FACTS
In the fourth quarter of 2012, the New York Times Company "completed the sale of the About Group for $300 million", cutting ties with www.about.com and it's related brands officially.
Digital Advertising, analogous to the moneymaking construct of it's paper companion, take more of the percentage of revenues, but digital ads are bringing in less profit than before anyway.
OPINIONS & CONCLUSIONS
Politically, the New York Times matters to me because, as I'm starting to actually follow the news daily, the coverage produced by the New York Times appears to be the most balanced of what I can find. If ad revenue continues to drop for one of the last titans of print news, where will we go for honest, mostly objective coverage of the world's events?
Like most of pre-internet media, The Times is struggling to adapt to the "age of information." This is weird, because the New York Times' business is information. Network TV can't compete with the convenience of Hulu.com, and the New York Times' weird limited paywall will probably keep some of you reading this from viewing my hyperlinked citations from the FACT section.
The New York Times is in a shrinking corner of the news media. As the rate-of-loss increases, if the Times doesn't act, their corner will quickly disappear.
IDEAS
Can the Times catch up with everybody else before going bankrupt? They have to. Here's Three Ways they can make up the difference:
1. Get rid of all paywalls (even marginal ones)
Although they lock in monthly profits for those who subscribe to the website, it keeps out those who haven't yet subscribed just before they would sign up and pay.
2. Get more aggressive on twitter.
Although the New York Times has a Twitter account, most of their tweets are taken up by links to a website that, after viewing 10 stories in a particular month, leads to a paywall. The result is a public that feels like the Times is trying to make a quick buck off other's concern.
If the New York Times is as esteemed as they advertise, and has the best reporters around, they should be talented enough to cover breaking stories within that limit. (AKA no more "http://nytimes.com//4r8h48hfh84f4 #libya" tweets) This would, at least, put the Times back on people's radars as a relevant organization, and break the feeling that news companies aren't the source of online news.
Twitter's one-hundred-forty character limit is the ultimate test of a great hard-news reporter.
If the New York Times is as esteemed as they advertise, and has the best reporters around, they should be talented enough to cover breaking stories within that limit. (AKA no more "http://nytimes.com//4r8h48hfh84f4 #libya" tweets) This would, at least, put the Times back on people's radars as a relevant organization, and break the feeling that news companies aren't the source of online news.
3. Produce a cheap online Evening News Program from the New York Times offices.
To draw attention to the website, and merge old media with new, an online live evening news show, anchored by a fair and balanced reporter and fed by the days headlines, would bring ten times the hits to the Times' website.
Although network news has decreasing viewership, a web show would be the perfect place to experiment with format and make enough noise to get the esteemed hard news of the Times to a wider audience, gaining ad revenue once the viewers come. Your move, Brian Williams.
Although network news has decreasing viewership, a web show would be the perfect place to experiment with format and make enough noise to get the esteemed hard news of the Times to a wider audience, gaining ad revenue once the viewers come. Your move, Brian Williams.
First off,sorry to hear that you're having trouble with your blog. Second, really interesting post. I'll be honest, I don't read the NY Times as much as I should,so your post was really fascinating. Its sad that newspaper media is slowing disappearing.I agree with your comment about how the NY Times should shake things up. Its such a big part of everyone's daily lives,that if it disappears,we'll become more of a society that lacks proper knowledge of everyday issues. I also agree with your twitter statement too. People shouldn't underestimate those 140 characters. Overall, I enjoyed reading your post.Can't wait to read the next one.
ReplyDeleteI like the structure of your post and the way you laid out your actual argument. You make it very clear what the facts are, why you believe your opinion, and what the "ideas" are. I think that there is a window of opportunity for The Times and it is interesting to see what kind of ideas you think will make it a better business. Also, I thought it was pretty funny when you talked about the guy in the turtleneck. It's good to make the reader laugh sometimes, when reading about politics! I like the incorporation of all the links too. I would suggest adding a few pictures or video clips just to add to the visual, in addition to expanding on your "opinions and conclusions". I think it would make for a more effective blog.
ReplyDeleteHarry, I thought this was a really good blog. I definitely agree with you when you say the NY Times just needs to rethink their strategies. I also believe in the NY Times and I think with the right strategies, like coming into the digital age, the Times can resurface again. I liked that the links were embedded directly into the text which made it so much easier for me to look at the articles. The only criticism I would give is that I would have liked to see pictures. I think it would have been a more effective blog post with pictures with headlines from the post etc. Other than that, I really think you nailed it and I really enjoyed reading it.
ReplyDeleteHarry: You did a very good job of embedding links here, and I think that your perspective on these issues is evident in the post, which is important. There are some elements you will want to work on. First, while the media angle is clear here, the politics piece is less prominent – I think you want to make clear how this topic relates to politics, political news, etc. so that you are going beyond just the financial position of a media outlet like the New York Times. Second, there are some aspects of the format that are confusing here. Is this really a “fact”?: “The New York Times is in a shrinking corner of the news media. As the rate-of-loss increases, if the Times doesn't act, their corner will quickly disappear.” I’m also unclear on how the Thompson story fits into what you are discussing here.
ReplyDeleteTurning to the ideas section, do you have evidence that the paywall is hurting the Times’ ability to avoid financial ruin? With regard to the Twitter recommendation, the Times is in fact on Twitter. Are you recommending they should stop publishing full-length stories and just convey the news in 140 character tweets? As evening news broadcasts have generally seen declining ratings over the years, it’s also hard to say if that would present a more profitable model for the newspaper. As some of your fellow group members point out, it would be great to put some visual images or videos into the body of the post. Finally, there are some grammatical issues and typos here that you will want to address.