3 ms·
According to the New York Times latest earnings call, subscriptions account for 2/3 of their revenue. So ballpark roughly 50% more than the current subscription
by Godel_unicode 8y ago
According to the New York Times latest earnings call, subscriptions account for 2/3 of their revenue. So ballpark roughly 50% more than the current subscription price would be necessary to maintain revenue at the same subscriber count sans other revenue streams.
- bradleyjg 8y agoDon't think that's quite the right calculation. Revenue = subscriber revenue + ad revenue from ads shown to subscribers + ad revenue from ads shown to non-subscribers The suggestions was to eliminate the middle piece and increase the subscription price to make up for it in the first piece. That's still leaves the last piece.
- Godel_unicode 8y agoNo. The times only allows readers to read 5 articles before signing up, meaning they're effectively subscribers only.
- bradleyjg 8y agoAs I understand it there are a whole lot of leaks in that paywall. In fact, doesn't HN have a built in workaround?
- Godel_unicode 8y agoThis argument is getting really tired, it's true of literally every service online. Yes there are loopholes, no they don't matter. The barrier is just high enough that a great many people just pay up.
- bootlooped 8y agohttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/business/media/new-york-times-earnings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/business/media/new-york-t... The above article also states that digital advertising revenue only accounted for 37 percent of total advertising revenue. So that means digital advertising revenue is at most 12% of total revenue. Furthermore, it is unstated how much of digital advertising revenue comes from paid subscribers vs unpaid visitors. If we assumed, for the sake of argument, that half of digital advertising revenue was from paid and half unpaid, then cutting ads for paid subscribers would be doable with only about a 10% increase in price.