Doubt charging for NYT will work. FT and WSJ can get away with it because their financial reporting is actually worth paying for by biz people.
I think what is really interesting to observe from all of this is the fact that leaving families in charge of companies can lead to innovation stagnation.
WaPo got lucky in that Buffett came aboard decades ago and steered the company towards good capital allocation. Those kinds of lessons served them well and they managed to purchase businesses to support their journalism operations (Kaplan).
But the Sulzberger family (NYT) pretty much stuck with journalism. The Bancroft family (WSJ) lucked out in that their product is good enough to pay for, but early on they had the option of moving into providing financial data services (think Bloomberg) and decided against it. They would have been an absolute beast of a company today if they went that route.
Both NYT and WSJ has a product good enough to pay for, but WSJ subscribers are a lot more likely to have their subscription paid by their employer.
Same goes with the Economist, who's doing great at a time where Newsweek and Time face serious problems. IMHO we're entering the age of expense account publications, which will mean quality journalism will have much more limited worldview and target audience.
Ask yourself why the employer is willing to pay for the WSJ though. That's the thing. There are only two financial newspapers and most employers, especially in business, will be willing to pay for that because they see an informational benefit in it. Same goes for The Economist, which is known for stellar reporting in their Business/Finance section.
To contrast, the NYT does not offer the same kinds of benefits. Their reporting on global issues faces stiff competition not only from the WSJ, FT, and The Economist, but also TV/Radio journalism and other newspapers.
Comments
Doubt charging for NYT will work. FT and WSJ can get away with it because their financial reporting is actually worth paying for by biz people.
I think what is really interesting to observe from all of this is the fact that leaving families in charge of companies can lead to innovation stagnation.
WaPo got lucky in that Buffett came aboard decades ago and steered the company towards good capital allocation. Those kinds of lessons served them well and they managed to purchase businesses to support their journalism operations (Kaplan).
But the Sulzberger family (NYT) pretty much stuck with journalism. The Bancroft family (WSJ) lucked out in that their product is good enough to pay for, but early on they had the option of moving into providing financial data services (think Bloomberg) and decided against it. They would have been an absolute beast of a company today if they went that route.
Both NYT and WSJ has a product good enough to pay for, but WSJ subscribers are a lot more likely to have their subscription paid by their employer.
Same goes with the Economist, who's doing great at a time where Newsweek and Time face serious problems. IMHO we're entering the age of expense account publications, which will mean quality journalism will have much more limited worldview and target audience.
Ask yourself why the employer is willing to pay for the WSJ though. That's the thing. There are only two financial newspapers and most employers, especially in business, will be willing to pay for that because they see an informational benefit in it. Same goes for The Economist, which is known for stellar reporting in their Business/Finance section.
To contrast, the NYT does not offer the same kinds of benefits. Their reporting on global issues faces stiff competition not only from the WSJ, FT, and The Economist, but also TV/Radio journalism and other newspapers.
I agree that WSJ, Economist, FT etc are excellent. But they all see the world through a certain angle (a business executive's, to generalize).
Personally I often agree with that angle, but I think it wouldn't be ideal to have high quality journalism written only from that specific view point.