In other words, fire a bunch of people, especially editors, charge more for the product, and wall off your front page.Our Plan To Fix The New York Times
- Cut costs 40% by 2010.
- Continue to raise print subscription prices
- Explore charging an online subscription fee
Felix says this is daft:
Got that? If you don't have the "click data", fear for your job! If you snark about the president, or how to analyze your husband "the way a trainer considers an exotic animal", then you're probably fine. If you're an investigative reporter who spends months at a time uncovering secrets, not so much. And if you're a war correspondent putting your life on the line to cover important conflicts around the world, well, remember to include lots of pictures of kittens to boost that all-important click data.
"Yes," says Blodget, "some sections that some readers love might disappear". But those kind of fluffy, feature-driven sections -- the ones that might be cut -- aren't expensive: by contrast, they're profitable. That's why they exist: they subsidize the important news hole, which is less attractive to advertisers.
Next, Blodget decrees that "management needs to make certain that printing and distributing papers is a highly profitable business". Never mind that printing and distributing papers has never been a highly profitable business for any newspaper: Blodget seems to think that the selling-news-to-readers business model, which has never worked in the past, can somehow manage to supplant the selling-readers-to-advertisers business model on which newspapers have always historically been based.
Perhaps I'm biased, since I got my start in journalism at The Economist, which calls itself a newspaper, and never sells a subscription at a loss. And my current company owns properties like the National Journal, which certainly make a profit selling subscriptions--and how.
The fact is that lots of magazines and newspapers tried that "boost your circ figs by any means necessary" on the print side--and lost a ton of money. USA Today got an impressive circulation boost from distributing its papers practically free to half the budget hotels in the country. But advertisers are not interested in people who carry the paper around under their arm for a while before chucking it. They're interested in actual readers. Preferably readers in a demographic they'd like to sell into.
On the web, of course, you're only paying for actual readers--but the demographic problem not only persists; in some ways it's magnified. In theory, the web allows heretofore undreamt of targeting ability. In practice, privacy concerns and fear of regulation have held it back. The New York Times used to know at least two things about its readers: they lived in New York, and they could afford a daily paper. That made things like local retail advertising a big profit center for them. But no one wants to pay to tell a brand new reader in Bangkok to come on down to 48th and 9th for a terrific deal on cameras.
Quantity, in other words, is not the only thing papers need to make a profit; they also need quality. As Blodget points out:
The glut of web advertising inventory is the central problem. Most business stories about the media lament the fact that advertisers won't pay for web as much as they would for print, but of course the very costs that Felix is talking about made print advertising a (relatively) scarce commodity.
- NYTimes.com currently has a vast glut of inventory, so much so that it is selling ads at a reported $5 CPM. This excess inventory devalues the per-unit prices the company can command.
- Much of this inventory would remain if the company maintained search engine and third-party link access to the site.
- The unit rates on remaining NYTimes.com ad inventory would rise as the inventory became less scarce
- NYTimes.com would be able to charge more for ads served against known, paying subscribers (the company would have some demographic info).
That said, I'm not quite as sanguine as Mr. Blodget that the web can be made to pay just by putting things behind a subscription wall. The Wall Street Journal is different from the New York Times in two important ways. First, there's less competition in business journalism than general political news, in part because journalists would rather cover the government than boring old companies. And second, many--maybe most--of the people who pay for the Wall Street Journal have to read it for work. They are thus fairly price inelastic.
And Felix is right on when he points out that for a long, long time, articles on swinging into spring with patent leather have been subsidizing coverage of less-popular-yet-more-vital topics like foreign policy and the Department of Agriculture. The web is rapidly disaggregating the readers, and hence the subsidy. And that's a big problem for society. One for which so far, no one has proposed any very satisfactory solution.
The real problem with newspapers (and online news sites) is "news" can't be copyrighted. You can copyright a story, but not the underlying facts. So the most expensive sorts of stories to produce are the ones your competitors can reword and print for free. I believe that's why the Times initially tried to charge for things like columnists and crossword puzzles - items you could only find at the Times.
It's no coincidence news organizations have been laying off reporters and closing bureaus in response to tight budgets.
I think charging for the online version is doomed to failure. From what I can see only the WSJ has been able to make that work, and they're kind of a specialty shop. Why would anyone pay to read something on the Times's site when they can get the same information for free at any number of outlets?
