Fact check: Who funds snopes

Executive Summary — Who actually pays for Snopes, and what that means

Snopes is a privately owned digital fact‑checking outlet operated under Snopes Media Group, Inc., owned primarily by Chris Richmond (60%) and Drew Schoentrup (40%); the site funds operations mainly through programmatic advertising, paid memberships, direct contributions and merchandise sales rather than through political parties or advocacy groups ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The site’s history includes a prior legal dispute over ad management that raised questions about its financial independence, but the current ownership and stated revenue mix emphasize commercial, audience‑driven funding rather than institutional grants ^{[4] [2]}.

1. Ownership drama that reshaped funding perceptions

Snopes’ ownership history matters because a 2017 legal battle with Proper Media — which had handled advertising and technical operations — prompted scrutiny about who controlled revenue streams and editorial independence, an issue that continues to inform public trust debates ^[4]. The suit involved founder David Mikkelson and Proper Media and led to changes in how revenue was managed and who held the reins of the company; that episode is why ownership transparency resurfaced as a key point for readers and critics alike ^[4]. Current disclosures reflect a post‑litigation structure emphasizing private ownership ^[1].

2. Current owners and corporate structure — private, concentrated control

Snopes is operated by Snopes Media Group, Inc., with Chris Richmond and Drew Schoentrup listed as the two principal owners (Richmond 60%, Schoentrup 40%), indicating concentrated private ownership rather than a nonprofit or broad investor base ^{[1] [3]}. That ownership split was reaffirmed in recent disclosures and public descriptions of the company, which frame Snopes as a commercial media business relying on standard digital revenue lines. Concentrated private ownership can simplify decision‑making but also focuses public questions about single‑entity influence ^{[1] [3]}.

3. How Snopes says it gets revenue — a diversified audience model

Snopes’ own disclosures and reporting describe funding coming from programmatic digital advertising, paid memberships, direct contributions (donations) and merchandise sales, a mix typical for independent digital publishers seeking sustainability without institutional funding ^{[2] [1]}. Snopes explicitly states that it does not accept political advertising or funding from political parties or advocacy groups — a claim aimed at protecting perceived neutrality and adhering to industry best practices for fact‑checking organizations ^[2]. This revenue mix situates Snopes among audience‑funded digital outlets rather than grant‑backed nonprofits.

4. What the publicly available sources don’t show — gaps and opacity

Although Snopes lists revenue streams and owners, detailed financials such as advertising revenue amounts, membership numbers, or donation totals are not publicly itemized in the disclosures provided, leaving analytic gaps about the relative weight of each funding source ^{[1] [2]}. The earlier Proper Media conflict illustrated how contractual arrangements with third‑party ad managers can obscure who actually pockets ad revenue, and Snopes’ current statements do not fully reopen those ledgers for independent scrutiny ^[4]. That opacity matters for assessing how commercial pressures could influence content.

5. Independent watchdog context — how Snopes fits industry norms

In the broader fact‑checking field, organizations vary between nonprofit grant‑funded models and commercial audience‑funded models; Snopes’ mix aligns it with commercially sustained fact‑checkers, which puts it in a different accountability ecosystem than grant‑funded peers who publish grantor lists and audited statements ^[5]. The International Fact‑Checking Network (IFCN) provides principles for transparency, but Snopes’ own public disclosures focus on ownership and revenue categories rather than the line‑item transparency that some IFCN‑affiliated groups provide ^{[5] [2]}. That positioning influences both how critics evaluate it and how it defends editorial independence.

6. Competing narratives and why agendas matter

Critics who suspect bias point to the site’s revenue sources and private ownership as potential influence levers, while defenders emphasize the absence of political or advocacy funding and the site’s stated commitments to transparency as protective measures ^{[2] [4]}. The 2017 legal dispute is frequently cited by critics as evidence of past vulnerability to commercial partners, while recent ownership disclosures are used by Snopes proponents to argue the company has returned to clear, private control. Both narratives rest on factual events but diverge in the weight they assign to past versus present governance ^{[4] [1]}.

7. Bottom line — what readers should take away right now

Snopes is funded and owned as a privately held, commercial media operation with owners Chris Richmond and Drew Schoentrup, and it lists programmatic ads, memberships, donations and merchandise as revenue streams while disclaiming political or advocacy funding ^{[1] [2]}. However, detailed financial transparency is limited: the company provides categories but not granular figures, and past contractual disputes show how operational arrangements can complicate public understanding of who truly controls money and influence ^{[4] [1]}. Readers evaluating Snopes should weigh its stated funding model against the historical episode that prompted scrutiny and ask for more granular financial disclosure if they seek firmer assurance of independence ^{[4] [2]}.