3 ms·

It’s a book review: the article is a discussion of a new book. That’s not the same as an ad. No one paid the NYTimes to publish this and it could have just as e

It’s a book review: the article is a discussion of a new book. That’s not the same as an ad. No one paid the NYTimes to publish this and it could have just as easily been a negative review.

Alex3917 9y ago
> No one paid the NYTimes to publish this and it could have just as easily been a negative review. NYTimes is primarily ad supported, of course they were paid to publish it.
- Moto7451 9y ago
  Articles that are paid content are marked as such. They run under the BrandStudio section. You can look at that content here: http://www.tbrandstudio.com http://www.tbrandstudio.com They issue quarterly updates on their finances which include how much they make from subscription (a bundle): https://nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/new-york-times-company-earnings.html https://nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/new-york-times-compa...
- randomdrake 9y ago
  > NYTimes is primarily ad supported, of course they were paid to publish it. This is not true. "The company said on Thursday that it added 157,000 net digital-only subscriptions in the fourth quarter of the year, pushing overall subscription revenue to more than $1 billion for the year. Subscription revenue now accounts for 60 percent of the company’s total revenue." https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/new-york-times-company-earnings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/new-york-times-c...
  - Alex3917 9y ago
    I mean maybe not for last quarter specifically, but look at the last fifty years overall.
- mturmon 9y ago
  The book under review carries the imprint of William Morrow, which is a brand of HarperCollins, which is owned by News Corp, which was originally a Murdoch property. Another News Corp media property is the New York Post. So is the WSJ. Which of these entities do you think paid the NYT to publish this review? Because that would be a major story.
  - Alex3917 9y ago
    Given that the vast majority of books are self published, if the NYT isn’t getting paid for reviews one would expect the vast of their reviews would be of self published books. Is this actually the case?
    - vertex-four 9y ago
      No, I wouldn’t expect that, as it’s much less likely that a reader of the NYT would be interested in a given self-published book than a traditionally published one. (The reason for that being that in order to be traditionally published, the book has to go through a process intended specifically to ensure that at least some significant segment of readers will likely enjoy it - while there is no such process for self-published books.)
    - mturmon 9y ago
      Come on, this is incredibly obtuse. If the mean number of readers of a self-published book is 10, versus an average large-press book being 50K, which review do you publish? Also, you shifted the argument. You asserted that "of course" someone paid the NYT to publish the review. Who did, and how did you discover this?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - Alex3917 9y ago
phnofive 9y ago
I'm not suggesting it's an ad in the sense that someone paid Pollan to write this article (other than the Times), but the article linked is not a discussion of the title; rather, it's a suggestion to the reader that should they find the subject matter interesting, the book would be a great place to learn more. I will admit to a certain bias in placing reviews on the mental shelf next to certain forms of advertisement (I doubt the author purchased his copy of the book), but I am not trying to project that view onto anyone else.

It’s a book review: the article is a discussion of a new book. That’s not the same as an ad. No one paid the NYTimes to publish this and it could have just as easily been a negative review.

Alex3917 9y ago

> No one paid the NYTimes to publish this and it could have just as easily been a negative review. NYTimes is primarily ad supported, of course they were paid to publish it.

Moto7451 9y ago
Articles that are paid content are marked as such. They run under the BrandStudio section. You can look at that content here: http://www.tbrandstudio.com http://www.tbrandstudio.com They issue quarterly updates on their finances which include how much they make from subscription (a bundle): https://nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/new-york-times-company-earnings.html https://nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/new-york-times-compa...
randomdrake 9y ago
> NYTimes is primarily ad supported, of course they were paid to publish it. This is not true. "The company said on Thursday that it added 157,000 net digital-only subscriptions in the fourth quarter of the year, pushing overall subscription revenue to more than $1 billion for the year. Subscription revenue now accounts for 60 percent of the company’s total revenue." https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/new-york-times-company-earnings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/new-york-times-c...
- Alex3917 9y ago
  I mean maybe not for last quarter specifically, but look at the last fifty years overall.
mturmon 9y ago
The book under review carries the imprint of William Morrow, which is a brand of HarperCollins, which is owned by News Corp, which was originally a Murdoch property. Another News Corp media property is the New York Post. So is the WSJ. Which of these entities do you think paid the NYT to publish this review? Because that would be a major story.
- Alex3917 9y ago
  Given that the vast majority of books are self published, if the NYT isn’t getting paid for reviews one would expect the vast of their reviews would be of self published books. Is this actually the case?
  - vertex-four 9y ago
    No, I wouldn’t expect that, as it’s much less likely that a reader of the NYT would be interested in a given self-published book than a traditionally published one. (The reason for that being that in order to be traditionally published, the book has to go through a process intended specifically to ensure that at least some significant segment of readers will likely enjoy it - while there is no such process for self-published books.)
  - mturmon 9y ago
    Come on, this is incredibly obtuse. If the mean number of readers of a self-published book is 10, versus an average large-press book being 50K, which review do you publish? Also, you shifted the argument. You asserted that "of course" someone paid the NYT to publish the review. Who did, and how did you discover this?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - Alex3917 9y ago

phnofive 9y ago

I'm not suggesting it's an ad in the sense that someone paid Pollan to write this article (other than the Times), but the article linked is not a discussion of the title; rather, it's a suggestion to the reader that should they find the subject matter interesting, the book would be a great place to learn more. I will admit to a certain bias in placing reviews on the mental shelf next to certain forms of advertisement (I doubt the author purchased his copy of the book), but I am not trying to project that view onto anyone else.