The New York Times needs to rethink its strategy — untargeted mini paywalls aren’t the answer

11 Comments

The New York Times announced on Wednesday morning that the paper is cutting 100 newsroom jobs — about 7.5 percent of the current editorial headcount — and is also killing its NYT Opinion app, just six months after it launched. On top of that, the uptake for the paper’s NYT Now app appears to be underwhelming. The two apps were supposed to help fill the gap created by the slowing growth of the paper’s overall paywall, which has started to flatten out.

The fact that NYT Opinion and NYT Now are not setting the world on fire with their rapid growth rates isn’t a big surprise: when the newspaper first announced this strategy, I was skeptical of how well those apps would be received, because they seemed expensive relative to what they were offering — a warmed-over collection of NYT opinions and a round-up of daily headlines.

It’s not so much that this type of content isn’t worth something, it’s the method by which the NYT tried to generate that value, exacerbated by the price points that it chose. Is a collection of Times opinion columns worth $6 a month as a standalone app? Apparently not — or at least, not to enough people.

From my point of view, there are two related problems with the NYT’s strategy: one is that it is trying to slice its existing content into smaller and smaller pieces, and that runs headlong into the law of diminishing returns, since each piece will generate less and less value because it appeals to fewer people. The second is that it is relying on tiny paywalls — and largely untargeted ones at that — to take up the slack created by the slowdown in its big, one-size-fits-all paywall.

Monetize relationships, not content

To me, the metered subscription plan only made sense as a kind of sandbag defense against a vanishing print readership — and even then it was arguably a small part of what should have been a much larger digital strategy. But the NYT doesn’t seem to have much of a broader digital strategy, apart from coming up with tiny app-related paywalls.

If you look at media entities that have successfully made a transition to digital, such as Atlantic Media, what do you see? They have made big bets on events, on native advertising and in some cases on targeted subscription products.

The New York Times has so far poured all of its energies into the last of those three things, and most of it has gone towards a completely un-targeted subscription product: namely, a paywall around everything. NYT Opinion was an attempt to get more targeted, but it appears to have mis-fired — in part because the internet already has an excess of opinion, and the vast majority of it comes free of charge.

According to a recent report, the paper’s native advertising efforts are actually starting to pay off, but they are still small. And while it does do events, it hasn’t really ramped up that part of its business beyond a DealBook-related conference or a one-off marketing event here or there.

As I’ve described before, I think one way the Times could generate some additional income — and social buzz — around its content is to make better use of the individual brands it has, like Nick Kristof or CJ Chivers or everybody’s favorite punching bag, Tom Friedman. Don’t lump them all into one undifferentiated app; find ways to connect them with their community of readers and then monetize that relationship in as many ways as possible — events, apps, native ads or whatever.

And that, in the end, is why I think it’s so important that New York Times writers and editors spend more time on social platforms like Twitter: they need to connect with existing readers and also find new ones.

11 Comments

Ed Keating

Thoughtful article that touches on the strategic choices the times has made. I thought the comparison to The Atlantic was useful as they have found other monetization paths. The Economist has also diversified its “newspaper”.

Kate McLeod

make better use of the individual brands it has, like Nick Kristof or CJ Chivers or everybody’s favorite punching bag, Tom Friedman.

Now, that’s a smart idea. Good thought.

mikesilv

The day I pay to read David Brooks, Thomas Friedman, or Maureen Dowd is the day I find a bridge and jump.

Peacock Waters

Simple: Tax payers fund the Times—except govt./tax payers have no creative control. Complete editorial independence. Journalists will be free to print what they want, which is what the public wants to read. If publishers were accountable to people, the editorial would be far better. Shareholders are likely to prop up bad investments. People are not. No need for paywalls or subscriptions. A federal funded, freedom of press prints stellar content or goes out of business.

Yabba Dabba Do

It’s all well and good to say that it isn’t working, but it’s not a solution to tell the NYT to “find ways to connect them… and then monetize…” You need to offer more detail and a concrete plan. You can’t just say, “Make more money.”

Dan Mitchell, contributor

Observations like this are of course correct, but in my experience fruitless. We’re dealing with a platitude-wielding sloganeer here. But I did enjoy the “law of diminishing returns” bit. I’m not precisely sure what he thinks that means, or how it applies to whatever point he’s making but that’s why I enjoyed it.

Stuart Falk

Compare this to the LA Times: “..Despite those cuts, the newsroom staff has grown to about 1,330, approaching its largest size ever, according to the company, up from about 1,250 at the end of last year..”

jjj

Oh come on , paywalls is how morons that shouldn’t be on the internet do things and that’s not even debatable.
Any kind of paywall NYT has is poison to it’s brand and opportunity for it’s competition. Unless they want to be niche but that would be insane for such a brand.
If they weren’t scared and cowards they would stop trying to just paywall the brand into oblivion.
As for what they offer, the focus should be on making a good product not on how to extort a few more $.
There isn’t even a point in talking how they could do better, it’s hard to do worse.

Alphaville

I’m sorry but your post is content-free and typical of the selfishness I see on the web. If they devote themselves to making a good product — something that they arguably do as well as, if not better than EVERYONE– then where will the money come from?

Oh wait. You’ll just keep sucking down that open source koolaid and claiming that it’s not even debatable. Good content costs money.

Ian Wright

It would help, of course, if the Grey Lady had anything worth reading. One does balk at paying political operatives with bylines to hear their opinions.

Comments are closed.