Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 360 posts

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#91

Post by PakG1 »

Dwolb wrote: post #76

That’s just insane. This is a great accomplishment for NYT but I’m worried about what it means for the rest of the industry. NYT switching its business model has to be one of the most public and well-executed digital transformations of an old company ever. If NYT is the best at this and can only turn 24M a quarter, almost everyone else must be absolutely bleeding. This would confirm most of the newspapers out there a…

That extrapolates to $84,000,000 profit per year. As a comparison, NYT made $397,536,000 in net income in 2000.

https://s1.q4cdn.com/156149269/files/doc_financials/annual/2...

$259,753,000 per year net income in 2005: https://s1.q4cdn.com/156149269/files/doc_financials/annual/2...

That comparison puts it into perspective for me. Until I looked up the comparison, I thought $84M a year profit sounded fantastic.

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#93

Post by naturalgradient »

The greatest marketing trick the NYT has ever pulled off is presenting themselves as the last bastion of objectivity in the trump era.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I think the most recent Sarah Jeong controversy and virtually all reporting on migration, feminism, campus politics etc shows this. Mind you this is from a European perspective where I see almost all reporting about politics here as copying off talking points from the far left.

This is the true genius of their marketing though: They are actually as polarized as any other source in the culture war, but market themselves to an audience that likes to think of themselves as rational, objective, sensible.

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#94

Post by PakG1 »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #9

It's surprising to see how small they are. Only 3.8 million subscribers, and you have to imagine that some percentage of that barely reads their content. I wonder if there's public numbers estimating how many people in total read the New York Times, and how it compares to emerging forms of media and entertainment like YouTube. One criticism of New York Times that I've read online is that they won't allow you to cance…

Wall Street Journal was the same when I wanted to cancel my trial online subscription. I imagine that a lot of newspapers are similar now.

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#96

Post by majewsky »

spondyl wrote: post #57

As much as I like the NYT, as mentioned below, their unsubscribe functionality sucks. I sent them an email last December requesting to unsubscribe. I didn't follow up on it and eventually forgot about it. Eventually, they email me around May to apologise that my email was "delayed" due to a technical glitch they had just discovered. Great but I still never got an actual unsubscription processed. A few months later, a…

> A few weeks later, I was emailed a "resubscription offer" which genuinely frustrated me as you might imagine.

If it's a single one, I don't think they're overdoing it. Resubscription offers are pretty much standard practice. I know some people who regularly cancel their cellphone contract after the minimum duration in order to get discount offers for the next contract period.

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#97

Post by madza »

cm2187 wrote: post #81
dmix wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same, I canceled easily via the web app recently when they decided to doubled down on being another partisan rag like WaPo, feeding off the outrage culture which does well on social media these days. I see it's paid off commercially, no doubt, as it's seemed to have attracted a new wider user base as the lower quality comment sections now reflects on every political article. Including the NYT selected preferred comme…

Even the Financial Time is starting to drift in that direction...

I’m not alone then. I moved my subscription from the NYT to FT looking for a less politically slanted product but the tone at the FT is definitely going in the same direction. Any suggestions?

P.s I have to phone the FT to cancel my subscription apparently.

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#98

Post by ageek123 »

chx wrote: post #73

I subscribed the moment they hired Susan Flower (susanthesquark). We often call for the boycott of bad actors so we should reward the good actors, I feel. I couldn't subscribe again when they hired Sarah Jeong (sarahjeong) but if I could, I would do it again in a heartbeat.

Can you say more about why it's a good thing that they hired Sarah Jeong, who has a history of racist and sexist tweets?

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#99

Post by bsimpson »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #34
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #9

It's surprising to see how small they are. Only 3.8 million subscribers, and you have to imagine that some percentage of that barely reads their content. I wonder if there's public numbers estimating how many people in total read the New York Times, and how it compares to emerging forms of media and entertainment like YouTube. One criticism of New York Times that I've read online is that they won't allow you to cance…

If you live in San Francisco, you can access the NYT app without paying for a subscription, as your public library system already has a deal with NYT. It's a slight hassle as you need to go to a web site to get a code every 3 days, but it's probably preferable for those who don't read it every day: https://sfpl.libanswers.com/friendly.php?slug=faq/166904

Or you can just open an article in Incognito mode.

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#100

Post by eksemplar »

zorkw4rg wrote: post #86
illuminati1911 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too many to even count. Google Sarah Jeong + NYT.

Weird why is that getting flagged/downvoted? Isn't that a legitimate topic of discussion? It should be possible to at least point out the facts of what happened. She wrote some tweets in the past that some people interpreted as racist against white people, nyt responded by arguing that it was just a reflection of the hateful rhetoric she received as an asian person. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/w…

Is it a legitimate topic for discussion though?

If you can become president after calling Mexicans criminal rapists, I think you should be allowed to be a journalist after those tweets, especially when you’ve expressed regret and remorse for posting them.

People really should uninstall twitter though. I mean, I’ve never written things that were racist, but I’m really happy there isn’t a permanent record of everything I’ve ever posted online.

What I do find interesting is why the same people who are angry that Alex Jones got banned seem to want her fired. And I guess you can say exactly the same about the people who want Trump banned from twitter, but are fine with these tweets.

Over all America seems like such a circus these days.

Post reply on HN