New York Times Succumbs


nytimes1.jpgADOTAS — It’s unsurprising when schadenfreude erupts whenever the New York Times stumbles or even accepts the inevitable.

But with its Internet ad revenue and overall Internet revenue actually declining in November, down 3.8% and 2.6%, respectively, they have to find advertising dollars anywhere. And apparently they found $75,000 under the front page Christmas tree.

It use to be sacred space on the front page for newspapers, but that was long ago. The Times was probably the longest holdout against using any of it for advertising. (Though some might say they’ve used it to advertise their own biases.) They get $75,000 for the front page during the week and $100,000 on Sundays. Any company that wants the page also has to commit $2 million for the year. I don’t think anyone cares any more about the front page being used that way.

But what should be more troubling for the Times is does anyone really notice an ad on the front page enough for someone to pay that much any more? (Or anywhere else in the paper) I understand why the Times allowed it, because it could get it, I’m just not sure why a brand would pay for it.

— Express your opinion, comment below.


  1. The NY Times, along with several other family owned publications, represents the best hope for an informed electorate. Don’t forget they published the Pentagon Papers, and they continue to devote the time and money to track down real stories about corruption as they did recently with the LIRR retirement scandal. They are publicly owned but they are controlled by a family. Let them do what they have to do to stay profitable. When it’s a family decision on whether to take a risk in the interest of readers we usually end up ahead. You only have to look to Chicago and L.A. to see how purely profit-driven management of newspapers has faired when serious challenges hit them.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here