tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-655045535248817314.post689044891564731755..comments2023-10-22T00:57:35.786-07:00Comments on Saul Hansell's Blog: Saul Hansellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06203808120185349067noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-655045535248817314.post-36347432594395557332009-07-21T09:10:50.372-07:002009-07-21T09:10:50.372-07:00Saul,
Could you let us know what the revenue is f...Saul,<br /><br />Could you let us know what the revenue is for the New York Times for their paper ads in 2008 and 2009, and what their online advertising revenue is?<br /><br />My understanding is that the online revenue is substantially less than the paper edition, and throws into crisis the very notion of being able to survive on advertising.Prokofy Nevahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01182569366619678896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-655045535248817314.post-19431921440641896952008-11-08T01:03:00.000-08:002008-11-08T01:03:00.000-08:00Dear SaulHere I am forced to disagree. The challe...Dear Saul<BR/>Here I am forced to disagree. The challenge presented to newspapers by these new technologies are really life and death, and those who fail to understand that and adapt are going to end up on the latter side.<BR/><BR/>It is true that the only thing that has shifted is the platform for distribution, but that represents close to 75% of the cost of publishing a newspaper. Only 15% on average goes to the editorial side. Papers that engage in incrementalism, or cut their news budgets until they match now truncated revenue are on a quick road to termination. The cost of producing a physical paper will continue to increase and the circulation (and ad rates) will continue to drop. It is a path to nowhere.<BR/><BR/>Imagine this: Where World Book faced with the prospect of buying Google for $1 million in 1990 (as was Yahoo)... but that it meant closing down the book publishing plant... would they have done it?Rosenblumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09612351287625413020noreply@blogger.com