The other problem they encountered with Times Select is putting content behind the subscription wall takes you out of the conversation. An article aimed at a wide audience won't link to a story behind the subscription wall, driving traffic instead to your advertising-supported competitors.
Sorry, despite what they call themselves, the Economist and the Atlantic aren't newspapers. They're magazines. There are big, obvious differences between the two which you are bright enough to figure out for yourself.
The other problem they encountered with Times Select is putting content behind the subscription wall takes you out of the conversation.
It had its benefits though: I didn't have to read Tom Friedman or David Brooks.
You know who ought to be the future of journalism? On-liners who take painstaking efforts to research and support their arguments, post updates, admit mistakes, and challenge conventional wisdom. Glenn Greenwald springs to mind.
Back when I lived in Metro NY, I used to read both the WSJ and the NYT. But as the NYT changed over the years, to the point where there was not much difference between the opinions on the editorial page and the "news" articles on the front page (this was in the '80's, while Reagan and then Bush 41 were presidents), I could not count on the Times for factual reporting anymore.
Despite the fact that Metro NY has a liberal majority, there are millions of potential readers who are not blindly liberal--and the NYT has done its best to alienate them.
And that's a big problem for society. One for which so far, no one has proposed any very satisfactory solution.
I'm not convinced it is a big problem for society. There are people and organizations interested in supporting the publication even of information about the Dept of Agriculture. Yes, they have biases and vested interests--but it is now beyond obvious that the Times does as well. And my sense is that a handful of independent, reader-sponsored journalists have done a better job of Iraq war reporting than the Times (and, obviously, on a much smaller budget).
Also one of the things that has become obvious with the rise of blogs is what portion of the news the Times intentionally leaves out and tries to suppress for as long as it can (which, presumably it has always done -- it's just that most of us had no way to know this before).
If, by reading blogs, I already know about important news well before the Times publishes it (and can even make reasonable guesses about how soon the Times will feel it can no longer hold off and have to publish), then of what value is the Times news reporting to me? As for the lifestyle reporting -- good riddance, and the opinion writing -- there are plenty of bloggers at least as interesting as Times columnists (who, if the Times goes belly up, will probably end up blogging anyway).
Opinionification = magazinification = commoditization.
A commodified product won't command premium pricing or pay the rent in Manhattan, unless you can convince people that opinions that otherwise are the cheapest commodity of all are actually incredibly cool, premium-priceable, status marker goods, which is what the Times seems to be trying to do. But I doubt people are really that interested in a daily New Yorker; there are very good reasons why magazines are weekly or monthly, not daily. I talk about this in an article posted over at my blog, The Information Economics of the Leisure Class.
http://kennethandersonlawofwar.blogspot.com/2009/01/nyt-and-information-theory-of-leisure_07.html
So doesn't all this suggest that the future of journalism is in weekly magazines instead of daily newspapers? It seems as though magazines can still make a profit, and many of them seem to spend significant effort on in-depth reporting.
Would that be so bad? A few years ago I gave up on daily newspapers. There's just too much noise day to day for me to sift through a newspaper. But every week I make sure to carve out time to read my Economist, and I find my life is much better for it.
Viewspapers are suffering financially, among other reasons, because they have abandoned news in favor of opinion and polemic. The NYT has attempted to transcend viewspaper status by selecting and promoting itself as the policy shop for the Democratic Party. However, I fear some in the party are tiring of being scolded by the "Old Gray Hag" when they don't follow her policy dictates.
The WSJ is an interesting case, in that its editorial policy has remained conservative, while its news pages have become more and more viewspages with an increasingly liberal slant. One wonders how long this schizophrenia can persist.
And second, many--maybe most--of the people who pay for the Wall Street Journal have to read it for work.
Thirdly, it is the only right-of-center daily paper available to most conservatives, as the Times, USA Today, and most local papers lean left. Lack of competition means they can charge more.
And that's a big problem for society. One for which so far, no one has proposed any very satisfactory solution.
It is a big problem that most of the country doesn't care about hard news coverage, but that has always been a problem. On the other hand, it is most definitely NOT a problem that I no longer have to (a) rely on a handful of gatekeepers for news and (b) wade through a mountain of advertiser-friendly fluff to get to it.
ed,
I'm confused. Are you joking or are you Glenn Greenwald?
