Slashdot Mirror
How is The New York Times Really Doing? (om.co)
Wired magazine did a profile on The New York Times in its this month's issue. Talking about the paper's transition from print to more digital-focus than ever, author Gabriel Snyder wrote, "It's to transform the Times' digital subscriptions into the main engine of a billion-dollar business, one that could pay to put reporters on the ground in 174 countries even if (OK, when) the printing presses stop forever." Veteran journalist Om Malik analyzes the numbers: -> The company reported revenue of nearly $1.6 billion in 2016 -- remarkably consistent with prior years.
-> Print advertising revenue dipped by $70 million year-over-year to $327 million in 2016.
-> Digital advertising revenue, while a meaningful portion of the Times' revenue, did not grow enough to offset vanishing print ad dollars.
-> Total digital ad revenue in 2016 was $206 million, up only 6% from the prior year.
-> The key revenue driver for the New York Times has been its digital subscription business, which added more than half a million paid subscribers in 2016. Thanks in part to interest around the presidential election, the newspaper added 276,000 new digital subscribers in Q4, the single largest quarterly increase since 2011 (the year the pay model was launched).
The Times' digital success is hinged upon two major drivers: affiliate revenues from services like the Wirecutter and digital subscriptions. Advertising might be a good short term bandaid, but the company needs to focus on how to evolve away from it even more aggressively. The Times needs to simplify their sign-up experience and make it easier for people to pay for the subscriptions. As of now, it is like the sound you hear when scratching your nails on a piece of glass.
-> Print advertising revenue dipped by $70 million year-over-year to $327 million in 2016.
-> Digital advertising revenue, while a meaningful portion of the Times' revenue, did not grow enough to offset vanishing print ad dollars.
-> Total digital ad revenue in 2016 was $206 million, up only 6% from the prior year.
-> The key revenue driver for the New York Times has been its digital subscription business, which added more than half a million paid subscribers in 2016. Thanks in part to interest around the presidential election, the newspaper added 276,000 new digital subscribers in Q4, the single largest quarterly increase since 2011 (the year the pay model was launched).
The Times' digital success is hinged upon two major drivers: affiliate revenues from services like the Wirecutter and digital subscriptions. Advertising might be a good short term bandaid, but the company needs to focus on how to evolve away from it even more aggressively. The Times needs to simplify their sign-up experience and make it easier for people to pay for the subscriptions. As of now, it is like the sound you hear when scratching your nails on a piece of glass.
Really, I have to give them credit where credit is due: by repeatedly pointing out errors (however trivial) out of the tens of thousands of news stories that are published every day, they've managed to get their supporters to the point where they'll trust a new story on www.siteiveneverheardofbefore.com/newishstuff/hillaryclintonpedophilering.html more than they will an actual newspaper. It's a real masterstroke in terms of controlling the narrative. "Anything negative you hear about me, it's fake, because there exist cases where newspapers have made errors, and we've selectively presented you only with those cases to create a narrative for you that newspapers are packed full of fakery." Not just newspapers - fact checkers, peer-reviewed articles, even official government statistics - all fake, because they've been presented with every case people can get their hands of of error, without the balancing context of the 10000x more that wasn't in error.
In the words of XKCD: "Dear God, I would like to file a bug report". ;)
It's the same thing that contributed to the Challenger explosion. They had a nice clean graph in front of them that plotted O-ring failures vs. temperature. There was no clear trend visible on the graph. The problem was that they omitted the successes, the cases where there were no O-ring failures. Here's what it looked like with that added in. All of the sudden there's a very clear trend of failure increasing at low temperatures - in fact, every low temperature launch had had O-ring failures, while very few high-temperature launches had. By being selective in what data you present (accidentally in that case, on purpose in the present case), you can get people to believe precisely the opposite of what is true.
I'll never forget the last thing grandma said to me before she died: "What are you doing in here with that knife?!?"
o The average Chinese person has no interest in Trump or the Brexit. The average Chinese has very little interest in Western politics in general. This is anecdotal evidence, but I have lived in HK and Taiwan (which are way more open than mainlanders) and none of my friends read American news (and they were all mostly very westernized). Open any Chinese newspapers, or social network and see how much they care (they don't, and also, you can't because from your post I cantell you have no clue about their culture).
o Taiwanese, Japanese, and Indians care way more about Trump (especially Indians), and India is an English speaking country. But there is no spike in viewership from these countries.
o As it has already been pointed out, these numbers are ridiculous compared to the number of speakers of English.
o Why only these three journals (one of which is banned)?
o Do you have any actual argument or evidence to support your claim.
o Please, realize that you are the idiot, your post and your signature are full of contradictions.
Now, back to the actually rational, non-brainwashed people left in this site. The data seems pretty legitimate, do we know why it hasn't been picked up by anybody (the news is pretty old). A google search returns very few results, and I couldn't find anything debunking it. Any actual, technical idea of why this info should not be trusted?
They didn't need that graph. Glass transition temperature in polymers is taught to just about every engineering student on the planet in first year materials science subjects.
As Feynman showed it was a management fuckup of ignoring experts.
Sorry, but when your president is a habitual liar, at war with the free press and surrounded by even worse people it's not a "fit of rage", it's genuine and justified concern.
Trying to dismiss it as some kind of childish tantrum is a straight up silencing tactic. It's not going to work. Especially when the POTUS is prone to doing exactly what you complain about, often at 3AM on Twitter, or through his spokesman at a Whitehouse Press Conference.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I'm really worried about Sweden
What you are, actually, is ignorant of the facts. Talk to a cop who has to deal with what's going on there. Or better yet, try living with it yourself for a week or two.
This guy caught heat for being honest about it.
But you can be honest about it without risking public backlash, so why not try it?
Elections are never a sure thing. Even fivethirtyeight was weighted towards Clinton, but everything has an error margin, and any prediction of something as large and complex as hundreds of millions of voters in what amounts to fifty separate elections, each with its own dynamics, is inevitably going to have a significant margin of error. For chrissakes, even many Republicans expected, and probably hoped Trump would lose (as is evidenced by the chaos now surrounding repealing and replacing Obamacare, as it turns out no Republican in Congress, save perhaps for Rand Paul, ever actually believed they would ever be in a position to replace Obamacare).
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Shut up, you fucking liar.
Last post!
a) Here is one: http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/07/23/19-facts-on-irs-targeting-president-obama-cant-blame-on-republicans/
b) "What did the President know, and when did he know it"
I do sincerely hope that Trump gets to appoint a special prosecutor to find out just how deep Obama went into it. If he has nothing to hide...
c) Ask yourself why would any government (e.g. IRS) employee move an inch unless directly ordered to do so e.g. by the President. Why would they target conservatives unless ordered by the resident?
d) remember the Black Panthers Philly voter intimidation investigation that Eric Holder ordered shut? After the evidence/testimony/facts of voter intimidation were in? Do you think Holder did it himself, or was Obama involved? Why wasn't Holder fired by Obama afterwards? I got 10s of examples like this, literally.
The problem is that the NYT no longer meets their motto of "all the news that fits, we print" (apparently it's not "fit to print", but that's a quibble).
Of course you realize (and for those that don't actually know) that the actual quote is, "All the News That's Fit to Print" (printed in a box in the upper left hand corner of the front page on the physical paper since about 1896) and what you quoted is a really old joke.
From The New York Times:
The paper's motto, "All the News That's Fit to Print", appears in the upper left-hand corner of the front page.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .