The New York Times Is Now Supported by Readers, Not Advertisers "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.'"
2 comments:
It will be a sad day if this model catches on and spreads to other industries. I think a shift to having to pay for everything yourself rather than rely on corporate subsidies in the form of advertisement could have a dramatic effect on society especially the already marginalized poor portion.
Well they still a few free articles a month, so that's kinda a subsidy for the poor. And the headline is a little misleading as advertising is still a large part of their revenue, but I see your point. Though before the net you had to pay to get the NY Times or get it at a library.
I'm more concerned with the polarization of journalism. If people are paying for news, they'll pay for the news they want, whether it's true or not.
Post a Comment