Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The New York Times Has Lessons For Others Making the Slow Transition To Digital

samzenpus posted about 8 months ago | from the get-on-the-net dept.

The Internet 67

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)."

cancel ×

67 comments

10% isn't surprising (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45519077)

When the NYT charges so much for digital subscriptions (esp. tablet), it's not surprising 10% of their revenue is digital.

Re:10% isn't surprising (1)

toonces33 (841696) | about 8 months ago | (#45519133)

Yes, but it is still cheaper than home delivery.

We are one of the digital subscribers. Usually in the morning I will pull the thing up on the tablet to see what is going on in the world..

Re:10% isn't surprising (3, Funny)

pspahn (1175617) | about 8 months ago | (#45519201)

You probably shouldn't be reading while you drive a car....

Toonces, look out!!

Re:10% isn't surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45519413)

At regular prices for daily delivery, All Access Digital is $8.75 per week. Home Delivery is $16.10 per week (and includes All Access Digital "for free").

Re:10% isn't surprising (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | about 8 months ago | (#45521881)

Yes, but it is still cheaper than home delivery.

*MUCH* cheaper if you don't live in the USA.

Re:10% isn't surprising (3, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | about 8 months ago | (#45520809)

The NYT shouldn't be giving lessons to anyone - they were very slow to make an accommodation to digital, and they're still clearly on an "ink smeared on dead trees" business model, that happens to do some online stuff as a side venture.

Just a couple of years ago the total value of the company was less than the value of it's real estate and other holdings: the actual business was valued negatively by the market (the same was true of Sun in their final year - Oracle basically got the non-real-estate part of Sun for free).

Cukf Obamacare (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45519177)

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/364823/load-holidays-and-watch-out-those-uncles-jonah-goldberg

So who exactly is going offtopic now?

Fuck all you bozos, if it's fair game for the statist stealing our money, they it's fair fucking game here.

Let's talk us some fucking Obamare disaster! Now bitches.

1. Remember when you said that Obamacare was going to work great, You were wrong.
2. Obama is a communist who wants to spread the wealth, mostly to him of course.
3. Obama's "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan" promise was a LIE. A fucking bald faced lie.
4. Remember the "if you like your doctor" pledge? Another lie bitches.
5. Democrats are going down in the next few election cycles, because of Obamacare. Bitches.
6. You scumbags are just common thieves and cowards at that because you need the man to enact your thieving for you.

Suck it bitches.

Re:Cukf Obamacare (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45520173)

"If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it" -- Joseph Goebbels

parsing (3, Interesting)

turkeydance (1266624) | about 8 months ago | (#45519187)

"digital subscriptions and other"...so DS's are a single digit percentage.

Re:parsing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45519289)

The NYT also keep their fingers on the huge disparity between print and digital advertising rates. Can't say that I've been impressed by any element of their "new media strategy".

Does not apply to most papers (5, Insightful)

Princeofcups (150855) | about 8 months ago | (#45519195)

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.

Re:Does not apply to most papers (4, Interesting)

tgetzoya (827201) | about 8 months ago | (#45519319)

The interesting thing is that many newspapers are owner by a larger newspaper. The Boston Globe is/was owned by the NYT, The LA Times is owned by the Chicago Tribune, etc. I think what's missing is a form of brand cohesion, as in naming all newspapers in a family one central name and having a dedicated website for all.

Re:Does not apply to most papers (3, Insightful)

danomac (1032160) | about 8 months ago | (#45520071)

It'd be easier to see that they all have the same news articles then.

Re:Does not apply to most papers (1)

corsec67 (627446) | about 8 months ago | (#45520493)

We could call this the "Associated Press".

Someone should get on this...

Re:Does not apply to most papers (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 8 months ago | (#45520719)

That's pretty funny actually. Ever notice the amount of content in papers these days that are simply AP, AFP, or Reuters content, with a few words changed throughout the story.

Re:Does not apply to most papers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45525575)

Ever notice the amount of content in papers these days that are simply AP, AFP, or Reuters content, with a few words changed throughout the story.

The volume of nonlocal/wire content in US newspapers is DOWN, not up. Before the Internet, newspapers functioned as a primary conveyor of serious global journalism. Large newspapers staffed bureaus around the world; smaller newspapers relied on the AP -- an association of newspapers -- or on "supplementary" wires, many of them operated by large newspapers. Now most local newspapers have a very local focus.

