Posted on 10/23/2008 5:20:54 AM PDT by abb
Will the print version of the New York Times (NYSE: NYT) still be around in 10 years? New York Times Chairman and Publisher Arthur Sulzberger tackled that question following his keynote at the WebbyConnect conference this morning: “The heart of the answer must be that we can’t care. We do care. I care very much, but we must be where people want us to be for their information… Print is going to be here, I believe, for a very long time.” The NYT is more comfortable than ever with experimentation and launching services in beta, he said. “The thought is that we have to get past the thought that it has to be perfect” on day one. “If you’re not prepared to occasionally fail, you’re not trying hard enough.”
Sulzberger began his keynote with some pointed words on the worsening economy. “It is tempting to hope that what we are witnessing is just a temporary readjustment and some massive reboot of the financial system will solve all of our problems” but, “there is a lot of bad debt out there.” He cautioned that something more significant is yet to come. “What we have learned is that we will have a far better chance of making it through” this period with a fair amount of criticism, he added. Sulzberger then dove into a series of observations on weaknesses and strengths he sees in journalism today and where The New York Times is making investments for future growth.
More after the jump on content, convergence and business models...
-- Content: Sulzberger: “We now compete with companies that don’t even create content,” and yet “quality content matters enormously… it enables us to make the decisions necessary to keep democracy alive.” Throughout U.S. history, there has been “an inevitable flight to quality journalism” during particularly tough times. Regardless of where people sit on the ideological spectrum, they are thirsty for accurate information online. Blogs and pure-digital news organizations add both “superb” and “horrifying” coverage to the mix. “All news organizations are human enterprises. We will all make mistakes.” What separates quality from hyperbole is the willingness to admit to those mistakes and always committing to improve. “The flow of false information on the web is an increasingly powerful force and we all know that… The internet is democratizing the narrative by fundamentally altering how information is disseminated.” And still, there is an incredible need for journalists and readers to maintain a historical perspective. “Every weather disturbance is the storm of the century,” he gave as one example of “journalistic hyperbole.”
-- Convergence and business models: Before 2000, most people talked about convergence as if media and information would come to us on one device, but the number of devices used to access content has multiplied. The convergence discussion today is pegged around the end user being at the center of the experience on multiple devices. “We call this intelligent content delivery,” and NYT is re-tooling its operations to deliver on that vision. The newspaper’s research and development division, which was created in 2006, is working toward that goal while NYT searches for business models that will sustain growth online. NYT’s goal is to attract more users, increase engagement and drive revenue from that. One example of NYT’s shift is TimesExtra, a new service that pulls headlines in from other news organizations and blogs to pair with relevant coverage from NYT. The long-held commandment in newsrooms to avoid linking to outside sites is eroding.
Post-TimesSelect: “The era of the walled garden is over… future success on the internet is about overcoming traditional thinking.” Another example is the NYT’s former pay wall for TimesSelect. While it generated significant revenue for three years, the for-fee-only content that was “hiding” the “least commoditize-able” talent at the paper had to come down in order for the paper’s online presence to grow. ”Had the wall remained we would not be seeing the growth that we see today in our numbers. We’re up 40 percent this year… We knew we could do better by freeing up that content.”
ping
http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=77&aid=152120
Where are Journalists Ending Up?
bump
Naw. It will survive, and totter along as a sleazy little tabloid. Oh, wait. It already is that. My bad.
Oh, I know. They'll join the organization that 'created' the most jobs over the past twelve months: government. (Over 300,000 at last count.)
Did the dinosaurs ever have a meeting to discuss their relevance to the world and decide the world just couldn’t function without them?
“The NYT is more comfortable than ever with experimentation and launching services in beta”, and as the Master Beta here, I have never seen a brighter future.
When your primary mission is just to be a PROPAGANDA RAG, if you make a profit, that is just the cherry on top.
/> 
One of my first steps after the election is to cancel my newspaper subscriptions to the WSJ and Raleigh newspapers. Then I will never watch a TV newscast. I have a feeling most conservatives will seek alternative sources for news and commentary. It would be great if all Republicans do the same.
One sure sign of mental illness.
“Throughout U.S. history, there has been “an inevitable flight to quality journalism” during particularly tough times. Regardless of where people sit on the ideological spectrum, they are thirsty for accurate information online.”
And that explains the continuing drop in NYT readership AND stock value.
What a maroon.
“The flow of false information on the web is an increasingly powerful force and we all know that… The internet is democratizing the narrative by fundamentally altering how information is disseminated.”
Equals=Fairness Doctrine
You forgot Paul “I Won A Nobel” Krugman and faux-conservative David “I’m Not A RINO” Brooks.
Watch for the Democrats to propose an “emergency bailout” for the national press.
Schumer will be on TV talking about “saving the 1st amendment”.
Pinch will get government subsidies.
Try reading that first paragraph carefully, two or three times if necessary. What is Pinch actually saying?
Bits of it seem to make sense, but the paragraph as a whole, which sums up what needs to be done for the NY Times to succeed in staying alive, is incoherent and meaningless.
Oh, and the on-line NY Times has increased readership by 40% since they stopped charging for premium content. In other words, it has increased, but it no longer makes them any money. How is that going to save them?
I suppose maybe they have ads on their website, although I doubt whether they make much money on that. I can only suppose, because I never see their ads. I have a little program called Ad Muncher that simply eliminates all popup ads and all banner ads, so you wouldn’t even know they are there. Not that I would ever click on an ad anyway, but they are annoying and a waste of bandwidth.
Pinch says that the NYTimes produces “content.” What kind of content would that be? Lies? Manufactured propaganda? The ravings of writers like Maureen Dowd who never even leave the office except to visit a bar, and make up entire OpEd pieces out of their feeble imaginations?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.