Thread by @sajithpai

Thread.

On the NYT controversy over Sen. Cotton's piece, the NYT's changing business model, and what it tells us about the news business.
1/19

It is fascinating to sit 12,600 kms away from the US and read all of the angst over the NYT's opinion ('editorial') section, featuring Senator Tom Cotton's piece on dealing harshly with looters and rioters by calling in the Army.
2/ 19
nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opi…

What I want is not to talk abt the politics of the piece, or anything around that. I am too far removed from it. What interests me is to interpret the ferocity of the reaction in light of the underlying business transformation of the NYT.
3/19

To me, the vilification of the piece indicates how much the power has shifted to subscription vs ads. In 2019, NYT earned revenues of $~1.8b of which abt $~1b came fm subs (60%). Compare it to 2010 when only 44% came from subs, or 2000 when it was 25%, all of these print.
4/19

So how does the greater contribution of subs revenue lead to such a virulent reaction when the opinion section publishes a piece by Senator Tom Cotton?
5/19

The NYT has historically had a left liberal audience. In 2000 & even 2010 much of its subs rev was print, and print readers 'tolerated' diverse perspectives because they had grown with seeing these in the opinion section.
Also there was no twitter to complain.
6/19

In the last decade, NYT has seen tremendous digital subs growth. Digital subs are ~40% of subs. There are 4m digital subs. Thanks to Trump Bump and the dynamics of the US media market, it has aggregated a huge left liberal young millennial audience who form a significant chunk.
7

It is also important to note that almost all of U.S. media is now polarized - Fox etc on the right, and NYT, WaPo etc on the left. This is not accidental.
8/19

For a long time, the actual costs of the media product was subsidized by advertisers. But as they moved away, what we see is actual readers paying for content. And when they do, they want to see the content they like.
9/19

Or they vote with their wallet. Or shout on twitter. That is actually what you are seeing now - with these tweets about cancellation of the NYT subs.
10/19

The NYT opinion page bears the brunt of this

Remember the Bret Stephens controversy? When the paper's readers erupted over climate change sceptic and conservative columnist Bret Stephens appointment to the section?
11/19
thenation.com/article/archiv…

Why in fact do we have an opinion section at all? This is actually interesting.

The opinion column & the church-state divide both actually emerged when the ad-led model became the dominant business model in the US in 19th cent.
12/19

The ad-led model demanded that the paper appeal to as many number of readers as possible. And that meant that partisan politics and slant had to be reduced or removed.
13/19

What happened is that Horace Greeley, Editor NYT Tribune pioneered the concept of separating opinion from news pages and giving it a segregated space. This innovation then spread to other papers. That is how the opinion section evolved.
14/19
digitalresource.center/content/short-…

The opinion / editorial section and the church-state divide are tied closely to the need to cater to as wide an audience as possible so as to rake in the ad shekels.
15/19

But now that model has broken and what you have is the reader-led model. The reader has strong views for what she wants to see. And she isnt afraid of making it known.
16/19

In that light the editorial / opinion section is anachronistic. It reflects the previous dominant business model when advtg reigned supreme.
17/19

There is a fascinating article by @jandrewpotter published last year which illustrates this well
18/19
buzzfeednews.com/article/apotte…

Today's readers cant understand why it is that when they pay the NYT to read left liberal news why the paper would publish something conservative. They don't see it as diversity; they see it as a desecration of their subs dollars!

End.
19/19