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

211–220 of 360 posts

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

#211

Post by mrfredward »

ehsankia wrote: post #44
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…

I canceled mine last week exactly because of those dark patterns. They also show ads even if you have a subscription, which sounds very backward to me. I'd love to support them, but those practices don't belong in 2018. EDIT: Oh, looks like the cancellation didn't go through and they charged me for one more month, sweet. I might just go to my bank and tell them to block the source. Or even better, I may have found a…

If you're paying with a credit card, dispute the bill. Card companies can actually be quite pleasant to deal with on this stuff, and if you win you'll get your money back and NYT will owe the card company a fee for the chargeback. If you don't win, you'll at least cause the company a headache for their illegal billing practices.

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

#212

Post by interactivecode »

cm2187 wrote: post #79
ehsankia wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I canceled mine last week exactly because of those dark patterns. They also show ads even if you have a subscription, which sounds very backward to me. I'd love to support them, but those practices don't belong in 2018. EDIT: Oh, looks like the cancellation didn't go through and they charged me for one more month, sweet. I might just go to my bank and tell them to block the source. Or even better, I may have found a…

That’s why I don’t complain that much when my bank wants to replace my card every 18 months or so because of whatever fraud concern they have. A minor inconvenience but the benefit is that it automatically terminates all the subscriptions to services I don’t really care about or that I forgot I even had.

you have that many subscriptions that this is a thing?

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

#213

Post by lotsofpulp »

shripadk wrote: post #196
lotsofpulp wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on what the ROI and risks are. If you spend $100M a year to earn $1M in net profit, and your business is completely dependent on advertising and/or has declining subscription revenues then that’s terrible. There are much better ROIs to be had, so an investor would be better off investing elsewhere. Also, reporting faces heavy legal, travel, lodging, equipment, and food expenses and those don’t end up in th…

Why wouldn't equipment end up in asset column in case of a sale? Equipment is a fixed asset so it'll just be a transfer of asset at book value with gain/loss recorded in the sellers income statement. EDIT: When you talk about "asset column" I'm assuming you mean the asset column in the books of accounts of the buyer.

It would, I was just assuming a good portion of a news agency's equipment isn't as valuable in re-sale like personal computers, office equipment, etc.

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

#214

Post by gthtjtkt »

untog wrote: post #209
VSTN wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is because there is a massive confusion of the political spectrum which is better divided as 4 parts rather than 2. The NYT isn't left at all when it comes to its views on how the economy should be run. But on social issues it certainly is a left rag. In fact, in what kind of environment but the leftomost extremist side could one tolerate the presence of an employee like Sarah Jeong who said such nice things as…

The Jeong controversy blow my mind. Do you really think that she was being serious when she said "white people are only fit to live underground like groveling goblins"? No part of you thinks she was joking? Not even as you read the words "groveling goblins"? In reality, she was making a (bad) joke criticising another media figure's perspective that everything is open to debate: https://www.twitter.com/awprokop/status…

The only joke here is the fact that you were gullible enough to fall for her "I wasn't serious" excuse.

https://archive.fo/7m0Tz

Hundreds of racist tweets over a period of years. That's just good old fashioned racism, nothing humorous about it.

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

#215

Post by xeeeeeeeeeeenu »

untog wrote: post #210
xeeeeeeeeeeenu wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Jeong's tweets were very, very obviously jokes. To suggest it's evidence of "hating white people" is just parroting manufactured outrage. In any case. WSJ isn't more objective that NYT. It's just further to the right, which is why it appears objective to someone on the right.

>Jeong's tweets were very, very obviously jokes.

No, they were not. Maybe replacing 'white' with other races will help you to gain some perspective: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DjnUykIUUAAifwH.jpg:large

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

#216

Post by chii »

nothis wrote: post #182
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…

There's just too many vital services that can't function with just ad financing. It's so obvious, that I have a slight hope we'll see new business models to accommodate for that. The problem is that I don't read a hundred articles a month by the NYT, I read maybe 5. And then 5 others on 30 different sites, each. What I can imagine is a "digital pass" kinda thing that lets you access a massive amount of content for a…

> What I can imagine is a "digital pass"

this makes me think that journalism should be funded out of a commons fund - like how the BBC is funded publically via taxes.

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

#217

Post by leereeves »

toyg wrote: post #127
naturalgradient wrote: post #93

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…

I don't know how old you are, but from a 40-yo perspective, the NYT being seen as "leftist" is a terrifying signal of how right-wing the mainstream political window has gone in the US. The traditional megaphone of the East-Coast moneyed, the newspaper that sold the Iraq War to the public with lie after lie, is now seen as a bastion of liberalism. The US is in a very dark place right now. Last time it happened, it too…

The NY Times recently hired an editor who tweeted things like "kill all the men", "fuck the police", "it's sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men".

I'd like to think that's well outside the mainstream political window.

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

#218

Post by dazc »

undreren wrote: post #130
dazc wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know of the legality but it is a common practice in Europe too.

Really? Where?

From my personal experience, just about everywhere. Just yesterday I wanted to cancel my AA membership (the motoring organisation, that is) and there was no other option but to phone.

Pertinent to this thread I had a subscription with The Times and the only cancellation option was by phone.

Anecdotally, it's very common with phone and utility providers too.

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

#219

Post by zarkov99 »

Latty wrote: post #153
zarkov99 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

even their incoherent stance on racism as illustrated in the Sarah Jeong debacle? I could live with a left bias but not their blatant hypocrisy.

Weaponizing old, out-of-context tweets is just the new alt-right playbook. James Gunn is the other obvious example. Yes, these people posted things that were bad ideas. They also apologised, made it clear they were not serious about what was said, and moved past it. To claim it makes their entire coverage of racism incoherent is... misleading at best. Imitating the masses of people trolling you as a joke may be a bad…

Come on, even if what you said wasn't absurd,i.e you can be racist if someone attacks you on Twitter, the NYT fired people for much, much less than the disgusting vitriol the woman posted for years.

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

#220

Post by oriol18 »

Latty wrote: post #169
oriol18 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"UK is on the right of most of Europe". That's a wrong premise in my opinion. While economic policy is definitely more liberal than the average, social left is pervasive in both main political parties, and there's a solid consensus around open borders, gender equality and other forms of egalitarianism.

Uh... you really haven't been paying attention if you think there is a "solid consensus" on open borders in the UK. We have never had "open borders", and Brexit is going to mean reduced immigration. Economic policy is a part of people's lives - public spending is a big issue (e.g: healthcare spending), and we are very far from left in that regard. We aren't terrible for social policy, no, but we aren't leading the pa…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN