The main problem, IMHO, is that they are trying to make this massive, expensive transition under an artificial constraint: That the Sulzbergers retain control o

The main problem, IMHO, is that they are trying to make this massive, expensive transition under an artificial constraint: That the Sulzbergers retain control of the organization: 1) They lack capital (AFAICT) and have to desperately worry about getting the subscription model to work and soon. The Washington Post was sold to Jeff Bezos; from what I've read, Bezos encourages them to experiment, and pointed out that he could lose $100 million on the Post per year for 100 years (or something like that), and he'd still be one of the wealthiest people in the world. The NY Times is not just a family business, it's an institution that is extremely important to the public welfare. To hold onto it and risk its future when it would be safe in others' hands is very selfish. Of course they shouldn't sell it to just anyone, but there are plenty out there who would be responsible owners. 2) Last names and genetic inheritance are a very poor way to select business leaders, especially at a time that requires an extraordinary one. What an incredible opportunity for a brilliant person - if only they would stand back, sit on the board, and let a professional run the show. EDIT: From the article: "Family control is one of the competitive advantages of The New York Times—there is no plan B for Sulzberger or his family."