4 ms·
His argument is basically that even if people do, it isn't enough money. The WSJ costs 79 bucks a year (and I somehow suspect many people aren't paying that fu
by lliiffee 18y ago
His argument is basically that even if people do, it isn't enough money. The WSJ costs 79 bucks a year (and I somehow suspect many people aren't paying that full price) 79 million a year isn't nearly enough to save the NYT.
I guess the value of our eyes looking at ads printed on paper for a year is much higher than $79?
- swombat 18y ago79 million dollars of operating profit (hosting costs assumed to be negligible) a year is quite a lot of money, and that's not even counting advertising. If the NYT's costs are so far above $79m/yr, perhaps it needs to slim down a little...
- lliiffee 18y agoAccording to the article, NYT revenue last year (a bad year) was $1 billion.
- swombat 18y agoEven more shameful that they can't run their operation on that much money. I appreciate it costs money to retain good writers, but $1bn a year? Surely that's enough to run a newspaper on?
- timr 18y agoThey run multiple foreign bureaus, one of the most widely circulated print publications in the world, and a top-100 internet website. I'm not saying that they couldn't be leaner, but let's try to keep some perspective.