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

Post by freeone3000 » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 1:47 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.…

Post by wild_preference » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 1:49 PM UTC

nkkollaw wrote: post #179

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…

This is just my opinion, but things change. Change is not necessarily bad. If smaller newspapers cannot make it, it means they don't offer a good enough service to justify their existence. If they were good and provided value, people would pay for it (like they do the NYT). Given the dismal quality of many small publications--possibly caused by the need to bring people via search engines--I welcome replacing them wit…

Post by joekrill » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 1:55 PM UTC

LUmBULtERA wrote: post #270

joekrill wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

Post by leereeves » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 2:02 PM UTC

rainonmoon wrote: post #274

leereeves wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've edited my comment to reflect that that is not actually what I'm trying to do here.

Post by branchless » Thu, Aug 09, 2018, 2:06 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #243

orf wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BBC isn't directly funded by taxes in the usual sense (and therefore the government, which is a tricky situation to be in). It's funded by the collection of a license required when you have a TV, and it's collected by the BBC itself (in reality outsourced).

Who mandates the license fee? The government. So, it's a tax, and the BBC is both the state agency collecting the tax and the state agency funded by the tax.