4 ms·

This is a major reason, though certainly not the only reason, that the NYT has moved toward a primarily subscription-based business model for their online offer

by gipp 10y ago

This is a major reason, though certainly not the only reason, that the NYT has moved toward a primarily subscription-based business model for their online offerings. It's actually been very successful to date, and I think it's a good move for resisting the urge of clickbait. (https://www.nytimes.com/projects/2020-report/ https://www.nytimes.com/projects/2020-report/)

gozur88 10y ago
They don't really have a choice. I don't think you can simultaneously offer a quality product and still compete for advertising dollars with the Buzzfeeds of the world. The Times had a huge advantage in that they had a solid pre-internet brand. I wonder if it's even possible to start a company like that today without sinking hundreds of millions into getting it off the ground.
- arghimonmobile0 10y ago
  In this space, I'm very curious to see how the English version (just launched) of decorrespondent.nl will fare. This is a Dutch-language high quality news platform started only about 3 years ago, and the model is yearly paid subscription. I think this would be an example of what you're referring to. To be fair though, the editor who started it came from a well-respected traditional media newspaper.
- padthai 10y ago
  I think it is almost impossible for a newspaper but I see successful magazines out there. They put part (or none) of their content online and sell the complete physical version. As an example, in Spain, Jot Down. Web: http://www.jotdown.es/ http://www.jotdown.es/ and store: http://www.jotdown.es/store http://www.jotdown.es/store
rustynails 10y ago
Re: https://www.nytimes.com/projects/2020-report/ https://www.nytimes.com/projects/2020-report/ A Subscription based model makes sense. You cater the content to your users. I found that link on NYT fascinating. I'd like to share my findings. In particular, I wanted to see if NYT holds up to its statement of "The New York Times is an Equal Opportunity Employer and does not discriminate on the basis of an individual's sex, age, race, color, ...". Here are my results of searching for terms In the NYT article: "male": 1, negative connotation (male voice distances readers). What is a male voice in written text? "Female": 2. 1 reference to victims, the other that they will focus to hire more women. This fails the equal opportunity clause as it emphasises intent. "Integrity", "Honest", "Truth", "true", "Fact", "fake": 0 relevant references Their page on gender was specifically geared towards representation of one sex, especially in the use of emotive/manipulative terms like "women ruled the Olympics". https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/jobs/nyt-gender-editor.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/jobs/nyt-gender-edi... So, the NYT is still sexist, avoids talking about honesty, integrity, truth. They give a long talk about populism (catering to readers' preferences) and I agree with catering. However, you can maintain integrity and honesty and give people what they want. Sadly, the NYT does not appear capable (or willing) to rise above that, in spite of a lengthy and well written (but flawed and quite sexist) piece. In that article, the NYT had 2 sections on diversity. The second section was actually very well written by modern standards. It talked about diversity of skills (not just journalists, leaders with graphical presentation skills, etc). The emphasis (second time) was on skills rather than biology. The way I read this article is that NYT will not become the media outlet that is needed. They will cater to focus groups (as they said they would), rather than representing "people". They will use divisive language like the Olympics comment above (check out that whole page, it's quite biased). "Whole Truth" and integrity will come second to populism. NYT also said they want to supplement words with pictures. This is an excellent method to convey an idea without saying it (eg. Pick a term like doctor, teacher, domestic violence, etc and look what the images convey in a Google search). I'm not sold in the new NYT. If I find a media outlet that is not prejudiced, tells the whole truth, acts with integrity and covers interesting topics, I'll pay to subscribe. I am inspired to hear more people say this recently.

by gipp 10y ago

gozur88 10y ago

They don't really have a choice. I don't think you can simultaneously offer a quality product and still compete for advertising dollars with the Buzzfeeds of the world. The Times had a huge advantage in that they had a solid pre-internet brand. I wonder if it's even possible to start a company like that today without sinking hundreds of millions into getting it off the ground.

arghimonmobile0 10y ago
In this space, I'm very curious to see how the English version (just launched) of decorrespondent.nl will fare. This is a Dutch-language high quality news platform started only about 3 years ago, and the model is yearly paid subscription. I think this would be an example of what you're referring to. To be fair though, the editor who started it came from a well-respected traditional media newspaper.
padthai 10y ago
I think it is almost impossible for a newspaper but I see successful magazines out there. They put part (or none) of their content online and sell the complete physical version. As an example, in Spain, Jot Down. Web: http://www.jotdown.es/ http://www.jotdown.es/ and store: http://www.jotdown.es/store http://www.jotdown.es/store

rustynails 10y ago

Re: https://www.nytimes.com/projects/2020-report/ https://www.nytimes.com/projects/2020-report/ A Subscription based model makes sense. You cater the content to your users. I found that link on NYT fascinating. I'd like to share my findings. In particular, I wanted to see if NYT holds up to its statement of "The New York Times is an Equal Opportunity Employer and does not discriminate on the basis of an individual's sex, age, race, color, ...". Here are my results of searching for terms In the NYT article: "male": 1, negative connotation (male voice distances readers). What is a male voice in written text? "Female": 2. 1 reference to victims, the other that they will focus to hire more women. This fails the equal opportunity clause as it emphasises intent. "Integrity", "Honest", "Truth", "true", "Fact", "fake": 0 relevant references Their page on gender was specifically geared towards representation of one sex, especially in the use of emotive/manipulative terms like "women ruled the Olympics". https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/jobs/nyt-gender-editor.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/jobs/nyt-gender-edi... So, the NYT is still sexist, avoids talking about honesty, integrity, truth. They give a long talk about populism (catering to readers' preferences) and I agree with catering. However, you can maintain integrity and honesty and give people what they want. Sadly, the NYT does not appear capable (or willing) to rise above that, in spite of a lengthy and well written (but flawed and quite sexist) piece. In that article, the NYT had 2 sections on diversity. The second section was actually very well written by modern standards. It talked about diversity of skills (not just journalists, leaders with graphical presentation skills, etc). The emphasis (second time) was on skills rather than biology. The way I read this article is that NYT will not become the media outlet that is needed. They will cater to focus groups (as they said they would), rather than representing "people". They will use divisive language like the Olympics comment above (check out that whole page, it's quite biased). "Whole Truth" and integrity will come second to populism. NYT also said they want to supplement words with pictures. This is an excellent method to convey an idea without saying it (eg. Pick a term like doctor, teacher, domestic violence, etc and look what the images convey in a Google search). I'm not sold in the new NYT. If I find a media outlet that is not prejudiced, tells the whole truth, acts with integrity and covers interesting topics, I'll pay to subscribe. I am inspired to hear more people say this recently.