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

311–320 of 360 posts

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

#311

Post by bytematic »

swebs wrote: post #297
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.…

>So are you also cancelling your cable subscription Yep >any magazine subscriptions Yep >physical newspaper subscriptions, Yep Don't forget about Hulu. Ads are my #1 reason for canceling most paid services.

What is so bad about advertising?

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

#313

Post by jriot »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #281
throwaway080383 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like Wall Street Journal. It's more business-focused, and definitely has a conservative bend, with occasional editorials that are much more out there (the benefits of prayer in school or something), but since I'm left-leaning, it feels pretty good on balance.

The wall Street Journal lost my support after they came out with a shitty hit piece [0] against PewDiePie. I read some of their arguments, but found em to be pretty damn shallow. Although they came out against him, if you actually watch the source videos I don't think they had a strong case. This was one of the key posts that made me lose trust in WSJ as an organization. [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/disney-severs…

The still didn't hire an openly racist/sexist woman to their board.

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

#314

Post by jsutton »

repolfx wrote: post #269
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…

> they've more or less openly abandoned any pretence of political neutrality

There's an enormous federal investigation into the political operatives of only one party. The counts of corruption are far higher for one party.

When news comes out about indictments and criminal trials of those in only one party, it's not because the media outlet has abandoned neutrality.

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

#316

Post by paulcole »

r3bl wrote: post #168
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.…

Because you can open a private/incognito/porn tab and view the same article without actually paying for it, and a premium should offer you something worth a constant amount of money draining from your account. Paying 15 euros per month to get a daily crossword + cooking section (or 9 euros per month to not get them) is something not a lot of people are interested in.

The crossword is $40/year on its own. A great value.

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

#317

Post by a_tractor »

bjourne wrote: post #308
repolfx wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Trump hated "the Media" long before he became president. The idea that "the Media" are anti-Trump cheerleaders need some corrobating evidence because otherwise it is bullshit.

[dead]

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

#318

Post by ectospheno »

spookthesunset wrote: post #306
swebs wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So are you also cancelling your cable subscription Yep >any magazine subscriptions Yep >physical newspaper subscriptions, Yep Don't forget about Hulu. Ads are my #1 reason for canceling most paid services.

You are an outlier though.... (but I must admit, if I did pull the plug on cable the primary reason (besides we really don't use it much) would be the fact I pay big bucks to watch a fuckton of advertising)

You have a different definition of outlier than is used in statistics. He hasn't been an outlier for years now regardless of how many advertising executives still want to think that he is.

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

#319

Post by [deleted] »

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.…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN