NYT Digital Lessons

The New York Times Company’s latest quarterly numbers contain a rich trove of data regarding the health of the digital news industry. Today, we’ll focus on the transition from traditional advertising to paywall strategies being implemented across the world. Paywall appear as a credible way to offset — alas too partially — the declining revenue from print operations.

First, the highlights.

(See NYTCO’s press release here and stock here. Unless otherwise stated, all figures are for Q1 2012 and comparisons are Q1 2012 vs. Q1 2011.)

  • Total Revenue is stable at $499.4 million.
  • Operating profit is down by 23% at $19.6 million. When excluding depreciation, amortization and (generous) severance packages, OP is up 9.4% at $57 million.
  • Print advertising for all properties and from all sources is down 8.1% at $238 million
  • Circulation revenue is up 9.7% at $227 million.
  • Digital subscriptions, launched just a year ago, reach 454,000. That’s a 16% growth vs. Q4 2011.
  • Digital advertising for the entire NYTCO (this includes NYTimes.com, BostonGlobe.com, Boston.com, About.com, etc) is down 10.3% to $71 million.
  • Such decrease is primarily due to About.com losing 24% of its ad revenue to $22.6 million, and 50% of its operating profit to $7 million. This online guide is entirely dependent on advertising.
  • But the real bad news is the decline in digital advertising for the NYT News Media Group  consisting mostly of the NYT and the Boston Globe. Revenue dropped by 2.3% to $48.5 million for the quarter.
  • Digital advertising accounts for 22.5% of the entire NYTCO ad revenue, and for 30% of the NYT News Media Group’s digital advertising revenue.

We can discern four trends:

#1:  Digital advertising is struggling, even for a major brand such as the New York Times.
Again the evolution :
FY 2010: +18%
FY 2011: +10%
Q1 2012 (Y/Y):  -2%

This confirms a much feared trend. By and large, in a news context, the performance of digital advertising is on the decline. All indicators are now flashing red: CPM (cost per thousand impressions), cost per click, volumes, yields, etc. The cause is well-known, and way more acute for digital than for print: ads and news contents do compete for the same eyeballs. The more attractive and eye-catching the content is, the lesser the ad yields. Behavioral advertising won’t change that much — at least for hard core, high value-added news environment.

This decline also announces a major shift in the way ads are sold. The advertising flow is likely to split: premium ads such as well-placed special packages will still be sold for high prices by in-house teams. But the bulk of the inventory will shift downward to bazaars in which gazillions of pageviews will be dumped into real-time exchanges supposed to optimize prices. The bad news: such schemes are likely to fuel deflationary trends for remnant (i.e. sub-premium) inventories. The good news: media organizations such as online news outlets or pure players are likely to join such marketplaces and perhaps gain an operating role of sorts — assuming they are smart enough to cooperate (I’ll address this in an upcoming column).

#2 Paywalls work. With roughly half a million paying subscribers, the NYTimes.com has captured the equivalent of 39% of its weekday print circulation of 1.3 million. In its financial statements, the Times doesn’t break down its revenue structure, but a significant part of the 13% increase in circulation revenue (print + digital) is attributable to digital subscriptions (the rest comes from the recent print price hike).
Estimates are difficult but here are some clues: on these 500,000 digital subs, it is estimated that 60% pay the basic $15/mo rate while 40% opt for the full $35 digital package. This would translate to digital subscribers contributing $34.5 million (18%) to the $190 million in NYT Media Group circulation revenue that appear in its quarterly statement. 18% is not that bad for a paywall that is barely one year old (even though this estimated revenue doesn’t reflect the cost of the NYTimes’ massive promotions for its paywall program). But again, compared to the $48 million of digital advertising, it is significant.

#3 A warning to paywall dreamers: some restrictions apply. In order to be successful, a digital subscription must check the following boxes:
Own a sizable share of a given (and preferably solvent) segment of the population. In other words: start from a large built-in audience. Globally, the New York Times has about 34 million unique visitors per month – a large pool for conversions to the paywall.
Don’t expect a paywall to work for a small site or a niche product — unless it is a reference for its community. Even then, in spite of its reference status in New England, the Boston Globe shows a mere 18,000 paid-for digital subscribers.
– Allow time to grow the subscriber base. A paywall strategy must spread over several years. The free audience first has to be converted into registered users able to be thoroughly data-mined; then the paywall will be tightened with less and less articles available for free (the NYT recently lowered its threshold from 20 to 10 free articles); the entire process will take at least two to four years, depending on where you start from.
– Carefully manage porosity. That’s why some people refer to a “semi-permeable membrane” (see the interesting conversation between Clay Shirky and NYT’s Digital manager Denise Warren on NPR last January). While it is tightening its paywall, the NYT leaves willingly plenty of free access to its content: if you land its site from a search engine, from Facebook, Twitter, or from a blog, no limit applies (same for the FT.com, actually). Such tactic has two virtues: it doesn’t affect natural referencing and incoming traffic from search engines (which could weigh as much as 30-40% of the audience), and the brand remains exposed to many — such as social networks users.
– Quality is non-negotiable. A successful paywall requires exclusive, unique, authoritative, high-quality content. A paywall isn’t the right solution for streams of “commodity news” or user-generated contents. It won’t work for the Huffington Post. Despite its enormous audience, the HuffPo’s embryonic original content won’t do much to alter its “Left wing Fox News” positioning (Even though the HuffPo managed to score a Pulitzer Prize for National reporting for its remarkable Beyond The Battlefield series.)

