Slashdot Mirror
The New York Times Has Lessons For Others Making the Slow Transition To Digital
mattydread23 writes "You may not think your business has much in common with the New York Times, but the newspaper is a perfect example of how to maintain investment in a large but declining legacy business while simultaneously investing in new areas that will drive future growth. Surprisingly, 10% of the paper's revenue now comes from digital subscriptions and other all-digital products (not including advertising)."
When the NYT charges so much for digital subscriptions (esp. tablet), it's not surprising 10% of their revenue is digital.
Most papers are local. News about a small city or region. New York Times is not only national, it's international, if you ignore all the NY pretentiousness. The NYT can make it on the internet with this model, but most papers cannot. For any local paper, there just aren't enough subscribers to make it a viable business model. Even papers from larger cities like Chicago, LA, Houston, etc. are having issues.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Is that the quality of their reporting sucks. And they are biased.
The NY Times overlooks the fundamentals of digital news: Their website is still a news- paper website, instead of a news website. It's print newspaper articles copied to the web, rather than news on the web platform.
One problem is their inability to communicate using modern tools (i.e., anything but text). Just about any blogger can communicate by inserting images, audio, or video inline in a post, while the NY Times, with all its resources, seems to be text with an image or other multimedia occasionally stapled onto the top of the page or on a separate page.
Sometimes text is the appropriate tool; sometimes an image, audio, or video is. For example, if someone says something important (or dubious or otherwise extraordinary), rather than transcribe it to text, show a video clip of them saying it (i.e., Here is Hilary Clinton's response: ) Then the readers can judge the body language, intonation, etc. for themselves. Another example is their arts reviews, where they describe key visual aspects of a painting, film, or performance -- but in text. Why not use clips or images, inline, as needed? This is the web in 2013, not paper in 1950.
The clear answer seems to be the universal recipe for obsolescence: That's the way they've always done it. If the NY Times can't compete with anyone with a Wordpress blog, they are way behind the curve.
Is it a surprise the NYT has managed to get even 10% of revenue from online sources? Or that it is so small a figure after years of trying?
I'm surprised that a company that apparently gets 90% of its revenue from non-digital sources is held up as an example of how to get money from digital sources.
The NYT consistantly ignores real political issues, covers up for the DNC when possible, and treats a LARGE portion of possible readers as idiots.
Calling half the country country bumpkins is NOT the way to increase readership. Burying stories posted front and center on MANY other sites and pretending things like Fast and Furious didn't happen is NOT they way to increase confidence in your reporting.