3 ms·

From the other perspective, as the new york times puts it: "More Than 100,000 Pay for British News Site" https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/business/media/03n

• olegkikin 16y ago
  $16 per month * 100,000 * 12 months = $19.2 M per year Would 4 million readers bring that much in ad revenue? Depends on how good their ad sales team is. Here's Alexa graph: http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?&w=400&h=220&o=f&c=1&y=r&b=ffffff&n=666666&r=2y&u=timesonline.co.uk http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?&w=400&h=220&o=f&...
  • malandrew 16y ago
    No. I calculated the revenue per user per month for the NY Times a while ago and based on 2008 figures, it was about 71 cents per user per month. I was using numbers from several different sources when I made that calculation so I can't guarantee its accuracy.
    • sin7 16y ago
      0.71 $/user/month * 4,000,000 user * 12 month/year = 34,080,000 $/year > $19.2 M What am I doing wrong?
      • jrockway 16y ago
        Is scaling up your architecture 40x free? (Actually, for static content, it might be. But remember, each user using your site has some incremental cost. If the incremental cost exceeds what they generate in ad revenue, you lose.)
        • seabee 16y ago
          I dare say the cost of producing the content far exceeds the cost of serving it up to people.
      • user24 16y ago
        maybe it was 4 million users over the course of the experiment, not per month? Just a guess. edit: I'm wrong.
      • malandrew 16y ago
        you're correct, I'm wrong about the "no". I misread the calculation that was given.
  • ig1 16y ago
    Seems unlikely, given that Techcrunch which is heavily monetized made about $10 million from 9 million unique visitors.
    • olegkikin 16y ago
      Techcrunch is full of tech people with AdBlock installed.