Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How has Snopes' revenue mix (donations, ads, subscriptions) changed over the last decade?
Executive summary
Snopes’ revenue mix has shifted episodically over the last decade from a near-total reliance on advertising (as Snopes stated in 2016) toward a patchwork that, at points, included large crowdfunding, platform grants, and later acquisition/funding disclosures — but precise year-by-year shares for ads vs. donations vs. subscriptions are not published in the provided documents (Snopes said all revenue was from advertising in 2016; it raised roughly $700K via GoFundMe in 2017 and received $100K from Facebook the same year) [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not provide a complete annual breakdown or clear data about subscriptions or ad revenue shares after 2017 [4].
1. From “all ads” to an emergency fundraiser: the 2016–2017 pivot
Snopes publicly reported in 2016 that advertising accounted for its entirety of revenue, but a 2017 ownership dispute that cut off ad payments forced a dramatic change: Snopes launched a GoFundMe and raised about $700,000 from donors in 2017 while also receiving a $100,000 payment from Facebook tied to a fact‑checking partnership [1] [2] [3]. Those events show an episodic and reactive shift in the revenue mix — from ad dependence to a heavy, short‑term reliance on donations and platform support when ad flows stopped [2].
2. Legal fight drove short‑term monetization changes — not necessarily a permanent business model shift
Reporting around 2017 makes clear the pivot toward crowdfunding was largely a response to a legal/operational crisis: Proper Media’s withholding of ad revenue amid an ownership dispute is the proximate cause cited for the fundraising appeal [2] [5]. That context suggests the surge in donations reflected an emergency stopgap rather than an announced, permanent move away from advertising [2] [5].
3. Public disclosures say revenue categories are “few,” but up‑to‑date detail is limited
Snopes’ own disclosures page says its revenue sources are “few in number” and pledges to disclose large contributors (over $10,000 or >5% of revenue), but the disclosures page included a caveat that the information “hasn’t been updated since 2022,” indicating gaps in publicly available granular data [4]. In short: Snopes promises transparency about big donors but the provided copy signals the site’s revenue page is not current to 2025 and does not present an annualized revenue mix [4].
4. Outside databases and profiles give snippets but not a full picture
Venture and data services (PitchBook, Crunchbase, Owler, Tracxn, CB Insights) list acquisition/funding notes and estimated totals — e.g., Tracxn and CB Insights reference an acquisition [6] and historic crowdfunding totals — but they do not publish a continuous revenue-share timeline that breaks down ads vs. donations vs. subscriptions over the decade [7] [8] [9] [10] [3]. These third‑party profiles therefore corroborate some discrete events (fundraising, acquisition) without supplying annual revenue mixes.
5. What we can and cannot say with confidence from the available reporting
We can say with confidence that: (a) Snopes stated in 2016 that its revenue was derived from advertising [1]; (b) a legal dispute in 2017 interrupted ad payments and led to at least $700K in GoFundMe donations and a $100K Facebook payment [2] [3] [1]; and (c) Snopes’ own disclosures page exists but had not been updated through 2022 in the archived copy available here [4]. We cannot produce a complete, year‑by‑year percentage breakdown of ads vs. donations vs. subscriptions from the supplied sources because that level of financial granularity is not published in them (not found in current reporting).
6. Competing interpretations and hidden incentives to note
One interpretation: Snopes’ crowdfunding success and platform grants in 2017 indicate a resilient diversified revenue approach — audience and platform support can substitute for ad income when needed [2] [3]. An alternate interpretation: the 2017 donations were emergency measures driven by an ownership dispute and do not reflect a deliberate long‑term shift away from ad dependence [2] [5]. Also note incentives: Proper Media (the ad partner) had a business interest in withholding or negotiating ad revenues during the dispute, and platform grants (e.g., Facebook) can create perceptions of influence even if they are presented as fact‑check program payments [2] [1] [3].
7. How to get a definitive revenue‑mix timeline going forward
To build a reliable decade‑long picture you would need: audited annual financial statements or tax filings, a fully updated Snopes disclosures page listing donors and revenue shares by year, or detailed reporting based on internal accounting records; none of those appear among the supplied sources (not found in current reporting) [4] [7] [3]. Until such data are made public, analysis must rely on episodic public events (2016 ad‑reliance claim; 2017 GoFundMe and Facebook payment; 2022 ownership/acquisition notes) rather than continuous annual revenue shares [1] [2] [8].
If you want, I can draft a short outreach email you could send to Snopes’ disclosures or investor relations contact requesting a year‑by‑year revenue breakdown, or I can search for more reporting beyond these sources. Which would you prefer?