Who owns the channel – and who owns the data?

Recently we got yet another reminder of why this question matters. A platform that several municipalities in Norway chose as an alternative to the big social media networks is now asking residents to pay so that it can keep running. The channel the municipality urged residents to follow suddenly depends on those very residents opening their wallets.

It is not a one-off, and it is not about anyone doing something wrong. It is about the fact that a service the municipality does not pay for, or does not control the terms of, can always change overnight. And it is not just about communication. It applies just as much to resident services – bookings, fault reporting, event calendars, waste collection schedules and e-services – the things residents actually use in everyday life.

Two risks that are often discovered too late

1. Channel dependency. Municipalities have spent years building followers on social media. Then the algorithm changes and reach drops, or the platform changes its business model. A current example: since September 2026, Meta has been limiting more and more Facebook Pages that do not pay for a subscription to two posts or comments with links per month. For a municipality that wants to point residents to its website or e-services, every link suddenly becomes a cost issue. The followers, the feed and the contact with residents are owned by someone else. The municipality cannot take its audience with it when the terms change. The same goes for resident services that only exist in a supplier’s app or portal: if the supplier changes direction, the service disappears from residents’ phones – and the municipality has to start over.

2. Data ownership. The second risk is less visible. We see suppliers who, after a few years, claim that data the municipality itself created belongs to them. In Denmark we have seen an established calendar provider claim exactly that about events collected from the municipalities’ and local associations’ own digital channels. The same can apply to information the municipality has gathered in a line-of-business system. When the municipality wants to show the same data in its own channel, or share it with another supplier, it is met with licence requirements, fees or a flat no.

What both have in common: the problem is not visible at the procurement stage. It only shows when the municipality wants to switch, build further or use its own information in a new way.

The core question: who pays – and what does the supplier optimise for?

A supplier does what its business model rewards. That is why the business model says more about the future than the product sheet does. If someone other than the municipality is paying, the supplier will sooner or later prioritise whoever pays.

Advertising. Advertisers pay, and the supplier optimises for time in the feed, engagement and data about users. For the municipality, this means reach is governed by the algorithm, not by what matters.

The resident pays. The supplier optimises for paying users. The municipality only reaches those who pay or are willing to pay.

Data as an asset. Third parties buy or license data, and the supplier profits from owning it and locking it in. The risk is that the municipality ends up paying for its own information.

The municipality pays a licence. The municipality is the customer, and the supplier optimises for the municipality wanting to renew the contract. The risk concerns price and delivery – but the interests are aligned.

The last model is not risk-free. But it is the only one where the supplier makes money from the same thing the municipality wants to achieve: actually reaching residents, and a municipality satisfied enough to stay.

So don’t just ask what does it cost? Ask why is it cheap, and who pays the rest?

Seven questions to ask before you sign

1. What is the business model? Who pays today, and who is expected to pay in three years?
2. Who owns the data? Does the contract state that data created by the municipality, local associations and residents belongs to the municipality – even after the contract ends?
3. Can we get it out? In what format, how often and at what cost? Is there an open API, or only an export on request?
4. Can we reuse it? Can the municipality show the same data in its own channels, on the web, in an app or with another supplier without an extra licence?
5. Who owns the relationship with residents? Is it the municipality’s channel and the municipality’s service, with the municipality as sender and the municipality’s contact details – or the supplier’s account that the municipality borrows?
6. What happens if the terms change? What notice period applies if the supplier changes its price, model or owner? Is there an exit plan?
7. Who do we not reach? Does the service require residents to create an account, accept advertising or pay? Then the municipality does not reach everyone.

A tip: ask suppliers to answer the questions in writing in their tender. The answers become part of the contract and are hard to change afterwards.

Yes, we at Innocode charge for our services too. We have to, in order to build a healthy company that is here to stay and keeps developing its services year after year. But we make money on one thing only: the municipality wanting to renew its licence. The municipality pays, the municipality owns its data and content, and the municipality can take it along if it wants to switch. That is how we believe it should be.

Feel free to ask us the same seven questions. They are exactly the questions we believe every supplier should have to answer.