Ringier’s editorial advisor says the next editors-in-chief might come from audience development

Naturally that involves leadership. And in his view, it will look less like front-page gatekeepers and more like system designers, or people who can orchestrate participation, analyze audience needs and translate those insights into editorial priorities. 

Granted, that’s arguably what the modern editor should already be doing. But, as Shishkin sees it, it’s only happened in pockets, and never consistently enough to truly transform how newsrooms operate. Ringier could change that but only if he’s willing to gamble on the kind of cultural shift that would upend how power and influence traditionally flow inside a newsroom. 

“It’s in the process of being discussed,” said Shishkin at the Digiday Publishing Summit Europe conference in Lisbon, Portugal on Monday (Oct. 27). 

How far those conversations go is still unclear. Even Shiskin acknowledges it’s a sensitive topic. But it’s one he believes the industry can’t afford to ignore, especially as AI forces publishers to redefine what understanding an audience actually means. 

“If it were up to me I would mainly appoint editors in chief who are currently heads of audiences,” said Shishkin. “Do that and have a higher chance, in my mind at least, of being modern, audience enteric business. You understand the audience from the point of view of that, you actually work for people.”

Of course, he would say that. Shiskin is the former BBC editor who helped shape its approach to digital journalism — and yes, the argument could sound a touch idealistic in an industry still governed by legacy hierarchies. But it’s a provocation that cuts to the heart of the conversation newsrooms are having right now about what leadership should look like amidst the onset of AI. 

“It doesn’t really matter what your business model is, nor does it really matter what your niche is — the audience is something that actually unites all of us in a media business,” said Shiskin.

Or at least it should. 

In reality, most media companies remain deeply fragmented, divided by formats, revenue models and entrenched power centers that make aligning around audience needs far harder than it sounds. Too often, editorial, product and commercial teams all claim to serve the audience, yet they chase conflicting incentives and speak entirely different languages. That disconnect is exactly what Shiskin’s point lays bare: until publishers can rally around a shared, operational understanding of who their audience is and why it matters, “audience-centricity” “will stay a slogan more than a strategy,” he continued. 

“We don’t want to be in a sort of broadcast mode where we make all editorial decisions for our audience — we want them to decide,” said Shishkin.

Some might say that model — and the idea of an audience development led in the editor’s chair — fits better in certain kinds of newsrooms than others. A lifestyle brand, perhaps, where audience feedback is built into the product, could make it work — maybe. A newsroom, with decades of institutional muscle memory, might find it harder to adapt.

Shiskin, unsurprisingly, disagrees. In his view, putting the audience at the center of editorial leadership isn’t a nice-to-have. It’s the only way to future-proof journalism.

“I generally think that a strong aud dev lead could be a serious contender for an editor in chief job irrespective of the nature of the title, provided they are trained editors,” he continued. “The additional audience engagement/development skills take you further in the hiring selection decision ahead of general ‘beat’ or section heads. You get a much more rounded and forward thinking person like that because the nature of an audience development job exposes you to other disciplines — and these competencies are valuable.”

It’s hard to imagine the idea taking off en masse. Editors, after all, remain the backbone of any newsroom — not because they resist change but because they hold the institutional memory, editorial judgment and moral authority that audiences still trust. The challenge isn’t replacing them, it surrounds them with systems that make the audience understand a shared responsibility rather than an afterthought. When those systems work — when editorial product and commercial teams pull in the same direction — editors can do what they’ve always done best: shape stories that matter, for people who care.

In the end, that’s the crux of Shiskin’s argument: audience development isn’t a department — it’s a discipline.