Re:Does not apply to most papers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45519331)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/11/21/thanksgiving_tips_how_to_pick_a_fight_with_your_relatives_and_walk_away.html

"If your family is anything like mine, then Thanksgiving is sort of like a brief military deployment after months and months of training. You've prepared all year in Internet comment sections and by yelling at Fox News on the television screen, and now you find yourself face-to-face, in close quarters, with actual Republicans, right across the table. They're not going anywhere, and neither are you. Despite what you’ve heard about avoiding holiday conflict, now is your time to fight."

Bring it douchebags.

Re:Does not apply to most papers (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 8 months ago | (#45519351)

So?
I would take a digital subscription to my local paper today. Just send me the 3 color PDF they send to the printer. They don't want to take my money.

Re:Does not apply to most papers (0)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 8 months ago | (#45519479)

They don't want to take my money.

Of course they want to take your money. They just don't want to have you telling them how to deliver their product or to make a special system just for you.

Re:Does not apply to most papers (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 8 months ago | (#45525451)

That is how reality works.
You deliver a product and buy purchasing or not your customers tell you if they approve of it and how it is delivered.

Re:Does not apply to most papers (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 8 months ago | (#45520435)

3 color PDF? Most operations are intelligent enough to use CMYK-- Black ink is cheap, and if you have any registration problems, your readers don't get headaches.

Re:Does not apply to most papers (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 8 months ago | (#45519533)

That seems like a valid lesson: if you're local only and not diversified, you probably WON'T make the transition.

NY pretentiousness? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45585437)

WTF does that mean? It's a New York paper, and covers local news, in addition to its national and international coverage.

Those mavens! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45519221)

The New York Times are truly blazing a trail on the information superhighway, leaving the rest of us in their dust. As a followup, perhaps experts at the MPAA and RIAA could share their wisdom on how to make the transition to digital media delivery...

The problem with the NY Times... (2, Insightful)

Steve_Ussler (2941703) | about 8 months ago | (#45519325)

Is that the quality of their reporting sucks. And they are biased.

Which part is a surprise (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#45519429)

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?

Re:Which part is a surprise (3, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | about 8 months ago | (#45519583)

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.

Re:Which part is a surprise (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about 8 months ago | (#45520305)

No Kidding. Whatever strategy they're using, it isn't working.

https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1385421580228&chddm=1102802&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NYSE:NYT&ntsp=0&ei=xtqTUrCNIJTksQedCA

Re:Which part is a surprise (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 8 months ago | (#45525355)

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.

They literally don't know what they're doing. I used to read the occasional link from them and thus be exposed to their ads (I don't ad-block static ads). But recently they've started to require cookies to be set to view anything, so I get a login page (I do have an account, but have stopped using it). On the login page, they have a link to a privacy policy that says they do not track users and do not require cookies.

Whatever, there are plenty of other news sources.

The NY Times overlooks the fundementals (4, Insightful)

guanxi (216397) | about 8 months ago | (#45519463)

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.

Re:The NY Times overlooks the fundementals (5, Interesting)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 8 months ago | (#45519623)

There are a lot of news sites I avoid for PRECISELY that reason.

Normally, I just want a quick read of the news. THEN, I'll consider the singing birds and the dancing flowers. That's true EVEN on a TV site. Nothing turns me off faster than a loud multimedia site that starts playing before the page is even done rendering whether I want it to or not and regardless of what those near me are doing.

The Internet is not television. There are times and places where I don't want a lot of uncontrolled noise popping out of my speakers. And there is a time when lots of pictures and stuff are important and a time when just a quick synopsis will do (at least to begin with).

Re:The NY Times overlooks the fundementals (2)

danomac (1032160) | about 8 months ago | (#45520273)

The Internet is not television. There are times and places where I don't want a lot of uncontrolled noise popping out of my speakers.

I agree, I primarily use noscript and flashblock. However, some sites are using HTML5 and seem to get around that somehow. Now I just leave my speakers off and only turn them on when I actually want to listen to something.

Re:The NY Times overlooks the fundementals (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 8 months ago | (#45520387)

Now I just leave my speakers off and only turn them on when I actually want to listen to something.

I usually am already listening to something, and the offending websites want to play without notice and at full volume.

The NYT used to have (still has?) an excellent four page (double side) daily summary of the news. HP used to provide free access to that service as a way of increasing sales of ink-jet inks. They included software to automatically download and print any of several different sources, and I found the NYT summary to be just right. It had a daily crossword, too!

