Follow this blog:
RSS

Milestone: New York Times makes more from readers than ads

By | February 7, 2013, 2:07 PM PST

Last year was a milestone for The New York Times Company. For the first time ever, the company gained more revenue from its circulation than from advertising. In 2012, The Times announced, circulation revenue reached $954 million while advertising revenue was $898 million.

Paid digital subscribers to The Times and the International Herald Tribune (which the company also owns) grew by 13 percent and rose to 640,000 as of the fourth quarter of 2012. The company also saw a profit of $133 million last year compared to a loss of $39.7 million in 2011, with much of the profit, however, coming from the sale of About.com and a portion of Indeed.com.

But it’s not all sunny for the media company. Paywalls and other circulation revenues are helping soften the blow of steep advertising declines, which dropped 8.3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012 compared to 2011. As Bloomberg reports, this news represents a shift in the conventional wisdom in the media business:

It’s a milestone that upends the traditional 80-20 ratio between ads and circulation that publishers once considered a healthy mix and that is now no longer tenable given the industrywide decline in newsprint advertising.

“They clearly are leaning on their readers to support the business now,” Edward Atorino, a media analyst with Benchmark Capital Co. in New York, said in an interview after the report. He rates the company’s shares as hold.

The paywall seems to be working in that it’s growing and helping to weather difficult times in advertising, but how long can that last? As media analyst Ken Doctor tells AFP: “It’s clear how much can be gained through smart introduction of metered paywalls, it’s unclear how much circulation revenue growth can be had in the third year plus.”

Photo: Flickr/wsifrancis

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Tyler Falk

About Tyler Falk

Tyler Falk is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Tyler Falk

Tyler Falk

Contributing Editor

Tyler Falk freelance journalist based in Washington, D.C. Previously, he was with Smart Growth America and Grist. He holds a degree from Goshen College.

Follow him on Twitter.

Tyler Falk

Tyler Falk

Tyler does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what he covers.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
6
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
It's a sorry state of affairs over at the NY Times,
and their business model won't be able to sustain them for the long term.

When they can't make money from advertising, then it might be a sign that, their business is in for very hard times, and might soon either have to close or get sold. The Times is skating on very thin ice.

Subscriber revenue won't ever be enough to keep them going, and resorting to sales of certain business parts in order to create the perception of stability, won't deceive Wall Street and investors.

A long time ago, the media, and especially the NY Times, took a turn towards becoming advocacy media, and that turned off half of their subscribers, including me, who used to want to read the paper, even after I moved from NY to Florida. Good and nonpartisan reporting beats advocacy and partisan reporting every time. True journalism is lacking at the Times.
Posted by adornoe
8th Feb
+2 Votes
+ -
Three thoughts:
1) While I have always respected the NYT, it will be interesting to note any (if/what) editorial effect of being 'beholden' to readers over advertisers.

2) I wonder if readers would be more likely to subscribe to a news-pub that has reduced conflict of interest over potential advertiser concern/influence. Could this shift in predominate source of income cause an increased flow of subscriber income (especially if marketed as such)?

3) Could this foreshadow a shift where 'traditional print' news orgs begin to fill the 'objectivity hole' created in the 1980's when broadcast news departments were required to be advertiser supported.
Posted by ChristineJames
8th Feb
0 Votes
+ -
Only the Beginning of Media and Advertising Divorce
Power shifts of advertisers on media, like that of lobbyists on government, have been slow to come, but the multiplier effect is happening. Saying that subscriber revenue can't support a media company is only seeing one variable change instead of considering the cumulative evolution of social, technical and political boundaries. The tipping point will be when advertisers clammer for permission to be part of a catalog for the pleasure of the subscribers and lobbyists have one vote like the rest of us. Get ready for demand-based capitalism and direct democracy - it's coming. The smart media company will combine the credibility of the New York Times with that of the Pew Trust and become a tool for direct democracy.
Posted by quonexus
8th Feb
0 Votes
+ -
Credibility of the NY Times? Surely your jest!
The NY Times ceased being credible when it became advocacy media, meaning that, they're just one of the tools for the propaganda machine that the democrats have become. The NY Times is to the democrats, what Pravda was to the communist party in the old USSR.

Plus, journalism is about serving its readers or consumers. Advertising is expected to bring in the revenue that keeps the publication running. Journalism is not about serving the advertisers, though the advertisers will flock to the media source that has the most subscribers, of the targeted audience that the advertiser seeks.

Thus, journalism is about serving the public, and the media source's secondary function is to get as much advertising as it can. A publication with a few customers, won't survive for long, because it needs the readership in order to sell advertising space.

Concentrating on advertising ahead of the circulation, is the same as putting the cart in front of the horse.
Posted by adornoe
8th Feb
0 Votes
+ -
Happy to Pay
I am happy to pay for the Times. It is a great newspaper and as long as they keep their quality up...they will have readers like me! In the past, I was not able to get the paper except via the mail...love getting it right on my iPad.
Posted by Mayme
8th Feb
+2 Votes
+ -
Credibility? If you want the same kind of credibility as Pravda had
when the Soviet Union was still around, then go right ahead. But, you'd still be getting lied to, and you wont be receiving the information which might put the news into context. The only context you'll get, is the biased views of the biased journalists at the Times, which essentially, is a division of the democratic party of the U.S.
Posted by adornoe
9th Feb
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!