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

New York Times Running On Fumes

alleyinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 45 posts

Re: New York Times Running On Fumes

#21

Post by [deleted] »

timr wrote: post #8
randrews wrote: post #4

I wonder how much their situation would improve by opening up their archive for free and removing the registration stuff? They'd get vastly more page views, and thus more ad revenue. For that matter, if they do go down, what happens to the archive? I hope that something like Wikimedia or the Internet Archive gets access to it, so all that information isn't lost forever.

They'd probably die just as quickly. The problem is likely twofold: 1) Print is expensive. 2) Internet ads don't pay like print ads used to pay. Okay, threefold: 3) Craigslist has killed the classifieds market dead. Newspapers around the world are suffering from these things. It's just acutely sad that the paper of record is no better off than the rest....

[deleted]

Re: New York Times Running On Fumes

#23

Post by fallentimes »

Caligula wrote: post #18

They wont go bankrupt. They are the closest thing to the worlds premier newspaper. If the company was distressed they could sell it in a heartbeat. Even if it ran at a loss it still has value due to its prestige. Newscorp recently bought the WSJ for 6B when it was in a similar predicament.

Let me tell you about this premier railroad company.

Re: New York Times Running On Fumes

#24

Post by evilneanderthal »

anthonyrubin wrote: post #14
redorb wrote: post #13

I don't understand the business, it shouldn't take more than 50 writers to write a paper, pay them 100k , that's 5mm sell 500k subcriptions at 50/yr that's 25mm And that's not counting ads (or printing cost) perhaps they cancel out though

The NYT has a circulation of 1,077,256. Delivery is anywhere from $3.35 per week to $6.70 per week depending on frequency of delivery. Obviously many people just buy single copies at newsstands. They employ 11,965 people including 350 staff writers.

I was going to say something intelligent, but all I came up with was:

How many NYT employees does it take to screw in a light bulb? About 11,615.

Re: New York Times Running On Fumes

#25

Post by gaius »

Caligula wrote: post #18

They wont go bankrupt. They are the closest thing to the worlds premier newspaper. If the company was distressed they could sell it in a heartbeat. Even if it ran at a loss it still has value due to its prestige. Newscorp recently bought the WSJ for 6B when it was in a similar predicament.

There are a lot of papers who can reasonably make that claim (e.g. The Times here in England). The problem, structually, is that newspapers in general are retailers of wholesale product provided by PA, AFP, Reuters, etc etc. Their value-add is in their original content, and that tends to be quite localised i.e. it doesn't scale. I worked in Manhattan for a while, I still have friends there, I enjoy reading that content in the NYT but I've no plans to go back and I wouldn't pay for that content (tho' I will see ads which I will ignore). Original content is expensive to produce. That is the problem for newspapers.

Re: New York Times Running On Fumes

#26

Post by andreyf »

netcan wrote: post #9
randrews wrote: post #4

I wonder how much their situation would improve by opening up their archive for free and removing the registration stuff? They'd get vastly more page views, and thus more ad revenue. For that matter, if they do go down, what happens to the archive? I hope that something like Wikimedia or the Internet Archive gets access to it, so all that information isn't lost forever.

I would call that admitting defeat to an extent. As it stands, pageview content ads don't generate enough revenue to run a paper using a print newspaper inspired business model. They have experience with that via About.com. How much better could the NYT do then About? Not saying they definitely shouldn't do it, but definitely not for the ads. If they could get archives-to-print conversion without cannibalising any ot…

I would call that admitting defeat to an extent.

There is no shame admitting defeat if you're doing it wrong.

Re: New York Times Running On Fumes

#27

Post by andreyf »

anthonyrubin wrote: post #14
redorb wrote: post #13

I don't understand the business, it shouldn't take more than 50 writers to write a paper, pay them 100k , that's 5mm sell 500k subcriptions at 50/yr that's 25mm And that's not counting ads (or printing cost) perhaps they cancel out though

The NYT has a circulation of 1,077,256. Delivery is anywhere from $3.35 per week to $6.70 per week depending on frequency of delivery. Obviously many people just buy single copies at newsstands. They employ 11,965 people including 350 staff writers.

How about this - fire everyone but the writers and a couple of great managers, sell all of the office space. Meet at Starbucks, if you need to, and organize everything over e-mail.

Re: New York Times Running On Fumes

#28

Post by pmorici »

They should sell their presses and go to a Print on demand model. They could have special NYT dispensers at kiosks that allow you to choose which stories you want to read and makes a custom newspaper with ads targeted to match for each patron. Then over time it should learn each readers tastes and recommend stories. Google news for the unwired world. Vendors would rent the specialized printing machines from NYT for the privileged of being able to sell the worlds premier news paper.

Re: New York Times Running On Fumes

#29

Post by iamelgringo »

I've been fascinated by this question for a while, and my interest has been piqued since hearing the Technology in Journalism session presentation at DjangoCon.

I can think of so many ways that newspapers could monetize their content online, but they really don't seem to get it. Newspapers have tons of great long tail content that can be mined and monetized. They just don't know what is possible and what can be done.

Re: New York Times Running On Fumes

#30

Post by Prrometheus »

sdurkin wrote: post #12
netcan wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be the first non pornographic pay site to make money.

WSJ makes decent money from paid online subscriptions.

WSJ has oodles of original content.

Also, if you're in finance and you don't read the WSJ, you're not going to be able to communicate with your colleagues.

Post reply on HN