I tried to get the same result using things like crayon and other news aggregation systems. I think I even tried writing one myself to create summaries of certain early online newspapers, but nothing was ever quite as professionally done as the NYT summary.

Re:The NY Times overlooks the fundementals (1)

danomac (1032160) | about 8 months ago | (#45520717)

I'd say it's high time Mozilla put individual mutes on tabs. They're all separated into individual processes now (I think?) and a visual play button could appear in the tab itself indicating the tab has sound. They can be set to mute new tabs as a default and only play sound after you've allowed it.

I thought maybe a new plugin would do that, but no luck. Maybe plugins don't have access to that sort of thing?

Re:The NY Times overlooks the fundementals (1)

danomac (1032160) | about 8 months ago | (#45520727)

And I meant extensions, not plugins. I need more coffee.

Re:The NY Times overlooks the fundementals (1)

danomac (1032160) | about 8 months ago | (#45520757)

What do you know, there is an extension that mutes the browser [mozilla.org] easily. Unfortunately it looks like it is the whole browser it mutes, and not individual tabs. I haven't tried it, so I don't know if it works. Figured others may be interested.

Re:The NY Times overlooks the fundementals (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 8 months ago | (#45520523)

My problem is that I use multiple windows, on multiple desktops, each with multiple tabs. And when I'm watching one thing, another page decides "This might be a good time to tell Jeremy about "Charmin Ultrasoft"

Re:The NY Times overlooks the fundementals (1)

danomac (1032160) | about 8 months ago | (#45520607)

You might want to stop using your laptop while sitting on the throne. You sure the webcam is disabled? ;-)

Re:The NY Times overlooks the fundementals (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 8 months ago | (#45520961)

It's a desktop, but thanks for the tip.

Re:The NY Times overlooks the fundementals (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45521679)

My problem is that I use multiple windows, on multiple desktops, each with multiple tabs. And when I'm watching one thing, another page decides "This might be a good time to tell Jeremy about "Charmin Ultrasoft"

Two words: AdBlock Plus [adblockplus.org] .

Re:The NY Times overlooks the fundementals (1)

guanxi (216397) | about 8 months ago | (#45520679)

The Internet is not television. There are times and places where I don't want a lot of uncontrolled noise popping out of my speakers.

I agree, but there's no reason multimedia have to start playing unprompted.

Re:The NY Times overlooks the fundementals (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45522289)

Amen. For an example of how not to do it, check out the Australian Broadcasting Commission's website. Tiny amount of actual news copy on the front page, or anywhere else, because everyone has a iPad or something.

Re:The NY Times overlooks the fundementals (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#45522699)

The Internet is not television.

So sorry for the inconvenience. We'll be fixing it soon. Please be patient.

Re:The NY Times overlooks the fundementals (2)

Solandri (704621) | about 8 months ago | (#45523057)

It's not just video that plays automatically. A little part of me cries when I see a CNN story is only available in video, or an NPR story is audio only. The problem with the video and audio formats is that you cannot fast-forward through them to see if might be interested in watching/listening to the whole thing.* With a text article or a transcript, I can skim it really quickly, then decide if it's interesting enough to warrant me taking the time to reading the whole thing.

Yes video and audio clips have their place on a website. But that place is not as the primary form of access. The whole point of the web was to allow people to consume content in the format most convenient and comfortable to them, not a format dictated by a video. It's the same reason flash websites coded to a specific fixed resolution suck.

* This is not strictly true. VLC has a feature which pitch-corrects the audio if you play back the video at a faster speed. I've been using it to gulp down anime in half the time (it makes you appreciate how much anime is just filler put in to try to make the 24 min runtime). But a ~2x speedup is about the limit before the audio becomes difficult to decipher. I can push it to about 2.5x-3x if it has subtitles. But it's still a lot slower than I can skim through a text news article (because you have to glance away from the subtitles to see what's going on in the images to follow the plot).

Re:The NY Times overlooks the fundementals (5, Insightful)

dmitrygr (736758) | about 8 months ago | (#45519673)

Am I really the only one who permanently blacklists any website that has "video" news? Video requires 100% of my attention, and probably headphones, to avoid distracting all those around me. It also occurs at your speed. I can read faster than you can talk, and it does not distract anyone around me.
If i want to *SEE* what happened i'll go to youtube
On a news site I want to *READ* about it!

