3 ms·
Their last peak of subscriptions was when Trump got elected in 2016. It was a good time for newspapers and TV. The NYT is having an even higher peak now[1]. Sur
by ece 7mo ago
Their last peak of subscriptions was when Trump got elected in 2016. It was a good time for newspapers and TV. The NYT is having an even higher peak now[1]. Surely the Sulzbergers aren't the only family competent enough to run a newspaper. Lots of papers aren't owned by billionaires and manage to do ok. Wapo didn't have games in 2016 and people still subscribed. It just lost it's value to readers, so people unsubscribed. I certainly did.
Bezos is literally just showing his incompetence at this point in running a paper, and the NYT is probably loving it. Sure billionaires can buy social networks and papers, but people can also subscribe to and use things not owned by billionaires.
[1] https://www.natesilver.net/p/the-sad-and-self-inflicted-decline https://www.natesilver.net/p/the-sad-and-self-inflicted-decl...
- laughing_man 7mo agoThe NYT almost went out of business before they were rescued by billionaire Carlos Slim. The NYT is probably doing okay because the local papers everywhere else are a pale shadow of what they once were, so people sign up for NYT looking for what they used to have.
- ece 7mo agoBut they did switch to a pretty good online presence, the NYT did games, others could try to go after classifieds or other online pastimes without neutering the news room like Bezos has done. Sure it takes investment, Bezos seems to have had no problems doing that with Amazon.
- laughing_man 7mo agoHow many years was he supposed to lose $100m before deciding this just wasn't going to work?
- ece 7mo agoHe should've chosen to not make editorial decisions, and help with finding other revenue sources. Instead he lost revenue by making editorial decisions, and shows no signs of learning anything. He's lost more in market value at this point than yearly profit with his current strategy, which he can change anytime.