinated by a dedicated wealth manager who sees your full financial picture and keeps every piece working together.
Proactive tax efficiency, estate strategy, investments, all under one roof.
Creative planning, where wealth works together.
Learn more at creativeplanning.com slash mastersofscale.
Hey folks, Jeff Berman here.
Exciting news.
Applications are now open for the Masters of Scale Summit.
It's happening October 20th through October 22nd in San Francisco, and it is a really special event.
Please join our curated community of founders, innovators, and leaders shaping the future.
Expect ideas that challenge your assumptions and connections that move your business and maybe even your life forward.
It's an experience that can change literally everything.
Apply now at mastersofscale.com slash apply26.
That's mastersofscale.com slash apply26.
One of the most helpful things I was told by a rather informed board member.
was that even the most sophisticated engineers working in the most extraordinarily frontier-level kind of AI don't really know what's going to happen in the next sort of 12 weeks, let alone in the next 12 months.
You could spend weeks doing plans for the next five years, which will become irrelevant and sort of redundant.
And actually...
Not trying to do longer sort of kind of forecasting or planning, but actually thinking, how do we set ourselves up to be ready to kind of adapt and adjust?
That's what I try and focus on.
That's Anna Bateson, CEO of Guardian Media Group, publisher of The Guardian.
The Guardian has had remarkable success as a news brand, growing globally when other aspirers like The Washington Post have struggled.
That's in part because of The Guardian's unusual ownership structure under the umbrella of a 90-year-old trust that helps provide stability.
But Anna has also embraced the exceedingly modern realities of speed, flexibility, and focus.
I wanted to learn how The Guardian is tapping into multiple business models and into the emotional aspects of a brand to differentiate itself.
And Anna did not disappoint.
So let's get into it.
I'm Bob Safian, and this is Rapid Response.
I'm Bob Safian.
I'm here with Anna Bateson, CEO of Guardian Media Group.
Anna, thanks for joining us.
Well, thank you for having me.
Today, The Guardian is the fifth most trafficked news site in the world.
More than 1.4 million subscribers provide regular financial support.
It's an impressive feat for a legacy British newspaper to turn into a global brand, especially when other news outlets are struggling.
I'm eager to learn your secret.
Is there a single secret that underlies all of this?
No, there's never a single secret.
I think there are a number of things that really contributed.
The first is that we were very early to embrace digital and to see the opportunities of digital.
And that decision, which is, I think, 30 years ago or something, took us from being the ninth biggest national newspaper in the UK, so inherently parochial to a degree, to really build audiences all around the world.
The uniqueness of our ownership model.
The independence that's endowed by the Scott Trust also allows us to think long term.
And that did allow us the opportunity to grow.
It didn't feel as though we were in a good position 10 years ago when you began to realize that, crucially, digital advertising wasn't going to sort of substitute for print advertising.
But actually, that was the basis then of us being able to build the reader revenue model.
The first important thing was embracing digital.
Does that make you more?
aggressive about embracing AI because that's maybe the next turn in the business?
No, I don't think it makes us more aggressive about embracing AI.
I think it means that we are genuinely a deeply digital organization.
We look at AI through a particularly informed lens, quite a curious lens.
We have aimed to try and be really...
cautious and thoughtful, actually, in how we endeavor to understand AI, in how we think about its application within our organization, across all aspects of the organization, the changes it's going to make to our audience's behaviors.
It's incumbent on all of us to truly understand it as a technology.
And I think you can only understand it by applying it and by using it.
You mentioned the Guardian is owned by a private trust.
Yes.
That means you don't need to necessarily pass down all of your profit.
The revenue you generate can be reinvested in the content.
Yes.
And you've kind of got a backstop in tougher times, if I'm understanding that correctly.
Are there any downsides to this structure?
Any complications?
Because you are fairly unusual to have this kind of a setup.
Yes, it is unusual.
I think it's an enormous strategic advantage for us, a really key point of differentiation.
The sole purpose of the Scott Trust is to ensure that the Guardian thrives in perpetuity.
So that's an extraordinarily privileged ownership structure to be the beneficiary of.
We have quite a lot of governance as a result, so that's something that we have to navigate.
But no, I think that it's an advantage for us.
And it's definitely something that our audiences understand.
It's a big motivator for them when they choose to support the journalism.
money is going to fund journalism and it isn't going to enrich, you know, a proprietor or shareholders.
And you as the CEO, you have limitations maybe that you might not because of some of the structural things, but at the same time, you don't have to worry about shareholders.
So there's, there's a little bit of a trade-off there, right?
Completely.
Yes.
I mean, I, um, uh, The editor-in-chief, and I report to the GMG board, she ultimately reports to the Scott Trust, which is a structural way of guaranteeing editorial independence and integrity.
And the relationship is one that's described as a happy partnership, a happy marriage.
And we're meant to be arm in arm.
The commercial and editorial strategies and ambition are symbiotically intertwined.
When you see the challenges of the Washington Post, I think that never has it sort of seem more clear how actually the structural guarantee around that editorial impendence, it's a very significant thing.
It's a very important thing.
Most legacy news organizations depend on ad dollars, even in the digital age.
The Guardians leaned on support from readers.
supporters, although The Guardian is free.
How do you get people to pay for something that's free?
So, first of all, we also have advertising.
Advertising is very important to us.
However, you're right, we have the stability of essentially having built this now really quite significant global supporter base.
One of the things that our ownership structure enables us to do is to be open about our publishing and available to all.
So when we first started to build out our reader revenue model, it was optional.
You're correct.
It wasn't forced by being gated around a paywall.
It was all about unlocking the words and the roots and the messages to essentially explain what reader support could give us and then to make it incredibly easy and frictionless.
We do have some paid products, so it's not completely true that we are just completely free.
If you subscribe to our app, we ask you to pay after you've used a certain amount.
We have a cooking product which we ask you to pay for, but we are committed.
to the principle of being open and freely available on the web.
I talked on the show with your counterpart, your colleague at the New York Times, Meredith Coppett-Levian, who is also one of a handful of sort of legacy print outfits that managed to be thriving.
And she talked a lot about lifestyle verticals.
You mentioned cooking.
She talked about cooking and games and other things.
When you think about your...
your business plan, do you track that sort of similarly or how much is your model more like a donation-based resource like Wikipedia?
You're sort of straddling those two things.
Yes, well, I have nothing but admiration for the New York Times and indeed for Meredith.
And I have nothing but admiration actually for Wikipedia.
And you're completely correct that I think we probably drew inspiration from both of those kind of, you know, august institutions.
If you think about it, newspapers were the original bundle, a bundle of different verticals put together in a beautifully designed, elegantly delivered product.
And we've always been good at cooking.
You know, we've always been good at cultural content.
We've long been great at lifestyle.
We've always had games.
You know, it's a very important piece of a newspaper to have crosswords.
So in a sense, as you think about taking the areas that are defining of us, and transitioning those into a digital world, it's not really surprising that we end up, you know, kind of consolidating in the same sorts of areas.
You know, puzzles are wonderful things.
They're all about driving habit.
You know, that's something that you want to do every day.
It's really how do you best unlock your strengths that you have and use that to reach audiences and unlock the most value from those audiences around the world.
You're also sort of leaning into...
And able, I guess, because of your structure to reinforce the mission of the organization, which allows you to sort of emulate Wikipedia, as we were talking about, right?
To sort of have that loyalty be part of what the appeal is in supporting The Guardian.
Whenever we do audience research, that sense of the emotional desire to support journalism is common.
So people believe that the mission is important.
They believe in the significance of the independent ownership model.
There's a real sense of I'm supporting something that I value, but other people value too.
Also, ultimately, it allows those people who can't afford to pay also to be able to consume it and have access to it, which is really important.
in this modern world.
In terms of business model, several high-profile media outlets have turned to billionaires for support.
The LA Times, The Washington Post, Time Magazine.
The tone that you mentioned earlier made me think that you may not feel like this benefactor model is necessarily good.
I'm curious about that.
I mean, the magazine where I worked as editor-in-chief Fast Company was owned by a single business leader who was quite supportive.
But as you say, certainly the Washington Post is embroiled in questions around Jeff Bezos's commitment and pressure.
I'm not sure it's for me to judge whether a benefactor model is good or bad.
I think it has risks.
And I think that for a long time, perhaps media organizations saw benefactors as saviors.
that hope and belief that you could have benign, you know, kind of benefactors.
I just think that there are moments when the personal interests of a benefactor may or may not come into conflict of a genuinely independent editorial organization.
When The Washington Post and the LA Times quashed their 2024 U.S.
presidential endorsements with...
under pressure from the owners.
The Guardian's U.S.
editor, Betsy Reed, went the other way and sort of called them out in a fundraising pitch that raised something like $2 million.
Yes.
How do the editorial and business sides coordinate when it comes to generating funds?
Like, is this something that you talk about or Betsy just decides I'm going to do this?
No, it's very collaborative.
I mean, I think it's one of the things that is so fascinating about the reader revenue model.
And we've obviously got to evolve our language about that because they're much broader than readers now.
But is the level of collaboration that takes place between editorial and the commercial teams.
And in a way, it's the logical evolution of an organization away from a very siloed sort of church and state where you had editorial and you had advertising and they didn't really need to ever sort of, you know, come into kind of contact with one another.
And I think that the essence of the audience funding model is that there is a greater collaboration ultimately.
You know, Betsy would decide what she felt was the right kind of, you know, message, but it would be done in deep concert with the Weed of Revenue side.
And in that instance, like when that idea came up, was there any concern of like, oh, we don't want to, you know, pick a fight in that way?
We talked about it, but in the end it...
It was something that we wanted to do, and I think it was the right thing to do.
I think it was the right thing to do editorially, and it was the right thing to do for our supporters.
It was a very emotional moment, and that translated into a lot of people, I think, coming to The Guardian and choosing to support our journalism in a way that they hadn't before.
The Guardian's known for its sort of unapologetically progressive values, and I'm curious.
how that impacts your business goals?
I mean, some might say it colors trust in your journalism.
So first of all, the lens that we are viewed through is interestingly different in the UK, where we have a long legacy and longstanding understanding about our editorial position.
It's a much less entrenched view when you get into mainland Europe, into the US, into the rest of the world.
And actually what I think...
our audiences appreciate there is very much this sense of a global perspective.
And so it's less, I think, about this association with unashamed progressive values, although I think that is the truth for us.
It's also the fact that we have a perspective that is very different and distinctive to a US-based kind of perspective.
You know, Trump, the Iran war, tech.
climate, immigration, there's something very appreciated by audiences of our ability to have a, you know, non-US sort of rooted perspective.
The capacity to contextualize or frame the story that comes from also having a European perspective or a British perspective or an Australian perspective or a Canadian perspective.
It's just that we can bring a broader context and a voice that is from, you know, many other places and not deeply kind of grounded and rooted in one place.
The Guardian is such a distinctive operation, its business model, its broad context, as Anna describes it, even its openness about progressive values.
How are AI chatbots impacting its work?
And what does Anna really think about Jeff Bezos's stewardship of the Washington Post?
We'll talk about that and more after the break.
Stay with us.
Business and the ways we do it are changing in ways that are both more subtle and more radical than you realize.
Welcome to Compound Interest from Salma 4 Business.
I'm Liz Hoffman.
And I'm Rohan Goswami.
We've been covering the forces behind this revolution, but now we want to talk directly to the people driving that change.
Each week, we'll talk to the operators, the experts, and the innovators to go beyond the headlines.
We'll dig into everything from hospitality companies that no longer own hotels to companies that will finance your sushi order.
We'll unpack the transformation of how business and consumers engage with our economy and figure out what lies ahead.
Listen to Compound Interest from Semaphore Business wherever you get your podcasts.
Hey, listeners, Bob here.
If you listen to Rapid Response on Masters of Scale, you may be missing half the show because every Friday we release a second Rapid Response exclusively in the Rapid Response feed.
The guests and topics are just as compelling and timely from Ford's CEO to NASA's administrator to the lessons from the Devil Wears Prada.
It takes about 10 seconds to find.
Just search Rapid Response wherever you listen to podcasts.
and hit follow to make sure you never miss an episode.
I hope to see you there.
Humans will never be more intelligent than AI.
There's going to be two types of companies.
Those are great at AI and those that went out of business because they weren't.
How do we build a future that is human-centered?
I'm Rana Elkhaubi, and on my podcast, Pioneers of AI, we answer that question and so many more.
As an AI scientist, entrepreneur, and investor, I know what it takes to build AI that works for everyone.
Every week, I sit down with the pioneers shaping our future, and we take you behind the scenes of the AI that's transforming our lives.
Find Pioneers of AI wherever you tune in.
Before the break, The Guardian's Anna Bateson shared how its distinctive business supports distinctive content.
Now she talks about how The Guardian has sidestepped the impact of AI chatbots so far and what Jeff Bezos misunderstood when he bought The Washington Post.
Plus, the role The Guardian can play in the future of news and how she keeps the business anchored in the here and now.
Let's jump back in.
Before coming to The Guardian, you worked for...
Google and YouTube, the transition from search to AI chatbots, to things like Google's Gemini summaries, that has cut down traffic a lot for a lot of content outlets.
And a lot of folks struggle with that.
How are you thinking about that?
Does that make you look at Google any differently?
We have not seen.
declines in audience that have been reported for other media organizations.
In fact, we've seen incredibly strong and resilient audiences, particularly in the US.
