How the New Yorker monetizes old content

By Felix Salmon
October 10, 2011

I love the way that The New Yorker is using the iPad to construct a whole new revenue stream from its back issues.

It started* with “At the Ballpark”, an iPad-only collection of New Yorker baseball writing from 1929 to 2011, featuring the likes of John Updike, David Grann, and of course Roger Angell. That was sponsored by United Airlines.

The baseball collection was followed by a golf collection (Ogden Nash, Larry David, United Airlines again), and now by a “sustainability” collection sponsored by BMW and featuring the likes of John McPhee and Michel Specter.

Nearly all of these pieces are timeless, just waiting to be rediscovered. And the New Yorker’s archives are so deep, and are of such high quality, that there’s really no limit to how many of these things it can produce. Each one is very cheap to put out — just cobble together a bunch of articles under a theme, and get a TNY writer to pen a short introduction. Meanwhile, the advertisers get to align themselves with popular or trendy subjects (golf, “sustainability”), and reach an audience which is affluent even by New Yorker standards.

I’m in the process right now of helping to put together a printed anthology of business writing, from many different sources; such compilations can be very good, but they’re also a lot of work to put together, in terms of securing permissions and going through the laborious process of collating, printing, and distributing physical books. The New Yorker’s special iPad editions piggyback on the existing New Yorker iPad app, and are therefore very lightweight, with a marginal cost which is tiny in comparison to TNY’s printed compliations. What’s more, instead of persuading thousands of individual book buyers to shell out cash for books, the sales job on the iPad editions is much easier: you just need to persuade a single corporation to buy a single sponsorship.

TNY has experimented with selling digital compilations, too — its 9/11 e-book is $7.99. And the more different models and revenue streams, the better. But the small sponsored collections are for me the most exciting, from a business-model perspective. It’s hard to sell old content — but it’s much easier to repackage it and get a sponsor to pay you to do so.

*Update: The first of these, it turns out, wasn’t the baseball one, it was “The Digital Revolution“, sponsored by American Express. It came out on June 6.

Comments
4 comments so far

I’m less enthusiastic, of course (as with VF, they want to make it clear to their non-Apple customers that we are second-class citizens), but note that this is another case of getting people to pay for something they can access for free, TNY’s archives being free to subscribers.

Posted by klhoughton | Report as abusive

The revenue stream that Felix is referring to is ad dollars. The compilations are free to TNY subscribers.

Posted by Jaytu | Report as abusive

As usual Felix is all over a breaking trend. Old content… even decades old content is massively valuable in the “long-tail” environment. My wife loves watching Family Ties. My 18 month old son loves watching the same PBS kids shows I watched growing up.

NFLX picked up thousands of hours of content like this for dirt cheap prices. Content owners like DIS, CBS, SONY and others are licking their chops at another cut of revenue from assets which have been long since paid for amortized or depreciated down to zero.

Posted by y2kurtus | Report as abusive

God, but your signin system sucks! And the New Yorker is really doing a lousy job with these digital collections: I spent ten minutes trying to find someplace on the web to buy them, to no avail.

Posted by MaysonLancaster | Report as abusive
Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/