Printing the New York Times costs twice as much as it would for the paper to send every subscriber a free Amazon Kindle. Despite that, the New York Times still prints away because it makes most of its profits from the physical paper because it can tell advertisers people read page C8 without having to show proof.

Of course, my anecdotal experience suggests that print ads are worth more than online ads, but that’s just me guessing. Then again, SAI is guessing, too.

Let’s also not forget that according to those who have the numbers, many newspapers still have an operating profit, it’s just that most are too laden with debt to stay afloat.

All that said, a newspaper bailout is a stupid idea. If the business itself is a profitable venture, then new organizations will take the place of the old ones. Speaking as someone living in Seattle, I’ve got plenty of reliable news sources despite the loss of the physical Post-Intelligencer.

Thanks to @BenLaMothe for the link.


1 Steve Roth 05.12.09 at 3:02 pm

>print ads are worth more than online ads

I have no idea what that means, or even what it could possibly mean.

2 Jason Preston 05.13.09 at 9:19 am

My theory being simply: people notice print ads more than online ads, and therefore print ads do more for your branding (because more people notice/read them), and are therefore worth more money to you as an advertiser than an online ad which is ignored.

3 Steve Roth 05.13.09 at 9:24 am

Just saying it’s all about size, location, # of impressions etc. vis-a-vis cost and goals.

Comments on this entry are closed.