We've actually just overtaken the Washington Post.
So January and February for kind of readership within the US, which is quite a sort of significant moment from our perspective.
So I don't think we're naive that there's clearly...
deep disruption and kind of change coming in the way that people are going to discover and then choose to consume the news that they want to kind of read or watch or, you know, listen to.
However, we aren't seeing that level of change yet reflected in our audience numbers.
Is there anything that you're doing?
Like, are you blocking, you know, bots?
from AI companies from crawling your content?
Or is this more, do you think, about the brand affinity that people have with The Guardian?
Like, do you have a sense of why it's not hitting you the way it's hitting others?
There is a piece around brand affinity and around, you know, genuinely differentiated quality original journalism, the meaningful relationship that I think our audiences therefore have with us.
which allows us to potentially be more resilient, you know, and have more direct traffic.
I think it is also about how the search experience is developing.
There is a different experience around sort of hard news, serious news than there might be about softer lifestyle kind of media and coverage.
The Guardian is a founding member of a coalition called the Strategic Partnership for Uplifting Rights, or SPUR, which...
which is intended, I guess, to design better guidelines for AI training.
Can you explain what the motivation behind Spur is and what you've seen so far?
At this time, when you are facing very well-funded and very sophisticated kind of technology organizations.
We need to rise to that moment.
We need to work together as an industry.
So I think the first piece of it was how can we collaborate?
And it's important that the founding members were both broadcasters and former newspapers.
And they're across the...
the sort of the political spectrum.
We then have every intention that this will then broaden out and become a global coalition, defining standards and protocols that are really going to be necessary to the creation of a potential licensing market around quality, quality journalism and content.
We ought to be defining those standards and protocols rather than having them defined for us by technology businesses.
We talked about your structure earlier around your business model.
And I'm curious whether you think that structure gives the Guardian a certain kind of role in the media ecosystem and how it evolves.
Do you feel like you have to be a leader in a different kind of way, maybe?
Or, you know, it allows you to be a leader in a different kind of way?
Yes, I think there is a sort of a sense of some responsibility.
The secondary purpose of the Scott Trust.
is broader.
If the primary purpose is ensuring the sustainability of The Guardian in perpetuity, a secondary purpose is around ensuring that liberal journalism can flourish.
The leadership challenges of running any organization right now are quite intense.
Are you thinking about your role within The Guardian differently?
Are there...
particular things about how you manage the team or manage the planning that, you know, that might be instructive?
One of the most helpful things I was told by a rather informed board member was that even the most sophisticated engineers working in the most extraordinarily frontier level kind of AI.
don't really know what's going to happen in the next sort of 12 weeks, let alone in the next 12 months.
And I found that really helpful.
You know, focus on curiosity about kind of what's happening and capabilities within the organization and flexibility because you could spend...
you know, weeks doing plans for the next five years, which will become irrelevant and, you know, sort of redundant before you know it.
And actually not trying to do longer sort of kind of forecasting or planning, but actually thinking, how do we set ourselves up, equip ourselves, skill up really to be an organization that's ready to kind of adapt and adjust as we're going to need to.
That's what I try and focus on.
And I think that as a leadership team.
it's incumbent on us to sort of hang on to that humility and to continue to keep learning and be curious about what's happening.
And that's what will, I think, equip us for what's to come.
It's a very different framework than the traditional way business works, right?
I mean, I'm sure you still have to have plans and budgets that, you know, that extend out farther.
But if really you can't see more than 12 weeks out, it's pretty hard to plan.
Yes, I mean, well.
It's easy to plan, right?
Just you've got to be able to adapt when the plan begins to veer off course.
There's a discipline and a rigor around planning, which is actually really useful.
But I think it's being able to be adaptable enough that when the plan begins to change, you can accommodate that.
When I first came into media in the late 90s, these organizations were making so much money, like hand over fist.
And I sometimes wonder whether the expectations about how much money news organizations should make is a little out of whack, like we're trying to turn them into growth businesses when they're really more cash flow businesses.
And obviously, you don't have quite the same pressure of that because of the trust structure.
But I'm just curious whether you feel that way or have any thoughts about that.
I think you are correct in your observation.
There was an expectation about the kind of returns that you could get that probably is unsustainable now.
But also, I think if you're building a news organization now, you would build it in a very different way with a very different cost structure.
And that might allow you then to be a growth business and to deliver the kind of returns proportionately that perhaps they used to.
So it's both sides, isn't it?
restructure yourself to adapt to a new reality?
And also, can you culturally, you know, evolve sufficiently to be operating in a way that will allow you to grow?
