Comments on: How the NYT neglects business journalism A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: FDum Fri, 22 Nov 2013 01:58:54 +0000 Btw, this snapshot analysis also missed the interdependence (over time) between disproportionately popular wire stories and the promoted exclusive content. I think it not debatable that readers like the NYT for its exclusive content. While they’re there, they check out interesting stories that happen to be wire stories. Take away the promotion that draws them to exclusive content and soon enough the so-called high-performing wire stories will also fall…

By: FDum Fri, 22 Nov 2013 01:55:55 +0000 Bspier nailed it. So did StreetCEO. Felix, your argument that NYT should promote wire stories is silly – when every other newspaper has them vs. exclusive content that no one will see if NYT doesn’t promote those instead. And the exception you take to the word “should” isn’t a value judgment on the quality of wire stories, but the relative allocation of spend the NYT is making on stuff it produces vs. stuff everyone else is already displaying on their websites. Good thing you’re not a business journalist… oh wait!

By: StreetCEO Sun, 17 Nov 2013 12:17:21 +0000 If you consider the relative investment in journalism at NYT, they DO over invest in theatre and arts coverage, for example. This is an artifact of the advertising dollars uniquely available to them from that category. BTW, the artistic community is very grateful for the extreme level of coverage NYT provides.

As for for business news, it’s never been clear to me–even prior to the digital explosion–that NYT has anything special to offer there, outside the macro economists in Opinion and Dealbook. To some degree, business news is a commodity. Outside of opinion and investigative, you truly could run the Business section off the AP wire and Bloomberg. Investigative is hard for business beat journalists to do, because they are so dependent on access. Not to mention the pesky advertising issues that can arise from investigative. Dealbook is special, but even Sorkin has had to undergo criticism for being too cozy with sources.

By: Vito12345 Sat, 16 Nov 2013 23:53:04 +0000 Why should they highlight content that is available on lots of other websites?

As a reader, I don’t want to go to the NYT to read Reuters stories that are posted all over the place, already.

Syndicated content has lower value to readers. This is the reason why so many small newspapers are dying; their pages are just reprinting syndicated content that is available elsewhere. Someone buys a paper, flips through it, and is left wondering why he or she should bother paying if all the content is produced and available elsewhere.

By: PatrickS Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:34:10 +0000 Each axis on the pageviews chart is on a log scale, I expect the outliers in the bottom left are merely artifacts of the model. It is also possible that the out-performance you note is due to the zero lower bound for actual pageviews. In any case, their out-performance is smaller in actual terms than it appears to be, due to the log scale.

By: BSpier Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:20:49 +0000 You are missing the strategy of the New York Times.

The goal of NYT is to convince readers to pay for a membership fee to receive all of the great and special content that distinguishes them from lesser competitors. To maintin this image, they must promote articles that are unique and written by NYT writers.

Wire articles are available to everyone and probably can be found for free on some other site. Obviously, NYT needs them because it has to keep full coverage on all the major news stories, and it’s not worth hiring writers to write the basic stories that would be the same as the wire articles.

But, if a reader is constantly finding himself on wire stories, what’s the point of paying the subscription fee, when all of those same articles are easily found on google news.

By: djiddish99 Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:32:50 +0000 Without seeing the Y-axis scale, it’s tough to conclusively determine, but those outliers in the bottom left for wire stories are still below average relative to the average non-tweeted wire story. They’re out performing their prediction from the regression, but still under performing the cohort as a whole (which is the lowest performing cohort).

Again, without seeing the guts of the regression, I’m guessing the out performance of these stories relative to expectations can be attributed to some sort of third party social exposure (since this data may not be available as an input to the regression, although this assumption could easily be incorrect).

If that’s actually true, why would the NYT:

a) Use up a tweet on something that’s likely already circulated its users social feed (assuming that the NYT twitter followers will sour on twitter spam, so tweets are something of a limited resource)
b) attempt to predict which wire stories will be viral