Re:The NY Times overlooks the fundementals (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45519867)

AC here just to let you know you are not alone.

Do not want talking-head video (1)

Animats (122034) | about 8 months ago | (#45520147)

Part of the job of reporting is to digest talking heads down to something useful.

Re:Do not want talking-head video (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 8 months ago | (#45522071)

Well that's easy, but blank space doesn't sell too many ads.

Re:The NY Times overlooks the fundementals (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45520573)

Agrree I hate newschannels that pop up video first thing

Re:The NY Times overlooks the fundementals (1)

forkazoo (138186) | about 8 months ago | (#45521701)

The thing is that every "video news" website gets it wrong. Nobody cares about the talking heads giving bookends for the content, and nobody wants auto play. So, whenever you go to such a web page, it instantly starts playing some random person giving a banal intro. OTOH, an article saying "X happened" with a video that you can choose to play to see X happening would actually be valuable. If person X gave a speech to the UN or something, then having video of the speech is reasonable. But, yeah, I'll play it if I want it.

Re:The NY Times overlooks the fundementals (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45519711)

The NYT uses images, audio and video all the time. They primarily use text and images because that's what most people want. If I wanted a video of the news I'd watch tv.

Re:The NY Times overlooks the fundementals (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 8 months ago | (#45520559)

Really? The times has video [nytimes.com] And upon occasion, it's dabbled with less traditional story telling techniques [nytimes.com]

Re:The NY Times overlooks the fundementals (1)

guanxi (216397) | about 8 months ago | (#45520665)

Not inline as needed, as any (relatively capable) blogger would do. It's text with occasional multimedia added at the periphery.

Re:The NY Times overlooks the fundementals (3, Informative)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about 8 months ago | (#45521109)

Just about any blogger can communicate by inserting images, audio, or video inline in a post

Just about any blogger can produce noise by inserting images, audio, or video inline in a post.

If I want the slowness of video news, or if I need to see some detail of intonation from the latest round of political bullshit, I'll go to ABCNNSNBCwhatever and look for the video there. Why would the NYT want to step on their turf?

I can read well-written text faster than a talking head can read it to me. One of the great annoyances on today's web is the proliferation of two-minute videos replacing what should be 200 word stories. I don't know if The Kids Today just don't know how to write, or if they're too lazy, or what

Of course video clips have their place in news. But they don't replace well-written text.

Re:The NY Times overlooks the fundementals (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45522309)

The entire amount of words in a half-hour TV news bulletin would fit in a couple of columns on the front page of a newspaper. Your recipe is, I'm afraid to say, a recipe for knowing nothing much about very little.

Re:The NY Times overlooks the fundementals (1)

dabadab (126782) | about 8 months ago | (#45524791)

Just take a look at this article [nytimes.com] . If you see the same in the print edition then you should come off your acid trip. And it's not that it is gorgeous in its full glory - it is also implemented correctly. On the desktop it does not overload the CPU, it is absolutely enjoyable on mobile devices, hell, it renders OK also in lynx. And note the correct use of videos: you are not expected to watch it like TV, it just enhances the text.

Metrics are wrong (2)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 8 months ago | (#45519565)

Paywalls are an illusion.

Information just wants to be free.

I would actually be more likely to talk about the WSJ as a method of how to do digital - it's an add on but they still mostly sell physical papers. And buying a physical paper gets you the add ons for that day.

NYTimes.com has been going since '96 (5, Interesting)

Maxmin (921568) | about 8 months ago | (#45519671)

NYT Digital (the website) was a separate but wholly-owned company from 1996 until around 2007, merging with the newspaper as the new building opened. Pageviews in the mid 2000s were half a billion per month, with approximately half that going to the homepage alone.

IIRC, annual revenues for website advertising were $150 million in the late 2000s, damned good for a newspaper site. This was before NYT jumped onto the mobile and paid-digital-subscription bandwagons, which accounts for the $37 million revs. Adverts are still king, even on the website, and that combined with the homepage being half the pageviews is why you see the most expensive placements there.

While the rest of the newspaper biz has been slow to adopt, NYTD were actively educating the old-school news staff about FB, Twitter, RSS and other common or up-and-coming technologies. They have programmers assigned to the news floor, collaborating with reporters, to build topical databases, perform big data analyses, produce dynamic reporting and graphics and so forth. NYT are doing about as well as can be expected -they're a news organization, yes, but they've converted themselves into a technology firm from the inside-out.

