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.
Why did factually discontinue creating weekly blogs?
Executive summary
There is no single, widely reported reason that “factually” (the company The Factual or a blog described as factually) stopped producing weekly blogs; available sources do not mention a firm named “Factually” discontinuing weekly blogs, and reporting about why blogs in general decline points to resource constraints, changing audience habits, and monetization or quality-control burdens as common causes [1] [2] [3]. Industry surveys show many companies still maintain frequent blogging—65% of marketers work for companies that maintain blogs and most publish multiple times a week—so stopping weekly posts is often a strategic choice rather than a universal industry collapse [4].
1. Why a publisher might stop weekly blogs: staff time, cost, and quality control
One consistent theme in the coverage is that maintaining a weekly cadence demands ongoing staff time and editorial oversight; writers and editors constantly face the “sign on, think of something to write, write it, edit, publish, repeat” grind that causes many personal and small-scale blogs to peter out [2]. Professional outfits face added costs when they try to raise standards—some outlets now pay fact‑checkers or external reviewers, which adds expense and delay and can make weekly publishing impractical [3]. These practical pressures—labor, cost, and the desire for higher factual standards—are repeated explanations for why publishing frequency falls [2] [3].
2. Business strategy and ROI: publishing frequency versus measurable performance
Marketing experts argue that blogs remain a measurable, revenue-linked channel: HubSpot’s reporting notes that blogs give “consistent, easily measurable, and reliable performance” and that many companies still publish multiple times per week [4]. That implies organizations that reduce cadence are often responding to an internal ROI calculation: if the incremental traffic or conversions from weekly posts no longer justify the resources, teams will reassign effort to higher-return channels—email, SEO-optimized pillar content, or multimedia—rather than continuing a blanket weekly schedule [4].
3. Audience behavior and platform shifts: not all readership is equal
Long-standing analysis of blogging’s evolution shows that social platforms and changing user attention can erode the audience for traditional blogs; TechRadar wrote in 2011 that social networking shifted attention away from personal blogs and made sustaining readership harder [5]. More recent commentary still reflects that attention economics matter: if readers prefer video, short-form social posts, or curated newsletters, organizations may reduce blog frequency to focus on formats that better match audience habits—even while some firms double down because blogs still drive search traffic [5] [4].
4. Editorial choices: fewer, higher-quality posts versus volume
Some publishers have consciously traded frequency for depth. The logic is to publish less often but with more thoroughly sourced, better-researched pieces—especially when fact‑checking is demanded. Content creators who add professional fact‑checking note that it “is an added expense and delay” that makes rapid weekly publishing harder [3]. Thus, a shift away from weekly posts can reflect an explicit editorial pivot toward credibility and longevity rather than negligence [3].
5. Technical and traffic issues: redesigns, migrations, and seasonal dips
Technical events can force temporary or longer-term reductions in publishing. Site redesigns or migrations can depress traffic for weeks or months and prompt teams to pause regular posts while they stabilize the site [6]. Also, predictable seasonal traffic dips—holidays or summer—can lead editors to scale back cadence during low-engagement periods [6].
6. Conflicting perspectives and what the sources don’t say
Sources disagree about whether blogs are dying: several 2024–2025 pieces argue blogs are resurging and still dominate top Google positions, while older and some critical pieces argue blogging has been hollowed out by social platforms [7] [8] [5]. Importantly, available sources do not report a specific, confirmed decision by an entity named “Factually” to stop weekly blogs; RAND’s entry on The Factual describes a product that scores news content but does not say that The Factual ceased weekly blogging [1]. SlyPress’s speculative piece about Google’s Blogger includes conjecture about platform closures but does not substantiate a named publisher ending weekly posts [9]. Therefore, a direct, sourced explanation for “why Factually discontinued weekly blogs” is not present in the provided reporting [1] [9].
7. How to verify the specific claim and next steps
To confirm why a particular outlet stopped weekly posts, check the publisher’s own announcements (archive of their site, About/News, or an official Twitter/X post), reach out to their editorial contacts, or consult contemporaneous reporting on staff layoffs, platform migration, or strategic pivots. Since the supplied sources don’t document a named closure or discontinuation, those direct primary sources would be necessary to move from plausible industry reasons to a definitive explanation (not found in current reporting).
Summary: industry reporting shows multiple, plausible reasons—resource limits, ROI decisions, editorial fact‑checking, audience shifts, and technical traffic issues—for reducing blog frequency, but none of the provided sources establish a direct, sourced explanation that an entity called “Factually” discontinued weekly blogs [2] [3] [4] [6] [1].