I'm calling it now - ed is ANOTHER Glenn Greenwald sock-pupppet. See: Thomas Ellers, Ellison, Ryan, Wilson, Rick Ellensburg
Glenn, can you please stop spamming these comments with simple self-aggrandizing spam.
Now I'm confused. What, specifically, did Mr. Greenwald get wrong? Mr. Greenwald called out Ms. McArdle today with a blistering post about her stunning ignorance regarding Obama's suspension of military commissions at Guantanamo (as though you hadn't seen it). I'm wondering if Ms. McArdle has any response. So far, to borrow a tiresome cliche Ms. McArdle wouldn't hesitate to employ, the silence is deafening. Good day.
glenn,
please use your real name, not "ed".
So doesn't all this suggest that the future of journalism is in weekly magazines instead of daily newspapers?
I've often thought one possible tactic for newspapers -- especially ones with brand cache and lots of upscale readers like the NY Times -- might be to morph their daily output of dead trees into a single, glossy, weekly magazine. Perhaps the drop in printing and distribution costs would more than make up for much of the loss of subscription revenue. News is a commodity, of course, so understandably people aren't willing to pay much for it. But there may still be something of a luxury goods appeal to actually having a tangible, well-made and nicely designed print product you can curl on the sofa with on a drizzly Sunday afternoon in February. In other words, the NY Times business model could eventually be a prestigiously branded website + an upmarket, luxury goods news magazine + direct marketing to subscribers of said news magazine + ancillary services (archives, photos, research, special supplements, etc.). You then could either outsource or drastically downscale your printing presses and related costs. In some ways this would mean joining rather than (futilely) fighting a trend: that of dropping subscription. What I mean is, obviously far fewer people read a daily dead-tree newspaper than twenty years ago. But I'm pretty sure the decline disproportionately correlates with lower socioeconomic status. An $800K/year lawyer, in other words, is more likely to be a newsprint holdout than his $70K/year brother the carpenter. So, I suspect that, although the Times would see far fewer subscribers for a (probably somewhat pricey) weekly news magazine than it does currently even for its dead trees product, the subscriber demographics would be incredible.
I'm not sure which is funnier: the idea that ed's a sock puppet, or the idea that he isn't.
I'm a corporate jet pilot by trade. One of my tasks is to make sure papers are in the back, generally we put on the local paper, the WSJ, and the New York Times. The passengers never read the local paper; sometimes they read the WSJ; but they always read the NYT. So if you have a paper studiously read by corporate jet passengers, that should be worth something.
Still, the NYT is more biased than your typical left wing fish wrapper, and that's worse because of the hallowed position they hold. I used to read in online sometimes but I don't even bother with that anymore. Turning off 40% of your potential readers can't help business.
I might even forgive the sockpuppetry -- though I'm not inclined to. But the real reason I don't read Greenwald is his combination of hyperbole, self-aggrandizement, hyper-verbosity, and pompousness. Come to think of it, he really is the Left's online answer to Rush Limbaugh. (Who, incidentally -- like Greenwald -- is quite smart and often says perfectly reasonable things in such a repellent way as to drive off many potential listeners. I won't listen to him, and I won't read Greenwald.)
Jasper:
1) So your recommendation is that The New York Times become The New Yorker, minus the cartoons?
2) Carpenters make $70K, even in New York? Who knew?
In my day job as a trade (B2B) magazine editor, I've learned that once you give something away free, it's IMPOSSIBLE to get people to start paying for it. I think that's why TimesSelect failed, and I think it's the major stumbling block behind Mr. Blodget's proposal.
For that same reason, I think that's a big part of the WSJ's (relative) success with its online presence; it never gave away the whole shebang to readers, and so it must have been able to tell advertisers, "Look, a lot of these readers are registered subscribers, so you're reaching a targeted audience by advertising with us," in addition to the basic fact that WSJ readers are that business demographic that you mentioned, Ms. McArdle.
Megan, how did you get your job at the Economist? I'm not trying to be snide. Just curious about the process.
It's been years since I saw an NYT but today I saw Saturday's. It hasn't changed, has it? Dull, duller, dullest. Dull beyond the call of duty. Dull enough to represent Earth vs Mars in a boring-your-pants off competition.
I read the New York Times and neither international nor national news reporting is accurate or reliable. The news section is a vast wasteland of unproveable speculation. The National Enquirer is more accurate and more responsible. The grey lady has died and become a rotting corpse that ought to be cremated.
