3 ms·

> The paper will be delivered Tuesday to The Times' 330,000 weekday print subscribers, and will also be available on newsstands. 330k subscribers on Twitter wo

by vnchr 4y ago

> The paper will be delivered Tuesday to The Times' 330,000 weekday print subscribers, and will also be available on newsstands. 330k subscribers on Twitter would be..what, a D-list influencer? I think of NYT as the preeminent newspaper of America. Granted, we're talking quantity versus quality. It's still jarring to consider the audience of individuals versus a media conglomerate nowadays.

thatguy0900 4y ago
Half of those subs will be bots and another 25% will have forgot they even subbed to that person. Very different from paying real money every month.
- leejoramo 4y ago
  And the NYT subscriptions go to Households, Offices, Waiting Rooms where the number of readers is greater than the number of subscribers
- bombcar 4y ago
  This is the real situation - you can see it most obviously in the view count of Youtube personalities that may still have millions of subscribers but only 10k+ views on their latest videos. Even if half the NYT papers go directly into the recycling without being opened, that's still going to be a larger reach than similar-counted twitters.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > Half of those subs will be bots and another 25% will have forgot they even subbed to that person. Very different from paying real money every month. Also you can expect newspaper subscribers are paying a lot of attention to the paper's article, while a follower may be barely paying attention to any account they follow. Additionally, newspaper articles probably drive a lot of tweets in ways that are difficult to measure fully.
dr-detroit 4y ago
zaphod12 4y ago
key to this is 'print,' though. NYT reaches far more people digitally these days - I think it's around 10 million. (and then plenty of folks see articles that aren't subscribing.
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  Yup. And the NYT probably brings in more income from web ads than print ads. The print ads probably don't cost nearly what they used to, since they reach so many fewer people, which is probably also part of the story of this being the first time someone paid for every print placement in an issue. 30 years ago it would have cost ridiculous sums of money, today it's much less. (although the OP also says "in addition to most of its premier digital advertising real estate", so I don't know. when I go to nytimes.com without an ad-blocker, the first two ads I saw were for Ford; and "ruggable", the latter of which is definitely targeted to my personal tracked history. But clicking around more then I saw a huge GE one.) I don't have the numbers at hand, but I recently read an article that said in the USA total market, far more money is currently spent on web ads than on all traditional media (including newspapers, magazines, and television too). Which, of course, has a lot to do with how newspapers are kind of dying...

by vnchr 4y ago

thatguy0900 4y ago

Half of those subs will be bots and another 25% will have forgot they even subbed to that person. Very different from paying real money every month.

leejoramo 4y ago
And the NYT subscriptions go to Households, Offices, Waiting Rooms where the number of readers is greater than the number of subscribers
bombcar 4y ago
This is the real situation - you can see it most obviously in the view count of Youtube personalities that may still have millions of subscribers but only 10k+ views on their latest videos. Even if half the NYT papers go directly into the recycling without being opened, that's still going to be a larger reach than similar-counted twitters.
tablespoon 4y ago
> Half of those subs will be bots and another 25% will have forgot they even subbed to that person. Very different from paying real money every month. Also you can expect newspaper subscribers are paying a lot of attention to the paper's article, while a follower may be barely paying attention to any account they follow. Additionally, newspaper articles probably drive a lot of tweets in ways that are difficult to measure fully.

dr-detroit 4y ago

zaphod12 4y ago

key to this is 'print,' though. NYT reaches far more people digitally these days - I think it's around 10 million. (and then plenty of folks see articles that aren't subscribing.

jrochkind1 4y ago
Yup. And the NYT probably brings in more income from web ads than print ads. The print ads probably don't cost nearly what they used to, since they reach so many fewer people, which is probably also part of the story of this being the first time someone paid for every print placement in an issue. 30 years ago it would have cost ridiculous sums of money, today it's much less. (although the OP also says "in addition to most of its premier digital advertising real estate", so I don't know. when I go to nytimes.com without an ad-blocker, the first two ads I saw were for Ford; and "ruggable", the latter of which is definitely targeted to my personal tracked history. But clicking around more then I saw a huge GE one.) I don't have the numbers at hand, but I recently read an article that said in the USA total market, far more money is currently spent on web ads than on all traditional media (including newspapers, magazines, and television too). Which, of course, has a lot to do with how newspapers are kind of dying...