
New York Times Co. Subscription Revenue Surpassed $1B in 2017 - doener
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/new-york-times-company-earnings.html?referer=
======
thisisit
I find it odd when people focus on revenues instead of profits. Because you
can be making a billion in revenue but if your costs are 1.1 billion then you
just lost 100 million dollars.

Here's what they earned in profit:

> Adjusted operating profit rose to $108 million for the quarter, compared
> with $96 million for the same period a year earlier. Operating profit fell
> to $23 million for the quarter, from $56 million, in part because of pension
> settlement charges and higher operating costs.

> The company reported a $58 million net loss for the quarter.

~~~
legulere
Because revenues can be an estimate how big a company is. And getting as big
as possible seems to be the top priority in the business world.

------
csours
When a Democrat is elected, buy gun and ammo stocks

When a Republican* is elected, buy newspaper stocks

*If future Republicans follow DJT's lead

------
samspenc
What makes this more fascinating is that if you look at the NYTimes' annual
revenue over the past four years, it remains consistent at $1.5 billion or so:
[http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ANYT&fstype=ii&ei=...](http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ANYT&fstype=ii&ei=u1F-WvDXHMXzjAG51JPADw)

So if digital subscription and digital ad revenue are growing, print
subscription and / or ad revenue are dropping by the same numbers.

------
gowld
The conflict of interest is too obvious to need stating, but it's funny to see
a newspaper referring to itself in the third person.

------
coralreef
Didn't think a subscription model would work in a "BuzzFeed" era of news, but
good for them.

------
myf01d
Thanks Trump

------
V-eHGsd_
"failing" new york times.

~~~
make3
fuck that guy