NYT offers developers REST APIs [nytimes.com] for fetching newsfeeds and the aforementioned databases. Semantic Web is an area of research, and they're on a level with Thomson-Reuters, and to a limited extent Bloomberg. NYT's R&D department (originally attached to the newspaper, not NYTD) produces tools for latent semantic analysis of news, comments, etc.

When Twitter hit its initial growth spurt there were many predictions it would eat the newspaper business. It hasn't, in fact the news business relies on Twitter for distributing headlines and links. 140 characters and photo links hasn't eliminated the need for in-depth writing, analysis and professional photography.

Sure, the transition to an all-digital revenue model is their Achilles Heel. Most of the rev comes from the newspaper, and the demographic average is male, 40s and makes > $70K per year. Getting the younger generations to pay for news is the challenge.

I'm a former NYTDer. I still admire what they've done to adapt. I don't know how they'll survive the next decade, honestly. It'll take a revolution in paid subscriptions to get the younger crowd as part of the paid demographic. HuffPo was being eyed as the primary competition, for awhile, as an advert-only web operation.

NYTimes a great model for other entrenched biz's (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45519783)

Do you hate your customers? Do your customers hate that they are dependent on you? Do you hate your business and generally hold it back by lowering the bar to the detriment to the entire thinking world? Have you done everything in your power to increase your political power while gutting the product you actually produce since it's now little more than a cost center? Abuse your position for profit. You'll make money. By bringing down the expected quality of the whole industry, it makes it easier to acquire actual news outlets with actual news and journalists for penny on the dollar!

They hate their readers (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45520413)

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.

Re:They hate their readers (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 8 months ago | (#45522093)

Fox news consistently ignores political issues, covers up for the RNC when possible (and at times, when well nigh impossible) and treats ALL possible readers as idiots.

Re:They hate their readers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45524719)

Wow, you're fucking nuts.

Too Little Too Late (3, Interesting)

retroworks (652802) | about 8 months ago | (#45520489)

1/3 Subscriptions, 1/3 Advertising, 1/3 Classifieds. That was the recipe for newspaper income in the 1970s and 80s. They retrenched initially and lost the Classifieds to Ebay and Craigslist. Now they have 2 which deny each other, if they give free access they gain Advertising, but lose subscriptions, if they charge for Subscription, they may lose Advertising.

The newspapers OWNED classifieds. They totally OWNED it. They blew it to ebay and Craigslist. So the NYTimes is a great example of playing catch-up ball.

Re:Too Little Too Late (1)

dead_user (1989356) | about 8 months ago | (#45521867)

It will be interesting to see what happens when the reporter jobs start drying up in all but the major hubs. Many websites now are reporting on what some other news website is reporting as news. When there are no local papers left to pay local reporters, there will be no more local news coverage. There must be a natural equilibrium somewhere but it might be painful to watch.

Re:Too Little Too Late (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 8 months ago | (#45524261)

The newspapers OWNED classifieds. They totally OWNED it. They blew it to ebay and Craigslist. So the NYTimes is a great example of playing catch-up ball.

Yeah but that was because they owned the sole distribution system. Its not the case now. TCP/IP destroyed the classified advertising market.

Actual news facts are a commodity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45524903)

Factual news - economic numbers, sports scores, etc - is a commodity. All you need is one site to provide the latest facts. If you take away factual news from the NYT, you're left with "analysis" articles and opinions. These are available all over the web, for any ideology and background. So what exactly does the NYT offer as a product? They have their liberal columnists, but pretty much anyone could guess what these people will say about any topic. You can pretty much guess what the NYT editorials will say about any topic. I don't want all that not-news stuff to wade through, I want facts so I can make up my own mind. So that's why the NYT is dying, and why all newspapers are dying. They don't offer value. In fact, they clutter up with not-news stuff that it's subtracting value. Now that people can get their own facts much faster through AP wire articles and so on, the NYT and other papers don't offer much value.

The ONLY news source that's made the transition to digital is the Wall St Journal, and they're in the UNIQUE position where most of their subscribers spend other people's money on the subscriptions, out of fees for mutual funds and so forth.

The obituary for this boring broadsheet.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45525787)

...will be written by the others who made the fast transition to digital.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...