New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers • Hacker News Board

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

#261

Post by leereeves » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 1:36 PM UTC

bumholio wrote: post #248

fingerlocks wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like this idea, but I wonder, would that be a net neutrality violation? Honest question, because I can easily imagine this being rephrased: “If you don’t pay for the extra news package, you cannot access NYT for free”.

I think the intent behind net neutrality is not to prevent bundling but technical discrimination. Your ISP can bundle free Hulu with your data plan, as long as you can also get Netflix and Youtube at the same quality with no bandwidth throttling. So as long as there is no technical discrimination and you can access and subscribe to other news sources, net neutrality is respected.

There's no such thing as a free Hulu.

If your ISP is taking a share of your subscription fee and giving it to Hulu, your subscription will cost more.

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

#262

Post by creaghpatr » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 1:37 PM UTC

dingaling wrote: post #134

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…

> only turn 24M a quarter, That's $24 million left unspent after salaries, benefits, travel and accommodation, equipment purchases, AP and Bloomberg fees, client entertainment, interest repayment, rents, board jollies... I don't see what's unhealthily low about that profit.

In the long run of a decade, it's risky to bet on sustainable growth after the Trump era ends. Doubly so if he doesn't get re-elected.

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

#263

Post by leereeves » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 1:39 PM UTC

rainonmoon wrote: post #259

leereeves wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sarah Jeong's anti-white, anti-male, anti-cop tweets date back to 2013, long before the election. https://archive.fo/7m0Tz I don't agree with you that "they did it first" is a valid defense for this behavior, but if it were, it would be a defense for Trump, not for Jeong.

By "one side of the political divide" I'm not referring to Trump specifically, but the online subcultures that dovetailed into the alt-right, which most certainly existed before Jeong's tweets. EDIT: To further clarify, I'm not saying "they did it first" is a defence. I'm explaining that this is the context that Vox article going around is saying is missing when people want to condemn those tweets -- the tone and voc…

Then don't use "the kind of environment in which one elects a President..." (in 2016) as a defense.

If you must use the "they did it first" defense, at least use specific examples from 2013 to defend her.

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

#264

Post by rsync » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 1:40 PM UTC

johnpowell wrote: post #35

comex wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They apparently have no fewer than 130 million monthly readers, though, according to a press release from last year: https://www.nytco.com/year-of-audience/ I̶ ̶g̶u̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶l̶o̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶p̶e̶o̶p̶l̶e̶ ̶b̶u̶y̶ ̶n̶e̶w̶s̶p̶a̶p̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶d̶i̶v̶i̶d̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶.̶ [edit: that number isn't for physical newspapers, see replies]

My mom delivers papers for the New York Times. The pay is garbage but she is old and getting Social Security. She likes to drive around and people-watch. She is also on the route that mostly delivers to Starbucks, Safeway, the airport, 7/11, and Albertsons. It is the best route since you just drop 20 papers on the doorstep of a Starbucks. She delivers about 500 papers a night. And she is just one of the 20+ drivers i…

I buy the NYT from retail when I have the time and leisure to sit and read a newspaper. I like the fact that you can be in fairly provincial settings (small towns, etc.) but if there is a starbucks, the NYT will be for sale ...

I note that it is frequently sold out at those starbucks locations (after lunch, at least) so it appears that others buy them there as well.

FWIW, I am a sunday-only print version subscriber.

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

#265

Post by pmyteh » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 1:40 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #253

pmyteh wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Washington Post and the NY Times are both very fine papers: they take the traditional 20th Century American view of journalism (attempting to be objective and authoritative, and taking accuracy seriously) which is a bit alien to the European print tradition, but that's not a bad thing if you want different perspectives. The Wall Street Journal is also a fine paper if you like your news more economically and finan…

>they take the traditional 20th Century American view of journalism (attempting to be objective and authoritative, and taking accuracy seriously) which is a bit alien to the European print tradition what are European newspapers like then? tabloids?

No (though obviously some are, and its the tabs in particular which aren't particularly bothered about accuracy). But most European newspapers are expressly part of a particular political tradition, and many are openly partisan. In the UK, for example, the Guardian is part of the (social) liberal tradition, the Telegraph is both conservative and Conservative, and the Mirror is aligned with the Labour party. The same overseas: El País is associated with PSOE, and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung has a Christian Democrat ethos.

None of which is to say that these are bad papers - they aren't. But the idea that you can stand back from partisan politics and report some kind of objective truth is more prevalent in European broadcast media: both the BBC and its private sector competitor ITV News, for example, do not aim for a particular political constituency (though, like the US papers, they're often criticised for their implicit positioning).

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

#266

Post by freeone3000 » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 1:43 PM UTC

PakG1 wrote: post #223

nothis wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I imagine it would be difficult to get such members of a group to agree on the value they bring to the table. NYT probably thinks they'd deserve more than the LAT, and certainly way more than USA Today. Can't imagine these groups cooperating. It's winner takes all and then some niches for Breitbart and the like.

Cable channels would likely have the same disagreements, as would netflix series. So it's not impossible. (We'd have a lot less value on AP stories, though.)

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

#267

Post by bumholio » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 1:43 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #261

bumholio wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the intent behind net neutrality is not to prevent bundling but technical discrimination. Your ISP can bundle free Hulu with your data plan, as long as you can also get Netflix and Youtube at the same quality with no bandwidth throttling. So as long as there is no technical discrimination and you can access and subscribe to other news sources, net neutrality is respected.

There's no such thing as a free Hulu. If your ISP is taking a share of your subscription fee and giving it to Hulu, your subscription will cost more.

Yup, that's precisely the idea. The grandparent was concerned that this masked price increase (for Hulu or for NYT) is a breach of net neutrality.

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

#268

Post by creaghpatr » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 1:43 PM UTC

thirdsun wrote: post #69

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…

> One criticism of New York Times that I've read online is that they won't allow you to cancel your digital subscription through their website. They force you to call them. I'm not sure if that has changed recently, but that's a pretty questionable dark pattern. They let me cancel via chat a few months ago. Obviously I'd have prefered the press of a button to cancel, but even via chat it was a quick and painless affa…

I canceled via chat last week and was shocked at how painless it was.

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

#269

Post by repolfx » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 1:44 PM UTC

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…

Instead of 50 professional reporters confirmed writing about an event, we’ll have 5

That's pretty what we already have actually. The amount of original reporting done on a major news story is far, far lower than the number of newspapers out there.

This study from 2010 is useful:

http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/02/the-googlechina-hacking-cas...

Out of the 121 distinct versions of last week’s story about tracing Google’s recent attackers to two schools in China, 13 (11 percent) included at least some original reporting. And just seven organizations (six percent) really got the full story independently.

Only seven stories (six percent) were primarily based on original reporting. These were produced by The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, Tech News World, Bloomberg, Xinhua (China), and the Global Times (China).

The story being studied had an international dimension which bumped up the number of outlets doing original reporting, as it was impactful to both the USA and China. Most stories that are only relevant to one country would have far fewer.

This is one of the reasons why the newspaper industry is shrinking - the internet makes it clear for the first time how little original reporting there really is, and how much duplication of that little original reporting goes on.

As for picking teams, gaslighting etc ... US media is experiencing a surge in profits right now, and as far as I can tell the reason is that they've more or less openly abandoned any pretence of political neutrality. They've become anti-Trump cheerleaders that are more in the business of helping their readers feel superior than in the business of real news. It's hard to blame them because this appears to be a more profitable business to be in than trying to be neutral and it's caused a surge in trust amongst democrats only. But of course it makes them vulnerable, even in a country with the first amendment. The USA doesn't have a president who hates the media for no reason.

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

#270

Post by LUmBULtERA » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 1:44 PM UTC

joekrill wrote: post #137

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…

> They also show ads even if you have a subscription, which sounds very backward to me. So are you also cancelling your cable subscription, any magazine subscriptions, physical newspaper subscriptions, no longer driving on toll roads with billboard...? I'm not saying it's right, or good, or valid--but the standard practice, for as long as I can remember, for most mediums, is to still show ads for things you pay for.…

This is a rather ironic statement, because this is just what many of us have done. I use ublock origin, read books from the library, watch Netflix without any ads (obviously), have no physical magazine or newspaper subscriptions. I (gasp) live in an area where I can walk to grocery stores and other shopping establishments. Okay, I guess I see occasional ads on the subway when I look up from my book...