4 ms·

>The report coincides with a series of broader changes at The Times, including a reimagining of the print newspaper; an aggressive international expansion; a he

>The report coincides with a series of broader changes at The Times, including a reimagining of the print newspaper; an aggressive international expansion; a heightened emphasis on graphics, video, virtual reality and podcasts; the $30-million purchase... God, please no. Don't invest heavily in VR for news reporting. I agree with reducing multiple layers of copy editing for a digitally focused company, but VR is a misdirection of funds to get the facts straight. Or, maybe that was just a buzzword that didn't get edited out of the final press release.

giggles_giggles 10y ago
An investment in VR might be premature because of the immaturity of the technology, but assuming that VR tech does grow to be commonplace, wouldn't e.g. immersive VR video shot in a warzone be more affecting than still images or 2D video when communicating the scale of atrocity/warfare/protests to the viewers back home?
- scott_s 10y ago
  That's actually one of their current VR stories. "The Fight for Falluja": https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/14/magazine/fight-for-falluja-vr.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/14/magazine/figh... Personally, I used the cardboard VR thing with my iPhone 6 to watch a short during the election. I was underwhelmed by the experience.
scott_s 10y ago
No, I believe that's a real thing. I've heard them talk about investing in VR on their Inside The Times podcast.
tannerc 10y ago
Why discount VR so readily? Seems that as VR becomes more accessible it would be a phenomenal way at delivering news and in-depth stories. VR can do a lot in the way of empathy and communicating things which the printed word—or even 2D video—never can. Similar to how the television influenced the standard news cycle and social media challenged it further. Some of the best news stories from this year have been immersive 360 videos published by The Times, imo.
- erickhill 10y ago
  If the whole point is to make the Times more efficient and ultimately profitable and self-sustaining, VR isn't going to bring home the bacon any time soon for them. Will it eventually? Maybe. But you're not going to see print (or TV) ad dollars suddenly flow into VR that is used (i.e. owned or simply tried once) by a small fraction of the U.S. population. This kind of study is essentially a recommendation for layoffs in the newsroom and investments in other areas. Having worked at 3 magazines, I don't personally believe the current VR market is big enough to be a viable source of persistent and growing revenue for them to pay salaries. I do think there is an opportunity on long-term, expensive-to-produce feature stories where VR is offered more as a package deal to an advertiser rather than the sole output format of the report. That aligns an advertiser with innovation, even if those that actually experience it is statistically small. But those types of sales deals are expensive tactical one-offs, not strategic plans. Not yet, anyway.
emodendroket 10y ago
The Times has done a number of features that were heavy on audio-visual elements and were very well received, so it's not surprising that they'd be interested in VR. Here's an example: http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2013/10/27/south-china-sea/ http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2013/10/27/south-china-s...
istorical 10y ago
VR may still be early (if you're really cynical you could say it still might take 5-10 years for it to achieve mainstream popularity) but it's here. You either start experimenting and learning and adapt to the new medium or you'll be replaced by someone else who will.
stinkytaco 10y ago
They have a VR app and produce some of the best content for cardboard, in my opinion. But all that aside, recreating print on the web isn't an answer, in my opinion. Leveraging what makes the platform unique[0] will be what ultimately separates some of the billions (trillions?) of written words on the web. [0]: http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/#/?part=tunnel-creek http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/#/?part=tunne...

giggles_giggles 10y ago

An investment in VR might be premature because of the immaturity of the technology, but assuming that VR tech does grow to be commonplace, wouldn't e.g. immersive VR video shot in a warzone be more affecting than still images or 2D video when communicating the scale of atrocity/warfare/protests to the viewers back home?

scott_s 10y ago
That's actually one of their current VR stories. "The Fight for Falluja": https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/14/magazine/fight-for-falluja-vr.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/14/magazine/figh... Personally, I used the cardboard VR thing with my iPhone 6 to watch a short during the election. I was underwhelmed by the experience.

scott_s 10y ago

No, I believe that's a real thing. I've heard them talk about investing in VR on their Inside The Times podcast.

tannerc 10y ago

Why discount VR so readily? Seems that as VR becomes more accessible it would be a phenomenal way at delivering news and in-depth stories. VR can do a lot in the way of empathy and communicating things which the printed word—or even 2D video—never can. Similar to how the television influenced the standard news cycle and social media challenged it further. Some of the best news stories from this year have been immersive 360 videos published by The Times, imo.

erickhill 10y ago
If the whole point is to make the Times more efficient and ultimately profitable and self-sustaining, VR isn't going to bring home the bacon any time soon for them. Will it eventually? Maybe. But you're not going to see print (or TV) ad dollars suddenly flow into VR that is used (i.e. owned or simply tried once) by a small fraction of the U.S. population. This kind of study is essentially a recommendation for layoffs in the newsroom and investments in other areas. Having worked at 3 magazines, I don't personally believe the current VR market is big enough to be a viable source of persistent and growing revenue for them to pay salaries. I do think there is an opportunity on long-term, expensive-to-produce feature stories where VR is offered more as a package deal to an advertiser rather than the sole output format of the report. That aligns an advertiser with innovation, even if those that actually experience it is statistically small. But those types of sales deals are expensive tactical one-offs, not strategic plans. Not yet, anyway.

emodendroket 10y ago

The Times has done a number of features that were heavy on audio-visual elements and were very well received, so it's not surprising that they'd be interested in VR. Here's an example: http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2013/10/27/south-china-sea/ http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2013/10/27/south-china-s...

istorical 10y ago

VR may still be early (if you're really cynical you could say it still might take 5-10 years for it to achieve mainstream popularity) but it's here. You either start experimenting and learning and adapt to the new medium or you'll be replaced by someone else who will.

stinkytaco 10y ago

They have a VR app and produce some of the best content for cardboard, in my opinion. But all that aside, recreating print on the web isn't an answer, in my opinion. Leveraging what makes the platform unique[0] will be what ultimately separates some of the billions (trillions?) of written words on the web. [0]: http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/#/?part=tunnel-creek http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/#/?part=tunne...