Imagine if they'd instead invested that money in restructuring themselves for a viable, 21st century business model. I mean, it's a big ship to turn and you probably need a lot more than $40m.
But at least they'd be closer to cracking it than they are now.
Your assertion is based on faith, not facts. You believe that there's some mythical "21st century" business model that will save journalism with no evidence to back that up. If asking readers to pay for news doesn't qualify as sufficiently modern, I'm really not sure what you have in mind. Please elaborate.
(Personally, I think donations sought by non-profits are a better way to fund journalism, but that is decidedly pre-21st century.)
Saving journalism and saving The New York Times Company are two very different things. I'm focused on the latter in the above comment. The fact that businesses exist and make money producing digital content after 1999 is effective proof that survival is possible.
You're treating all digital content as interchangeable. The New York Times is inherently more expensive to put together than Gawker. Gawker's business model produces enough revenue to turn a profit, but there's no guarantee that the same would hold for the New York Times. There is no such proof that an outfit that puts out the type and quality of journalism that the Times does can be sustained on online advertising dollars.
We're in a transition phase. Doubtless, buggy whip manufacturers survived a few years past the introduction of the Ford Model T as well. Whether that's an apt comparison for producers of information goods is too early to say - I don't think it's likely to be accurate, but I don't know what the future holds either, and I think things are still changing.
Thing is, there are still buggy whip manufacturers that have been in business since then. I don't know if Jedediah's Buggy Whips could have planned to survive the automobile, but they have. The New York Times I'm sure would like to be the buggy whip of journalism.
The Gray Lady is casting about wildly (probably before it really matters) in hopes of avoiding an uncertainty on par with the 1908 whip market.
> The New York Times I'm sure would like to be the buggy whip of journalism.
No, they don't. The few that are around are in an extremely niche business that most of the world does not need or care about. They're for hobbyists.
It'd be interesting to know if the buggy whip manufacturers from 100 years ago actually survived (I sort of doubt it, but don't know) or were recreated/re-formed to serve the niche/hobbyist market, which I think would require a different sort of business and mentality.
Interesting. Maybe a small number of them managed to change with the times (my guess is they didn't call it "pivoting"), but I still can't seriously think that the NYT wants to be the equivalent of "Jedediah's Buggy Whips". Right now they're more like Ford (well maybe not that big, but they are at the very least national in their reach and relevance), and I don't think they'd like to take the step down in size and importance.
> You believe that there's some mythical "21st century" business model that will save journalism with no evidence to back that up.
There are plenty of free (paper) newspapers that are funded by advertising revenue. I don't see any reason in principle why it couldn't work for the online newspapers, who have lower overheads.
> I think donations sought by non-profits are a better way to fund journalism
You may well be right.
> that is decidedly pre-21st century
Except that it may well be easier to raise funds now with the internet. (Especially if/when we get a decent micropayment system.)
There are plenty of free (paper) newspapers that are funded by advertising revenue
I read one of those (Metro) on my commute to work every day, and it is, to put it mildly, very very bad. The reason they can be funded purely by advertising is because they seem to spend pretty close to zero on any sort of actual journalism.
But at least they'd be closer to cracking it than they are now.