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.
The NYT also has their award-winning liberal bias where everything Liberal Democrats do is awesome and anything Conservative Republicans is bad-bad-bad. They're no better than Gawker in many ways with their dead-tree version of click-bait and character smearing.
But yeah, lets throw some numbers around to make it look they might survive into the digital world.
No I think Trump is calling this one accurately - although his reasons are more personal.
The NYT is an outdated format even in it's transitional phase (which has taken nearly 20 years mind you). Few people spend the time to read the entire article when they are looking for headlines and sound bites. Journalism schools have been closing for years now, or wrapped into Speech Comm curriculum which are essentially leftist & politically correct. When you can get news that you like from nearly anywhere and for free, why pay for it and why subject yourself to a New York City viewpoint from barely educated and mind warped fanatics?
When I saw the headline, my first thought was that slashdot had picked up the story about the major newspapers buying fake clicks from Chinese bots to increase their page rank and advertising revenue.
See here and here (or here).
See that "Preview" button?
The GOD EMPEROR spoke. HIS word is law. All praise Trump!
Trumpmen!
Trump is definitely helping the NYT to succeed, even if that's not his intention. By singling out the NYT he's giving them a legitimacy as a voice for those that dislike Trump (which according to polls is well over half the nation). If he really wanted to hurt the NYT, which his words imply, he should stop talking to them and stop talking about them.
Everytime he bashes the NYT 100,000 people wonder what it is they said to upset him and go read the paper. Same with Saturday Night Live, the only reason I've watched it a few times is to go see what Trump was complaining about (and if he had a legitimate beef), I know I'm not the only one doing this.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I don't think it was ever more objective, certainly not since William Randolph Hearst in the 1890s. Newspapers used to be more honest about their political leanings. For example, the Austin American Statesman used to be called the Austin American Democrat. Similar names can be found in smaller cities, the newspaper will be named Middletown Liberal Times or whatever.
The LA Times had a very clear policy of simply not reporting anything that didn't support their political leanings. In 1884 the ignored Grover Cleveland's election to president for several days, pretty much pretending it didn't happen.
and that is exactly the problem. The AP and every major United States news outlet is more then just 'selective' about what data they present.
They may 'pretend' what they are giving you is the news, but what they really give you is 'the news' they think 'should be' .
Here is a good example that was given to me by a ex-girlfriend who was a catholic and worked in a local news room.
Standing orders, if there was a story that came across the wire and it involved child molestation and a priest it would be presented if not a lead story that night. Anything else the involved molestation of a child, by a rabbi, a pastor, or a teacher was not newsworthy.
The girl quit when she was given footage taken at a peaceful prolife march and given the orders 'cut this footage to make these people look nuts'.
For another example, go back and watch the news footage of Clinton loosing. Note the emotional content of the 'news' being presented. It is obvious that every major news outlet , ( fox is only half a major outlet) is entirely staffed by people who considered it a 'tragedy' that Clinton didn't win.
Not that there are any 'unbiased' alternative outlets. Heck even Slashdot shows some bias it is hard to get away from, the problem is all of the American news outlets I'm aware of are much more interested in ratings and viewership then truth or objectivity. That is in many ways the fault of the consumers who have stopped demanding it and instead consume whatever is more 'pleasing' to them.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
What does war with the press mean? Seriously. All I can see is that each (government and press) are vying for authority on truth which neither have. So what?
What I find funny is that news has become a 3rd person reading of twitter tweets. lol, because twitter has nothing to do with shit-posting. As the internet became more ingrained in society it was inevitable that politicians began shit-posting like the rest of us. It's just hilarious to find "old media" out of touch with shit-posting.
War on memes because pepe is white supremacist... I mean kek supremacist. top keks for everyone!
lol, I mean really? How can you take a news outlet that parades a war on memes seriously? On MEMES for gods sake. Don't they know that memes are dreams?
Faux outrage and slacktivism is not the new civil rights movement and it is not going to free the slaves (modern slaves that actually exist).
Here you go: https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310053fr.pdf
start on page 11 where they admit the targeting of conservatives was improper
The question is why nobody got fired/jailed for improper persecution of conservatives at the IRS. Why did e.g. Lois Lerner get to resign and keep the pension, instead of ending up in jail. Did Obama intervene, or was it somebody else? Who covered it up?
Pres. Trump, it's not too late to appoint a special prosecutor! Subverting the Constitution using administrative powers is no small feat. Heads of these eggs should roll. Obama may be immune, but the underlings can still be indicted to stop these kinds of crime in the future.
Elections are never a sure thing.
Absolutely true. But the NYT (and others) was not reporting the possibility of a Hillary win, they were debating the size of the landslide that she was going to win. That's why readers were so stunned. The NYT had not only not reported on the possibility of a Trump win, they had openly, and publicly, dismissed it.
This was a repeat of the infamous Pauline Kael line back in 1980, where Reagan's victory over Carter stunned the NYT, because "no one I know voted for Reagan". If a reporter cannot claim to have met a single person who voted for a president that wins in a landslide, they are living in a bubble and need to get out more. And that's the crux of their problem - they are living in an insular bubble, and they're only marginally aware of it. The lack of awareness alone damages their credibility.
For a news source that claims to be authoritative, not being aware of its' own shortcomings shows significant ignorance. And who's going to trust an ignorant news source?
No it can't. There's value in local news teams that you don't get with national or international outfits. That's why the televised networks usually have local news followed by national and world news. Most people are primarily interested in their area, and only the top stories beyond.
How hilarious that you post something completely accurate and are modded a troll.
Just goes to show that people who are brainwashed with narratives are not only completely hoodwinked but also addicted to those narratives. They have exchanged their self worth and individuality for a story thought up in a think tank. As drones they cannot conceive of anything other than how they are programmed. They are fearful of anything that approaches the truth. Contradicting their world view is considered an assault.
Poor simple bastards.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.