Brand Republic
 
Edition:
UK |
Asia
 
Digital jobs

Jobs

Find over 3000 jobs
 

Directory

 

New York Times quiet on charging for content 

Comments:5   Add your comment
The New York Times addressed the "chatter" about paid content, but said nothing concrete, indicating that it is struggling to work out a route forward on how to charge consumers for content.

As the New York Times reported a 27% slide in advertising revenues and a $74m loss (with more to come in quarter two) it said it was exploring alternative business models for its website, but display was still the undisputed (if not as gold plated as expected) king when it comes to making money in online publishing.

Janet Robinson, chief executive of the New York Times not only did not indicate which way the newspaper group might jump, but she also reminded reporters that the New York Times had tried twice before to charge. Was she trying to remind the industry that there were salient lessons to be learnt from those experiences and not to expect too much in the future?

"Twice, in the NYT's history, we experimented with charging for online content, first in 1996 and in 2006 with Times Select. We recently looked at the business models of more than 30 different online organizations to examine what was the most effective in generating online revenues.

"What we have learned is that the advertising model we have used at the NYTimes.com has generated more revenue the vast majority of other organisations, including some that are much larger. Our goal is to add substantial new revenue from our users, without materially affecting our leading display advertising business.

"As the ad marketplace, particularly in print, changes, we continue to explore different payment models and other approaches to generate revenues from our online content. We believe the rate of the decline in Q2 will be the same as the previous quarter."

Rumours are spinning about the future of the Boston Globe, which the New York Times Company has placed on the chopping block.

Two things here: Firstly, the Boston Herald reported that Boston Red Sox principal owner, John Henry, has indicated his willingness to buy the Boston Globe as part of a deal to buy The New York Times Co.'s stake in the Fenway Park ball club.

Sources told the paper, that if Henry bought the NY Times' 17.75% stake in the Sox, he'd also take the Globe off their hands.

The second, Boston Globe management yesterday rejected a proposal by the newspaper's largest union to publicly negotiate concessions sought to save the money-losing newspaper, according to union and Globe officials.

The Guild is prepared "to offer significant labour cost savings," its chief, Daniel Totten said. The union represents more than 600 editorial, advertising, and business office staff. The New York Times Co has given the paper 30 days to agree to $20m in cuts. That clock is fast running down.

Comments

April 23, 2009 10:17 AM
 

Hi Gordon,

Paying for content. Hmmm...

We took my brother to Egypt on holiday last Christmas.

He loves to read a daily paper.

An Egyptian student studying accountancy approached him with his pitch.

"Sir I can get you any newspaper you like, just give me a couple of days."

When my brother asked him the magic question: 'How much?'

He quoted four times the price.

My brother muttered 'Oh well, I'll have done my bit to support a third world community and happily agreed to the deal. Once the deal had been done, the newspaper seller asked him if he could be careful with the paper, and once he had read it, if he could take it back, he would be most grateful.

What a terriffic scam. More money for old news.

We were so amused by this lovable rogues pitch, we both agreed to buy papers from him. Throwing caution to the wind, I told him to just get me the best newspaper he could. I ended up with The Sun.

When my wife found out what we'd been up to she went mad:

"Why are you paying this ******* all this money for a rubbish paper!

She retorted.

When the seller arrived, I decided to pull him up on video film.

I told him laughingly his paper was rubbish, it had no news, only pictures good Muslim boys like himself should not be looking at, and even the football results were bad.

He told me: 'I love the British, God Save the Queen, but Sir, please, you really should get another wife. Russians are awful people to deal with, they never want to pay for anything'.

My wife is Russian.

I said : 'I think I'd rather get another newspaper seller,

there's absolutely nothing wrong with my wife'.

It all boils down to attitude.

 
 
April 23, 2009 10:46 AM
 

Kevin, thanks for sharing great story. You're right it does come down to attitude. No one in this lifetime or the next is going to pay to read the Sun Online - great tabloid newspaper that it is.

 
 

Pingback from  Posts about gold as of April 22, 2009 | Shirasmane

 
 

Pingback from  Posts about gold as of April 22, 2009 | Shirasmane

 
 
April 23, 2009 2:35 PM
 

Hi Gordon,

Yes, attitude and...salesmanship. If a boy from Cairo can sell to my brother (A fickle comudgeonly tight-fisted Scot) The Times for four times the price, There

has to be a market to make a socially acceptable profit without uncontrolled greed that threatens Susan Boyle's career before it has even fully taken-off.

 
To comment on this post you have to be logged in

About this blog

Gordon's Republic

Brand Republic's daily blog on digital, media and plenty in between.
 

About the author

Gordon Macmillan

Blogging for:

Gordon's Republic

Member since: 03 Jun 2008

Last login: 24 Nov 2009

Total Posts: 1,618

 
 
 
 

Tags

 

Syndication