Saving the New York Times?
Posted by David Card on January 21, 2009
[Posted by David Card]
follow me at davidcard
It's a rare day indeed when I agree this much with Silicon Alley Insider's Henry Blodget. But his plan to fix the NY Times seems right on the money to me. In a nutshell, cut costs, raise print subscription prices, and charge for the online edition. That last one will raise eyebrows, but there's a way to do it that would likely only cut traffic in half, and still keep the Times' stories on the top of the news agenda. (Hint: copy the Wall Street Journal's syndication and navigation strategy.)
Both marketing leaders and publishers should read Blodget's post, at least to get the conversation started.
Here's some relevant research -- geared more to publishers than to marketers -- on online syndication, SEO, etc.:
Best Practices in Networked Media
Let me know your thoughts. Should the Times charge for online? Will that enable enough qualified readers to raise online CPMs? Would you pay (more) for that audience?
Facebook
LinkedIn
Twitter
Comments
re: Saving the New York Times?
I really don't get the fascination with trying to charge for users.Because of the cost of paper vs what the user 'pays' for the newspaper any company *loses* money on every story they print. Why try to turn a profit on something that the business has never ever made in history? Shouldn't minimizing a traditional loss into a small number be construed as a feat of success?A reader might pay 1c per article, but the cost is 2c per article to buy the paper, print the article and get it to the reader's hands.The saving grace is that advertisers were willing to pay 3c for every article to reach the reader and so newspapers were highly profitable.With online the print+distribution is say 0c but the ad willingness is 0.1 cents at the moment.Every ounce of the opportunity is getting the 0.1 cents to 3 cents, rather than trying to get the consumer to pay 1c.Newspaper's profits have always been driven by advertising forever. They have tried to minimize the loss of providing the paper by getting consumers to subsidize it but the reality is that it has been a terrifically losing proposition over the last 20 years (paper+gas+labor have increased at a far faster rate than circulation prices).All their attention needs to be in driving advertising revenue but the reality is it might take 10-15 years before enough compounding of momentum is able to get them back to their levels of profitability and revenue. So huge transformational cost cuts are needed for at least that time. Trouble is they are so levered that even that won't matter and they'll go bankrupt anyway.
re: Saving the New York Times?
I just posted on this over at my own blog, but my essential argument is that if NYTimes.com's problem is too much advertising inventory, then nothing can save it.http://blogs.forrester.com/consumer_product_strategy/2009/01/nytimescom-has.html
re: Saving the New York Times?
Newspapers all around the world are facing the same issues and fate as NYT. It would be foolish to close down one of the world's most powerful media brands because some owners are sad that revenues are'nt what they were from yesteryear. Publishers should have been planning the move to online and mobile distribution years ago and that's all that needs to be done with NYT. A new sustainable business model that is for the first time...fully accountable with advertisers can easily be launched. Revenues won't be what they were at first but my message to the current or new owners is... start over, think new and modern technology and grow the empire back to what it was.Now...the static black and white has the chance to be 4 color and streaming video. NYT's brand was built by it's great journalists and can continue to offer the same and better content. Listen to the public - ask what they want - hire some change management consultants - bring in some new blood, let the previous owners settle on Nantucket-things will be OK. Newspapers are brands and should not be left to die - they just need to get with the times !
re: Saving the New York Times?
oooops! never answered the questions raised...here are my thoughts:No, I don't think NYT should charge for access. It is against the principles of the web and the audience will always seek what is free first. This is not in the best interest of the advertisers either who depend on the NYT brand to attract an audience so they can get their message out. They need to focus on earning their money from delivering a measureable and fully accountable audience. They need to find better ways to reach demographic groups and not try to be everything to everyone. Being something to each key demo is the marketing paridigm of modern times. Forget the old fashioned push marketing approach and mass audience appeal - they need to engage, interact, use push and pull techniques simultaneosly. Integrate with major online retailers - the world is now their marketplace.I do not know of any case that justifies a higher CPM becasue the audience has paid for a subscription. As a former buyer this sounds batty! I would argue to lower the cpm because the ad revenue has been supplemented and therfore they can compete more effectively to gain a higher share of business vs. their competitors. Who will buy that argument anyway when audience data is completely transparent? Is Joe the plumber more valuable if he buys and reads NYT at one moment and downloads an entertaining article from the Post the next moment? Of course not. All advertisers can see the quality of the audience they are buying.