NYTimes Needs 1.3 billion to Survive


nytimes1.jpgADOTAS — That’s in page views, according to a study by online media-research company ContentNext.

As the print side implodes, publisher, journalists and advertisers grasp on to the hope that web news can pull in enough eyeballs to make a profit, pay salaries and sell goods. According to ContentNext, at least for the Times, 1.3 billion page views a month could bring in about $300 million in ad revenue a quarter, similar to what is expected this Q4, if the operation moved to online only.

Organizations, such as the Huffington Post, which doesn’t pay writers, Daily Kos and Drudge, can flourish on a smaller piece of the pie.

But I think the calculation is flawed. If the Times goes web only, they won’t need to generated as much, because its cost will be appreciably lower. And Time has credibility that Huffpost, Kos and Drudge have never come close to and that increases the value to advertisers.

— Express your opinion, comment below.


  1. The NY Times would be one of the last papers to go to online only — we’d see most single-city papers go there first (like what has been announced in Detroit this week). More likely, as other papers go digital, The Times will benefit with increased print subscriptions, as it already has distribution in most cities.

  2. I am still bullish on the NYT as well, but I am not convinced they can get their PV’s to 1.3 billion at NYT quality.

    In order to get the PV’s up, they need much more content to leverage search traffic. About.com is part of this strategy — and the quality there is typically lower than the NY Times.

    They probably need to pursue a BR/Gap/Old Navy strategy in regard to brand and quality.

  3. I do not understand or believe the math here.

    Page views = 1,300,000,000
    Thousand of impressions =1,300,000

    $300 million in ad revenue a quarter =$300,000,000
    ad revenues per month =$100,000,000

    Revenues per thousand page views = $76.92

    It is very unlikely that this CPM could be real?

  4. There are more ways than page views for advertisers to make money on the internet. The NYT could monetize their substantial email recipient file through ads, and they could also explore doing more with affiliate programs. They are giving away their content for free right now – that is what is killing them.

    The WSJ Journal isn’t having this problem – they charge subscribers $9.95 a month.

    The NYT, despite what some conservatives think of it, is the newspaper of record. It’s reporting staff is top-notch. There is no reason why is should end up in the dustbin just because of the internet. And it won’t, if they wake up.

  5. I’d subscribe to the NYTimes paper edition if they’d just deliver it to me, one interstate exit west of Nashville, TN. But they don’t do delivery to my remote neck of the woods, and I’m fairly certain that, given the economics of it, they’re not going to start doing so any time soon. So I think I’m waiting for Kindle v2.0, and then maybe I’ll drop my local city paper (the “Teenie-ssean”, a Gannett lame excuse for a paper) and just read my Kindle in the mornings… maybe drop the paper WSJ, too…

  6. john – Your calculation doesn’t take into account multiple impressions per page view. Most news sites, including the NY Times, average 2+ impressions per page view. So if you assume 2 impressions/PV on average, that brings the CPM to $38.46.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here