Let the money making sections be saved. They are the only parts that are honest.
Carpenters make $70K, even in New York? Who knew?
I find that entirely believable, given what I've had to pay for work on my house.
Sure, the boards are being hammered by illegal immigrants making low wages -- but actual carpenter telling them what to do and how to do it? That guy's making some decent cash.
So your recommendation is that The New York Times become The New Yorker, minus the cartoons?
Er, no. The content of the New York Times is hardly identical to that of the New Yorker. My point though, is that newspapers are slowly but surely becoming largely web-only products. I think Salmon cites a figure of $130 million or so (quoting from memory) for NY Times.com's revenue. So, if they can somehow get out from under their debt, there's obviously a core business that can pay for a lot of writers and editors. I'm simply making the case that they may not want to completely abandon print, since the continuing existence and (to some extent, at least) profitability of magazines demonstrates (to my eyes at least) that print as a medium isn't likely to vanish entirely. And yet the economics of printing 700,000 pieces of dead tree each and every day appear unsustainable in the long run. So, my point is, don't do so 365 days a year. Do so 52 times a year. And charge five bucks a week for it. And sure, at those prices there won't be so many takers. But it will be one bad-ass subscriber list in terms of money and advertiser desirability.
Carpenters make $70K, even in New York? Who knew?
Is that supposed to be some huge, unbelievably lavish salary or something? In much of the country you (still, even given the downturn) can't buy even a small house or condo on such an income. Anyway, sure, I suspect a decent number of self-employed contractors make that much or more. But change it to "$40K" if you like.
What the NYT should do to pick up readership is to really look into that whole Trigg question, and perhaps print pictures looking out from peoples' windows on the front page.
Alternate suggestion: just get Carlos Slim to keep giving them money in order to underwrite their coverage.
Alternate suggestion: just tell the frigging truth for once.
I think you might be experiencing a bias because of your job. I don't think that this is a problem for society, its a problem for people who make their money in journalism. There is a market for hard news and I imagine someone will fill that void. I also imagine he won't do it for my benefit.....
I might even forgive the sockpuppetry -- though I'm not inclined to.
Love that you wingers think pretend is a Mary Rosh Situation to avoid addressing the major smackdown Mr. Greenwald put to Ms. McArdle and Mr. Reynolds. Truly devastating.
But the real reason I don't read Greenwald is his combination of hyperbole, self-aggrandizement, hyper-verbosity, and pompousness.
Worst examples of these, please? Thanks in advance. And "hyper-verbosity." Good one. Sorry you have to do a little reading. What are you, George Bush, Junior slow?
Jasper:
Not that the two publications are identical, but they do have a lot of overlap -- and following your suggestions would push the Times further in that direction. That might in fact be desirable from a $ standpoint; does anyone know whether The New Yorker is now profitable?
On the carpenter thing, I was expressing surprise, not skepticism. If a carpenter can make $70K, or a lot more, more power to her.
ed:
I don't care enough about Greenwald to do research for you. I don't think I meet anyone's definition of a "winger" but I'm not pretending it's a Mary Rosh situation -- it damn well is one. But hey, if you want to imagine I'm dumb and radicalized, go right ahead.
Not that the two publications are identical, but they do have a lot of overlap -- and following your suggestions would push the Times further in that direction.
Lorenzo: since when is poaching some of a competitor's market an implausible business strategy? Anyway, I suspect going "further in that direction" might be a feasible strategy for the Times to both better hold on to some of its subscription base (by offering something a tad different from what they can get online for free) and, ultimately, wringing more profits from the same.
I'm not pretending it's a Mary Rosh situation --it damn well is one
Nice try winger. As with tying 9-11 to Saddam Hussein, you got no evidence. Making unsupportable accusations is a distinguishing characteristic of the dumb and radicalized. Not letting abject ignorance interfere with opining is another. If the shoe fits...
The New York Times as a paper is finished. It offers nothing, and I mean nothing, that can't be found for free online.
The same is happening to weekly news magazines- I recently picked up a Newsweek for the first time in about 5 years and was astonished at how the damned thing had shrunk down to nothing. I will never buy another. I think The Economist can survive. It isn't easy to find a one-stop source of in depth news and analysis for the entire world, but The Economist offers this, and I still buy it fairly regularly.
