The last line of this article irks me: "Spending less time selling ads on the front page and more time into creating better digital experiences offers their be

The last line of this article irks me: "Spending less time selling ads on the front page and more time into creating better digital experiences offers their best hope for survival." It's easy to speak buzz and say they need "a better digital experience," but what does this actually translate to, in terms of revenue streams? Every newspaper in the country has been employing their best experts to figure out how to improve their web presence to keep from going under. It's not that easy. In fact, I would say that the Times, especially, has done an excellent job of "improving their digital experience" over the past few years. Remember how you used to have to register to read all the articles? And how they didn't have blogs on the site? Or a historical API? Or all those beautiful flash infographics? Or the Global Edition? NYTimes has broken major ground in web journalism lately, and the only reason they're not getting awards for it is because they still aren't profitable.