Comments on: The New York Times’ shifting model

By: commercial mortgage deals

commercial mortgage deals — Tue, 21 May 2013 01:25:04 +0000

You actually make it appear really easy with your presentation but I to
find this topic to be really one thing that I think I would by no means understand.
It seems too complex and extremely broad for me.
I am having a look forward to your next post, I’ll attempt to get the dangle of it!

By: Jim Bob

Jim Bob — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 23:38:52 +0000

I wish to point out, as a consumer of the New York Times, that the pay wall for the glancingly savvy browser is total a non issue. The NYT pay wall is just short of non-existent.

Just dump your browser cookies after ten articles and you’re ready for another ten articles. And, alternatively, using Chrome browser, view the NYT only in a “incognito” page, and close that page when you get up to ten articles, and reopen a new chrome incognito page for the next ten articles. This way you can still stay logged in to your other web services on the non-incognito chrome browser pages.

By: Can the Old Become New Again Online? « TheRunningStart

Can the Old Become New Again Online? « TheRunningStart — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:38:46 +0000

[...] it will follow suit). And if these publications see a turn-around in subscription revenues, as the New York Times has recently achieved, people may finally be forced to pay to access content on the web – as they did in the past [...]

By: Greg Golebiewski (@znakit)

Greg Golebiewski (@znakit) — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:49:27 +0000

Dear Frederic and David.
I might be responsible for Mathew’s review of the NYT traffic numbers as collected by comScore. I have long argued that the NYT’s assessment of its loss in monthly UU as “moderate” is too optimistic. The comScore shows a loss of over 10mln uniques since the paywall went up.

This number (if correct, and I am not saying it is — simply this is the stat we have) is extremely important, as it can explain better the NYT’s loss in digital ad revenue than the lower CPM would — the latter affects the entire industry, not only the NYT.

Adding 57K new subs in the last quarter must also be qualified. It seems a huge increase, and certainly a huge effort it was, but it was ONLY 11%, comparing to 13%, 16% and more in previous periods. Finally, the current sub plan, as advertised, is only $4.99 for 12 weeks of unlimited access. Adding new subs at such a low price, does not offset the opportunity cost of losing over 500K casual users per month on average. Do the math.

By: Meta

Meta — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:09:07 +0000

To anyone who is reading this comment, can you endorse or object to the request made by Admirer?

By: Admirer

Admirer — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:00:08 +0000

To the author of Mondy note, could you confirm of deny the comments and accusations made by David Brauchli?

By: david brauchli

david brauchli — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:39:19 +0000

I would like to see you do some research instead of just quoting known pay-wall skeptic Mathew Ingram. I have as little faith in Ingram’s numbers as I do in your analysis. Let’s see real numbers from real sources. And what about talking to someone at the NYT besides generic quotes from a press release. That would go a long way to adding believability to this column.

By: SanCarlos

SanCarlos — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 06:55:23 +0000

Great post. My experience with these “programmatic buying channels” is that they take a larger cut (publisher gets less – 40%) but the advertiser is paying more.

These buying channels are also not providing any real value. I can’t buy a good page (one where I know where the ad is on the page, contextually relevant targeting, know customer intent to some degree etc)

NY Times could make a decisions to not use the networks and sell the inventory directly (or have a self serve platform).