5 ms·

Saving journalism and saving The New York Times Company are two very different things. I'm focused on the latter in the above comment. The fact that businesses

Saving journalism and saving The New York Times Company are two very different things. I'm focused on the latter in the above comment. The fact that businesses exist and make money producing digital content after 1999 is effective proof that survival is possible.

davidw 16y ago
We're in a transition phase. Doubtless, buggy whip manufacturers survived a few years past the introduction of the Ford Model T as well. Whether that's an apt comparison for producers of information goods is too early to say - I don't think it's likely to be accurate, but I don't know what the future holds either, and I think things are still changing.
- rhizome 16y ago
  Thing is, there are still buggy whip manufacturers that have been in business since then. I don't know if Jedediah's Buggy Whips could have planned to survive the automobile, but they have. The New York Times I'm sure would like to be the buggy whip of journalism. The Gray Lady is casting about wildly (probably before it really matters) in hopes of avoiding an uncertainty on par with the 1908 whip market.
  - davidw 16y ago
    > The New York Times I'm sure would like to be the buggy whip of journalism. No, they don't. The few that are around are in an extremely niche business that most of the world does not need or care about. They're for hobbyists. It'd be interesting to know if the buggy whip manufacturers from 100 years ago actually survived (I sort of doubt it, but don't know) or were recreated/re-formed to serve the niche/hobbyist market, which I think would require a different sort of business and mentality.
    - rhizome 16y ago
      I did not invent "Jedediah's Buggy Whips," they are a real company that for all I've been able to find has been continuously in business since 1853.
      - davidw 16y ago
        Interesting. Maybe a small number of them managed to change with the times (my guess is they didn't call it "pivoting"), but I still can't seriously think that the NYT wants to be the equivalent of "Jedediah's Buggy Whips". Right now they're more like Ford (well maybe not that big, but they are at the very least national in their reach and relevance), and I don't think they'd like to take the step down in size and importance.
natrius 16y ago
You're treating all digital content as interchangeable. The New York Times is inherently more expensive to put together than Gawker. Gawker's business model produces enough revenue to turn a profit, but there's no guarantee that the same would hold for the New York Times. There is no such proof that an outfit that puts out the type and quality of journalism that the Times does can be sustained on online advertising dollars.

davidw 16y ago

We're in a transition phase. Doubtless, buggy whip manufacturers survived a few years past the introduction of the Ford Model T as well. Whether that's an apt comparison for producers of information goods is too early to say - I don't think it's likely to be accurate, but I don't know what the future holds either, and I think things are still changing.

rhizome 16y ago
Thing is, there are still buggy whip manufacturers that have been in business since then. I don't know if Jedediah's Buggy Whips could have planned to survive the automobile, but they have. The New York Times I'm sure would like to be the buggy whip of journalism. The Gray Lady is casting about wildly (probably before it really matters) in hopes of avoiding an uncertainty on par with the 1908 whip market.
- davidw 16y ago
  > The New York Times I'm sure would like to be the buggy whip of journalism. No, they don't. The few that are around are in an extremely niche business that most of the world does not need or care about. They're for hobbyists. It'd be interesting to know if the buggy whip manufacturers from 100 years ago actually survived (I sort of doubt it, but don't know) or were recreated/re-formed to serve the niche/hobbyist market, which I think would require a different sort of business and mentality.
  - rhizome 16y ago
    I did not invent "Jedediah's Buggy Whips," they are a real company that for all I've been able to find has been continuously in business since 1853.
    - davidw 16y ago
      Interesting. Maybe a small number of them managed to change with the times (my guess is they didn't call it "pivoting"), but I still can't seriously think that the NYT wants to be the equivalent of "Jedediah's Buggy Whips". Right now they're more like Ford (well maybe not that big, but they are at the very least national in their reach and relevance), and I don't think they'd like to take the step down in size and importance.

natrius 16y ago

You're treating all digital content as interchangeable. The New York Times is inherently more expensive to put together than Gawker. Gawker's business model produces enough revenue to turn a profit, but there's no guarantee that the same would hold for the New York Times. There is no such proof that an outfit that puts out the type and quality of journalism that the Times does can be sustained on online advertising dollars.