Skip to comments.The New York Times Is Now Supported by Readers, Not Advertisers
Posted on 07/29/2012 12:18:29 PM PDT by Hojczyk
Advertising revenue continues to sink at the New York Times Company, which reported a second-quarter net loss of $88.1 million today. But a glimmer of hope can be seen in circulation revenue, which has actually gone up through print subscription price increases and the online paywall. At the company's big three papers the Times, International Herald Tribune, and Boston Globe print and digital ad dollars dipped 6.6 percent to $220 million, while circulation revenue was up 8.3 percent to $233 million.
The historical rebalancing, which occurred at the News Media Group for the first time in Q1, may indicate a sea change in an industry that has long relied on advertising to stay afloat. "They're probably the first major paper that has crossed that line," media analyst Ken Doctor of Newsonomics told Daily Intel. "It is an interesting moment."
Whoever is chosen will be taking on a new challenge: papers that can no longer depend on ad revenue, but must rely more than ever on the whims of the customer. "We have the pieces of an emerging business, we just have to see how far how far we can go," said Doctor. "The future looks like it's going to be a majority reader revenue. What we don't know is at what level. And that's huge, because it tells us how big of a newsroom they can support."
(Excerpt) Read more at nymag.com ...
Every conservative who subscribes to the NY Times should take note and cancel now. It would undermined a statist institution, save them money and most importantly make them smarter.
After all, time wasted reading a censored site is time you must spend reading a site that actually informs you. That is if you don’t want to say not realize there is a “fast and furious” scandal until Congress votes to find the AG in contempt.
Finding braindead dorks willing to pay for government propaganda. What a brilliant idea!!
Frankly, I think we are being lied to. I don’t believe the NYT is making a profit off of its online sales. And i predict we will get a clarification on this from knowledgeable sources. Bottom line: liberals lie.
No, great idea ... when applied to PBS.
PBS has some great shows (Masterpiece Mystery, Nature) but the news and other stuff isn’t the greatest. Remove taxpayer dollars and let the viewers pay for what they are willing to watch.
Too big to fail....
At that rate, it will take 8 quarters to make up the loss for the past one quarter.
The hole from the iceberg is long and deep and cramming a mattress into one end won’t stop the onrushing sea.
The old gray b!tch is losing nearly $1 million per day to proselytize the extreme left’s views.
Make sure you never pay a dime for a copy, never click on any ads on their page and do all you can to deprive the depraved of income.
No print periodical could survive strictly on circulation dollars alone.
This headline is totally misleading. What has happened is the income from subscriptions and online paywalls now totals more than ad revenue. It’s actually a sign of the newspaper’s continued decline. They lost $88 million. Subscriptions and reader revenue would have to rise by $300 million to over $500 million for the newspaper to break even. So, NO, readers are NOT supporting the times. They are nowhere near supporting the times. And it will continue to deteriorate as ad revenue continues to fall.
We basically said the same thing.And I agree with your numbers.
Why would a conservative want to BUY a rag these days anyway?
I betcha anything it is subsidized by the DNC, big time.
Note the attempt to obfuscate the following key statement with much meaningless blather:
“New York Times Company, which reported a second-quarter net loss of $88.1 million today.”
That would be a $88 million dollar loss against $453 million income. Doesn’t look sustainable to me for very much longer. Thank God. The bankruptcy of the anti-American, anti-free-enterprise, anti-capitalism, pro-Marxist, pro-socialist New York Times can not come soon enough for me.
All the NYT has to do to cover losses is hike their subscription fees. I mean, it works for taxes, right?
It just might. The newsstand price has doubled since 2008 and is now $2.50. They've got some very loyal -- or stupid -- customers.
Raise the subscription rates and hike everybody’s pay ten percent annually.
Works like magic for the federal government!
I buy 1 Sunday paper to start fires for the Winter.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
But now that I have all the books, I don't need them anymore. Haven't for decades.
My background was in broadcasting (before I had the good sense to make a career of the military), and I laughed when reading the latest apology for the NYT and its failed business model. Relying on readership subscriptions to fund the entire operation is akin to a radio or TV station trying to stay afloat on advertising from its website. Without advertising dollars (from all sources) a commercial media enterprise can’t stay in business. It’s that simple.
Don’t forget, a lot of left-wing media types have promoted the idea of taxpayer bailouts for local newspapers and entire media chains. Just one more thing to look forward to in a second Obama term.
I just got a letter of solicitation from the NYT to sign up for a subscription. It made a nice scoop when my dog vomited on the rug.
I suppose the word "supported" has different meanings to different people!
I subscribed in the past -- last time would have been about 10 years ago. I haven't subscribed since, partly because of the Times' jihad against Bush/Cheney, partly because my kid went off to college and the "Science Times" went unread, but mostly because Times Home Delivery left the Sunday Times in the middle of my driveway. In a snowstorm. Where I found it with my snowblower, bending the main shaft of the snowblower.
I wouldn't subscribe now if the Times was free. (It was a nice old snowblower.)
After tearing up and throwing out a hundred of those letters over the last 10 years, I've lately started sealing the postage paid envelope and sending it back to them, empty. (Every little bit that might edge them a little closer to Chapter 7 helps!) Dog vomit would be a nice touch but unfortunately it's going to be some poor minimum wage schmuck who's going to be opening the envelope, not Sulzberger.
Especially since the NYT paywall is absurdly easy to breach. I do it all the time.
They’d get more readers if they actually published unbiased news stories and also offered conservative slants on issues as well.
But with over 90% of journalists self-described as voting democrat, I hardly think it will ever happen.
Did you barter for that?
I salute the courageous little sailors at the new york times. There they are, bravely shooting holes into the bottom of their sinking ship to let the water out. The good ship NBC is steaming full speed ahead pumping water into the hold to help out.
Boy, P T Barnum was spot on....LOL! : D
Our local Gannett generi-paper the Indianapolis Star just announced today they are taking the same approach.
Paywall for digital, and a big price increase.
No. I just highlighted everything from (including) the "?" in the URL and then hit the delete button.
I’m with you. The New York Times has tons of vanity circulation - they’ve got to be losing money on that...