More than a year and a half later, it’s clear the New York Times’ paywall is not only valuable, it’s helped turn the paper’s subscription dollars, which once might have been considered the equivalent of a generous tithing, into a significant revenue-generating business. As of this year, the company is expected to make more money from subscriptions than from advertising — the first time that’s happened.Bloomberg’s Edmund Lee • Discussing the success of the New York Times paywall, which has done something very surprising — it’s allowed the New York Times to make more than half of its overall revenue from subscriptions, rather than the traditional 80 percent advertising/20 percent subscriptions balance that has traditionally defined newspapers. That’s good for a number of reasons, with the biggest being that the New York Times is no longer as overly reliant on ad dollars to sell its news. That’s an awesome spot for the Times to be, but the real question: Does that mean anything for papers that aren’t the Times, which may be a tougher sell than a paper of record?
It’s a little early to know exactly what we can learn from social media metrics. I think the way we’ll be looking at this stuff will be very different in four years, in eight years, in twelve years. For right now, we’re kind of in an awkward adolescent age … we’re out of the classical innocent era of our youth where you could just call someone on the phone. But we’re not sure what the substitute for that is yet.With all the recent brewhaha about Nate Silver’s controversial projections for tonight’s outcome, and while we’re all waiting for some legit data to come back from the polls, it seems like a good time to revisit our exclusive interview with Mr. Silver back in September. Enjoy! (via election)
The phone call the night before he left [Turkey for Syria], there was screaming and slamming on the phone in discussions with editors. It was at this time that he called his wife and gave his last haunting directive that if anything happens to me I want the world to know the New York Times killed me.Ed Shadid • Speaking at the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee’s convention on Sunday about the fate of his cousin, storied New York Times reporter Anthony Shadid, who died not long after he allegedly made this statement. The New York Times disputes the report, with a spokesperson saying this: “With respect, we disagree with Ed Shadid’s version of the facts. The Times does not pressure reporters to go into combat zones.” (His widow has chosen to stay silent on the matter.) No matter who’s telling the truth here, Anthony Shadid’s work meant a lot to many people, and it goes without saying that we’d rather Anthony was still with us.
Anthony Bourdain tends to get noticed. The chef turned televised tour guide is macho but not overbearing, profane without being coarse, and tall and handsome. How handsome? I was at an outdoor social event with my wife some years ago when he passed by, and she was so transfixed by him that she walked into a bush. I hate him for that, but am unsurprised that his charmed life is about to add a new chapter.The NYT’s David Carr • Writing about how Anthony Bourdain is all dreamy and stuff. Oh, and his new gig with CNN.
» A corporate whodunit: Months after a high-profile ouster, New York Magazine takes a look back at the circumstances that led to Robinson’s departure. Who was the person who actually pulled the knife? Was it Gonzalez? Did Sulzberger do it himself, or was it his ambitious cousin Michael Golden, who fought with Robinson over the potential sale of the Boston Globe? And what role did digital exec Martin Nisenholtz, who fought a losing battle against Robinson over paywalls, play? And let’s be honest: For all we know, did the butler do it?
A critic’s notebook article on Monday about the prevalence of standing ovations at Broadway shows described incorrectly the quickness with which audience members appeared to be on their feet at a performance of the current revival of “Death of a Salesman.” Their ovation seemed to occur within a millisecond — one-thousandth of a second — not a megasecond, which is one million seconds.The New York Times • Writing a correction in a piece on standing ovations. Excuse us why we stand up and applaud this one for a megasecond. (ht Hypervocal)