That's the thing that the New York Times has done so spectacularly well, which has allowed them to not only invest in journalism, but actually build out a very successful set of subscription-based businesses.
I guess sometimes I think that you know, when Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post, he didn't really realize what he was buying and what he was getting into.
I think that's probably right.
There were years when you thought you were going to solve the problems by technology.
And actually, the fact that that wasn't going to solve the problems was masked by the enormous sort of growth in audience and engagement that was Trump.
And then, of course, was COVID.
You think you have the answers because you come in and you look at these businesses and you've been very successful elsewhere.
And they're more complicated than that, you know, and they're complicated both because of legacy and because of the changing market.
The expectations, right?
I mean, listen, how much money the Washington Post makes one way or the other is not really measurable on Jeff Bezos's, you know, P&L, like his personal wealth.
It's a rounding error, right?
I suspect that it's less about the amount of money and it's more about what that kind of financial performance symbolizes about the sustainability and the health of the organization.
You can live with losses, but if you feel that they are the sign of something that's more problematic, that I think then becomes the thing that's troubling.
In some ways, I think it would make more sense for The Washington Post to be structured as a nonprofit.
I know I talked to I talked to the owner at Fast Company at certain times about, you know, should we convert this to be a nonprofit?
Because, you know, because really that's what its mission is about.
But when you have folks who are owners who are business people, they believe that that profit imperative, you know.
pushes certain kinds of results and gets rid of complacency.
I have some sympathy for that perspective.
A commercial ambition and drive, as long as it's compatible with and supportive of editorial independence, is a good thing to have.
I think you're right.
You don't want your organization to be complacent and you don't want...
people not to care really about kind of the commercial kind of underpinnings of where they work.
How do you reinforce and encourage that, that commercial side when, you know, that's not the way you're structured?
We are held to account around, you know, financial performance and financial sustainability, editorial impact.
is only really secure and sustainable if it's attached to a business model that is also kind of secure and sustainable.
That, I think, is a message that is understood.
And I think, crucially, it's amazing how once you begin to see that something's working and that that is a sign of genuine relationships with audiences who believe in what you're doing, who see the impact of it, who value it, The momentum that you get from that is very powerful.
I think in the end, you know, relevance and impact is what we're all here to do.
And the fact that people want to support us and the fact that people want to partner with us, you know, brands and advertisers want to partner with us is indicative of us achieving what it is that we're aiming for.
Absolutely.
Commercial success is a hallmark, a sign that you're connecting, right?
The validation that audiences understand that this is important, valuable and, you know, kind of necessary work.
I hear this all the time from colleagues that news organizations are facing so many threats, overlapping threats, technological, political, economic.
And I'm curious, like, how...
bleak is the future or should I say challenging is the future?
Like what's at stake at this point when you look to what's to come for news?
I think there are perspectives where you could see it as pretty bleak.
However, at the same time, you know, quality news has never been needed more.
It's never been valued more.
You could argue that it's being engaged with and consumed at extraordinary levels and trusted brands who can take a long-term perspective and have the resilience that comes from a particular ownership structure, from the power of a 206-year-old brand, from genuine relationships with audiences around the world.
I mean, that's quite a potent combination.
And if...
you know, out of that, we can sort of give people some hope and some help in how they navigate kind of a complicated world of which there are so many unknowns, then that's a reason to not be bleak.
And that's a reason to actually feel quite optimistic.
So it might slightly depend the day that you asked me that question.
But I think the fact that...
it matters more and that people genuinely understand that and value it.
And our model speaks to that.
But as does the success at the New York Times or, you know, many other kind of, you know, admirable organizations, I think that speaks to there being reasons for hope.
Well, Anna, I applaud that hope and that feeling.
And thanks for doing this.
It was a pleasure.
As a journalist myself, I have a particular interest in how the news business operates, but you don't need to be a newshound to gather lessons from Anna's experience at The Guardian.
She gives high praise to the unique ownership structure there, but even more important is what she calls the genuine relationship with audiences around the world.
Every business needs to understand who they're serving and how best to engage them.
For all the technology brings to the modern marketplace, Business ultimately requires an emotional connection.
We lose sight of that at our own peril.
I'm Bob Safian.
Thanks for listening.
Rapid Response is a Wait What original.
I'm Bob Safian.
Our executive producer is Eve Trow.
Our producer is Alex Morris.
Associate producer is Mashimaku Tonina.
Mixing and mastering by Brian Pugh.
Our theme music is by Ryan Holiday.
Our head of podcasts is Lital Malad.
For more, visit rapidresponseshow.com.