Save the NYTimes by killing sports section?

JayFarrar · Nov 6, 2009

One of them bloggers ruminates on saving the NY Times.
Here's his post

How to save The New York Times?

I was reading an NYT account of its finances and came across the following:

More radical moves, like dropping the sports section, have been rejected because they would undermine the quality of The Times or would not save much money, Keller said.

"Or"? Which is it? It would not undermine the quality of the paper from a Platonist point of vew [sic]; the NYT sports section isn't even as good as USA Today. It's hard to believe the section is cheap to produce, but if it were that again would imply it wasn't so special.

Is Keller trying to say something like: "We also don't think the section is that good, but if we cut it we'll lose those subscribers who take only one paper and still demand minimum sports coverage"? For these subscribers, is it not possible to rent out somebody else's sports section and stick it in the paper with a NYT label on it and maybe an extra article about the Knicks?
Click to expand...

USA Today sports is better than the Times. Really? I don't believe that to be right.

Anyhoo, here's the link
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/11/how-to-save-the-new-york-times.html

The comments are pretty good and worth a look. Here's one that stood out.

The value of the sports section — and indeed, most non-A sections — is significant. It allows brand advertisers to vertically target readers from within the Times' demographic. Because of the sectional nature of the paper in general, it also buoys subscription rates as husbands now have something to flip through if their wives otherwise wish to subscribe. That — being a sectioned omnibus news format — is one part of the business model which still remains relevant.
Click to expand...

playthrough · Nov 6, 2009

I don't believe that for a second. I get the national NYT every day, there's always a story or two in there worth my time, maybe even on something I shouldn't be remotely interested in. USA Today is good to get caught up on the wins and losses everywhere, but it doesn't pass the "give me something to read" smell test every day.

cranberry · Nov 6, 2009

Alan Schwarz's work on the NFL concussion issue has been nothing less than extraordinary.

sporting_guista · Nov 6, 2009

With all due respect to the USA Today peeps, the quality of writing at the NYT dwarfs USA Today

Babs · Nov 6, 2009

There are some specific sports where the USA Today beats the NY Times. If you happen to be into one of those sports, I can see how you'd make such a comment.

Not that it's universally true though.

cranberry · Nov 6, 2009

There's very little actual writing in USA Today unless you want to categorize five grafs of declarative sentences as writing.

Ben_Hecht · Nov 6, 2009

Fire Mo Dowd and Bill Rhoden. Save zillions, right off the reel.

Log in or Sign up

Save the NYTimes by killing sports section?

JayFarrar Well-Known Member

playthrough Moderator Staff Member

cranberry Well-Known Member

sporting_guista Member

Babs Member

cranberry Well-Known Member

Ben_Hecht Active Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Save the NYTimes by killing sports section?

JayFarrar Well-Known Member

playthrough Moderator Staff Member

cranberry Well-Known Member

sporting_guista Member

Babs Member

cranberry Well-Known Member

Ben_Hecht Active Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches