3 ms·

I am trying to justify 622 Tech workers with the 700mm visits noted. Can someone explain it to me? 622 * $124,584 [0] * 1.25 = $96,864,060/year Their CPM and

I am trying to justify 622 Tech workers with the 700mm visits noted. Can someone explain it to me? 622 * $124,584 [0] * 1.25 = $96,864,060/year Their CPM and CPC would need to be seriously fine tuned to sustain this. $5 per 1,000 visitors (CPM): they would need 19.37 billion ad impressions. Similar problem when calculating CPC with $0.10 to $2 range. I cannot see how they are still in business. [0] https://www.roberthalf.com/us/en/insights/career-development/tech-careers-and-salaries-in-new-york-city https://www.roberthalf.com/us/en/insights/career-development...

dwaltrip 2y ago
Don’t forget to include subscription revenue, also their extra offerings of games, cooking, etc
- mattdotc 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - shepherdjerred 2y ago
    What? The commenter approached this just fine. They didn't state anything as fact and asked for others to weigh in. This is completely reasonable in a discussion.
  - tomcam 2y ago
    Might want to reread https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and especially this section: In Comments Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- WaitWaitWha 2y ago
  Ah, thanks. I was not aware of those.
emeril 2y ago
it's been a while since I worked in adtech so unsure best where to source/verify those impressions but much of NYT views are by paid subscribers so I'd imagine that funds at least a good chunk of those workers salaries? further, I also don't know much of of NYT's tech but it doesn't seem especially difficult or cutting edge so 622 tech workers does seem a bit bloated though I guess they might need a little staff for IT in various locations worldwide so that adds up maybe?
Manuel_D 2y ago
The NY Times is mostly subscription funded now: > Subscription revenue in the quarter grew 7.3 percent, to $439.3 million, compared with the previous year. Total advertising revenue was up 1.2 percent, at $119.2 million. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/07/business/media/new-york-times-earnings.html#:~:text=Subscription%20revenue%20in%20the%20quarter,1.2%20percent%2C%20at%20%24119.2%20million https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/07/business/media/new-york-t....

dwaltrip 2y ago

Don’t forget to include subscription revenue, also their extra offerings of games, cooking, etc

mattdotc 2y ago
[flagged]
- shepherdjerred 2y ago
  What? The commenter approached this just fine. They didn't state anything as fact and asked for others to weigh in. This is completely reasonable in a discussion.
- tomcam 2y ago
  Might want to reread https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and especially this section: In Comments Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
WaitWaitWha 2y ago
Ah, thanks. I was not aware of those.

emeril 2y ago

it's been a while since I worked in adtech so unsure best where to source/verify those impressions but much of NYT views are by paid subscribers so I'd imagine that funds at least a good chunk of those workers salaries? further, I also don't know much of of NYT's tech but it doesn't seem especially difficult or cutting edge so 622 tech workers does seem a bit bloated though I guess they might need a little staff for IT in various locations worldwide so that adds up maybe?

Manuel_D 2y ago

The NY Times is mostly subscription funded now: > Subscription revenue in the quarter grew 7.3 percent, to $439.3 million, compared with the previous year. Total advertising revenue was up 1.2 percent, at $119.2 million. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/07/business/media/new-york-times-earnings.html#:~:text=Subscription%20revenue%20in%20the%20quarter,1.2%20percent%2C%20at%20%24119.2%20million https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/07/business/media/new-york-t....