#4 Print is still alive. While print advertising is drying up, the share of circulation revenue keeps rising (in relative terms.) The good news: price hikes don’t seem to matter: the recent increase to $2.50 had no effect on sales. Actually, the Times uses its weekend edition (priced at $5.00) to channel digital subscriptions by providing the best deal of its complex rate card. Which leads to two conclusions: a sizable reservoir of readers is ready to pay for quality-on-paper at almost any price (see a previous Monday Note Cracking the Paywall); and commercially strong weekend editions can be a potent vector for digital subscriptions.

Print and digital strategies are more intertwined than ever.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

Be Sociable, Share!

Related columns:

  1. The ePresse Digital Kiosk: First Lessons Tweet[correction added about Relay.com's rate] On June 30th, the French consortium ePresse opened its digital kiosk. Six months of hard work for a very small team (the ePresse consortium is a three persons operation: a CTO, a marketing person, and a manager), and still a long way to go. ePresse brought up eight titles: five [...]...
  2. Trying a Simple Model TweetAdvertising still dominates the newspaper revenue model. Depending upon the particular country, it is not uncommon to see print dailies getting 70% to 80% of their revenue from advertising. In the early days of the digital era, when business plans were driven by “eyeballs”, everybody hoped to replicate the tried and true print advertising revenue [...]...
  3. NYTimes’ “Fair” Prices TweetToday, both Jean-Louis and I struggle with the same topic: last week’s announcement of the New York Time’s strange paywall structure. For a digital newspaper, there is no such thing as a fair price. Too many questionable assumptions, too many variables, too many ways to play with data. The Monday Note and my day job [...]...
  4. Cracking the Paywall Tweet(This version corrects an error in the percentage for the price increase of the FT) Every newspaper, magazine or website is working on a paywall of sorts and closely monitoring what everyone else is doing. In almost every news company, execs are morosely watching advertising projections and finding numbers that are not exactly encouraging. For [...]...
  5. The hype(r) local digital journalism TweetEverybody wants to go local. Internet-wise, it sounds like the new flavor of the month week. Going local is a digital and idealistic version of Mao Zedong’s “hundred flowers blossom”. (The Chinese dictator did actually encourage the expression of dissenting opinions; this turned out to have unpleasant consequences for those who took Dear Leader to [...]...

6 Comments

  1. MH
    Posted April 23, 2012 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    I always get a kick out of media and tech types describing how to make money off the rubes.

    We need to be herded into registration silos so that we (the free audience) may first be “converted into registered users able to be thoroughly data-mined.” The implication is that there is value in our personal information, and yet the newspapers and their digital simulacrums don’t wish to trade our info for their content. They want us to pay twice, with our “real” money and our “info” money.

    I note with a bit of angry irony that when Apple provided an opportunity to monetize the publishers’ content several of the newspapers and magazines balked at the deal because Apple would not share the subscriber data with the publishers. This ability to not make double sales through the control of subscriber data was a deal breaker. I also note that the ad people continue to escalate their war on the consumer by creating ever more toxic and persistent “cookies” that circumvent the user’s desired privacy settings, all at the behest of advertisers.

    If this is the sort of “value add” that I get from using the NYT website, first, I scoff in their general direction, and second, I think I’ll just beg off. I don’t enjoy being treated as a mark to be fleeced.

  2. Damian B
    Posted May 4, 2012 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

    When will some genius invent a flashy widget to install custom amounts of ‘likes’ and ‘tweets’ onto a site, to give the impression that all that stuff actually means anything? :D

  3. Scott M78
    Posted October 9, 2012 at 10:07 pm | Permalink

    Damian – i take it your joking right? If not welcome to 2012!

  4. Scott M78
    Posted October 10, 2012 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

    Fogot to put my website about crisis loans in the website field Here it is

  5. Posted October 31, 2012 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    Je vous souhaite un bon mercredi. En tout cas, je vais revenir vous rendre visite très prochainement. Merci,

    réussir son référencement web http://agencereferencementbordeaux.wordpress.com référencement payant

  6. Posted April 21, 2013 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    When I initially commented I appear to have clicked on the -Notify
    me when new comments are added- checkbox and now every time a comment is added I receive 4 emails with the same comment.

    There has to be an easy method you are able to remove me from that service?
    Thanks a lot!

3 Trackbacks

  1. By The morning lowdown 4-23-12 — paidContent on April 23, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    [...] NYT digital lessons (The Monday Note) [...]

  2. By New York Times Digital Lessons | That Eric Alper on April 24, 2012 at 10:00 pm

    [...] From Monday Note: [...]

  3. [...] system setup by the New York Times 15 months ago. So far, it works fine (see also a previous column NYT Digital Lessons). Thanks to its paywall, the NYT collects an average of 4,750 new subscribers each week. Even the [...]