Jasper: I didn't say it was implausible, though I do find it amusing that such a change makes as much sense as anything for the Gray Lady.
"ed": Whatevs.
"And Felix is right on when he points out that for a long, long time, articles on swinging into spring with patent leather have been subsidizing coverage of less-popular-yet-more-vital topics like foreign policy and the Department of Agriculture. The web is rapidly disaggregating the readers, and hence the subsidy. And that's a big problem for society. One for which so far, no one has proposed any very satisfactory solution."
That's funny. I can go on-line and find excellent reporting about these issues on blogs, often by people with more qualifications than journalists have. Plus, I can find it done in the whole gamut of ideological perspectives instead of just left-leaning.
Somebody trying to communicate ideas could say everything Greenwald says in a third of the words. But Greenwald's interminable blather isn't there to communicate ideas, it's to serve as group affirmation for people who already agree with him.
And, Lorenzo's right; you can substitute "Limbaugh" for "Greenwald" and have an equally-true statement.
Blodget was right about cutting costs and foreign bureaus. The NYT still clings to the "embassy" model of foreign correspondence, whereby it pays top reporters six figures to transfer between its various bureaus every three to six years (say). Once there, the correspondents spend six months in language training, and then go to work with the air of two to three "research assistants" each - actually, local journalists hired off by the NYT to aid their correspondents. Five star hotels, first class expatriate housing, a car and driver - this is all part of the package. And, in the end, said correspondent might file two or three stories per month. Classic example is the NYT's Shanghai, Beijing, and HK bureaus, which generate next to nothing that hasn't already been reported in the Hong Kong papers, or in the China blogs. The NYT could get more news out of Asia, for half the price, by localizing the news gathering.
And, Lorenzo's right; you can substitute "Limbaugh" for "Greenwald" and have an equally-true statement.
Really? Huh. Could please you note Mr. Greenwald's racist tireades? How about Mr. Limbaugh's extended constitutional law and first amendment screeds (where did Mr. Limbaugh get his law degree)? Maybe we could do a side-by-side of examples of the two intellects just to prove your insightful point.
You seem pretty firm in your convictions. Could you cite a single thing Mr. Greenwald got wrong today, in any of his posts? Or are you another winger fraud?
"ed",
I have no intention of getting sidetracked by an obvious troll. Nonetheless, regarding why I will not further engage you, please review my original comment about Mr. Greenwald's "hyperbole, self-aggrandizement, hyper-verbosity, and pompousness". You insisted on links documenting these.
You fool, these are matters of taste. De gustibus non disputandem, and all that. You want proof that he fails to satisfy my tastes? Fine. I say so. There's your proof.
Should I ever be somehow dragooned into writing a serious critique -- publication-worthy -- of Mr. Greenwald's driveling, I will of course cite chapter and verse. But for a blog comment, not even a post? Puh-leeze.
Incidentally, not-ed is not my sock-puppet, something I'm sure Ms. McArdle could verify should it ever actually matter. And finally, what the hell is a "winger"? I see it lobbed about from time to time, but I can never keep track of what distinguishes it from a "moon-bat". No doubt another "distinguishing characteristic of the dumb and radicalized", as opposed to your profound insight, my good sir. Adieu.
"That's funny. I can go on-line and find excellent reporting about these issues on blogs, often by people with more qualifications than journalists have."
Um, that's Megan's point. The NT Times economic model is breaking down. They used to aggregate readers by offering a wide range of content, the more profitable of which would subsidize the unprofitable but important stuff.
But now you can find a site dedicated to any topic imaginable, so the web has disaggregated those readers, thus undermining their business model.
"In depth" articles, combined once a week in magazine format, is where the value to readers is at. The type of news found in press releases and syndicated news wires is fine for bringing ad revenue to places like Yahoo News, but is too "free" to build an entire business on.
these are matters of taste. De gustibus non disputandem, and all that.
No [fooling], Sherlock.
You want proof that he fails to satisfy my tastes?
If Mr. Greenwald's offending "hyperbole, self-aggrandizement, hyper-verbosity, and pompousness" are really that pervasive, you could easily find a single example to buttress your argument (you could pretend it's a 5th grade book report!). Otherwise you're just another gasbag a la Jonah Goldberg or Instapundit (or someone else...): letting abject ignorance get in the way of opining. And I'm not asking for a doctoral thesis, you could probably cover it in 74 words.*
And finally, what the hell is a "winger"?
Here are some examples for you. Another example would be a weak-minded faux libertarian (i.e., Republican) who equates modern day Father Coughlins to libertarian constitutional scholars.
*get it?
Our Plan To Fix The New York Times
By: The NYT.
First we'll get $350M from a Mexican monopolist. Then we'll have fiesta!
You know who ought to be the future of journalism? On-liners who take painstaking efforts to research and support their arguments, post updates, admit mistakes, and challenge conventional wisdom. Glenn Greenwald springs to mind.
Heh. Sarcasm at it's best. I salute you, sir.
I am not self-aggrandizing and deceiftul!
I love that you think that what the New York Times does is Journalism. I think of it a 'boosterism' for liberals and their ideas.
Among the world's news magazines that do reporting and analysis of current affairs, the position is the Economist 1st., the rest nowhere. It was like that 40 years ago, and the Economist has increased its lead since then.
The NYT cannot claim or build that sort of world-wide quasi-monopoly. It has formidable surviving competition in the English-speaking market. There are a lot of defensive moves it still might make (e.g, the NYT, the London Times and the Times of India as all local editions of the Times sharing a pile of editorial costs). It has the other traditional option of becoming somebody's vanity publishing toy (could be on that route with Slim).
Or the NYT can take a big risk and change its business model to delivering a guaranteed high quality readership to the advertisers on the internet. The route to that is expensive. You do not sell access to material, but you do make access contingent on filling in an extensive questionnaire - probably repeated once a year to up-date - on the net; and you spend on demonstrating the quality of the informantion you get from those questionnaires. (Slim could provide the working capital for that experiment.) The economics of the model are that what readers pay a paper for copies mostly covers printing and distribution costs: advertising pays the rest and provides the profits. The spend on proving the qualities that your readership offers to advertisers is covered by higher advertising rates. Of course you pick up a lot of Google type advertising too.
The problem isn't that there's no market for the journalism, it's that there a rapidly shrinking market for the newspaper delivery format. Short form just the facts reporting is adequately covered by wire services, which will continue to be purchased by online news aggregators. Long form reporting can be sold profitably via subscription in magazines and can be licensed to news aggregators. There generally isn't enough local news alone to justify a daily publication, but local weeklies can provide focused local coverage of events not important enough to be picked up by the wire services.
The traditional daily newspaper relies on the fact that it was more profitable to bundle these different products together to simply delivery, but as delivery technology changes, this is no longer the case. This is likely to be fatal to the newspaper organizations themselves in the long run, since they'd have to majorily reorganize their businesses with no guarantee that the exact model they chose will work, but it's impact on journalism overall will be relatively minor.
Why all this griping about revenues and so forth? People read the NYT because they like it, and we would all be worse off if it were to decline in quality, but unfortunately a lot of the folks who read the NYT don't make a great deal of money (one thinks of graduate students).
So what would be the problem in charging relative to one's ability to pay? I bet folks like John Thain would be willing to spend about $100 an issue, I bet--and maybe $500 on Sundays, even! This is obviously a facetious suggestion, but some of the serious ones that have been floated strike me as pretty counterproductive. Hiding or watering down the problem as always threatened won't do a hell of a lot of good, long term.
A few problems with Blodget. 1) He says printing and distributing papers has never been a highly profitable business for any newspaper -- that's completely false. Newspapers were used to 28% margins, and now they're trying to get used to 2%, more like retail but first they have to stop spending like they're still making 28%. 2) "Blodget seems to think that the selling-news-to-readers business model, which has never worked in the past, can somehow manage to supplant the selling-readers-to-advertisers business model on which newspapers have always historically been based." That really only started in the 1980 when the Associated Press went to a circulation-based model and faced huge resistance. Since newspapers have been around since before the Revolutionary War in America, 20 years doesn't seem like always.
I'm not sure why so many here seem so eager to see the NYT disappear. Love that this is out on the same day Megan (hi Megan) is mentioned as a candidate to replace Bill Kristol as a Times columnist from the right: http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0109/Who_should_replace_Bill_Kristol_.html.
The inability of the walled-garden model to successfully monetize commodity content online has been widely documented. But for unique content (think movies or SaaS or trade journals), there's gold in them thar subscriptions -- at least for the aggregators. Whether or not the Times can get there remains to be seen. I for one would love to see them make a run at it.