The Atlantic Turns a Profit, With an Eye on the Web
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
How is this not absolutely, positively common sense in 2010? I could understand in 1999, getting more people to advertize on your website could accomplish some internal goal but in 2010, why does anything other than at actual dollar amount matter?
Perhaps most importantly, legacy media knows it is superior to websites, and doesn't feel the need to treat you as a professional colleague or peer publication if you aren't on dead tree. They'll happily just lift your stuff or ignore it. Want to get a job with them? Pfft, you ran a website? Darling, this is the New York Times. We hire journalists here.
Actually, they do.
* http://www.propublica.org/awards/item/pulitzer-prize-in-inve...
* http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/apr/20/...
CUNY does.
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/12/01/cunys-entrepreneurial-...
That said, CUNY is playing upstart here.
Whereas before it was a question of what of a finite number magazines or finite channels, showing finite programs, you chose to buy with your definitely finite dollars, now it is more of a question of what media, usually free, do you consume with you increasingly finite time. Choice used to always be something that you paid for and now it is often free. Where before you money was the scarcity now it is effectively you time.
I don't understand the Wire, and they've done some crazy redesign things that they've had to roll back (writer blogs didn't have permalinks for about a week earlier), so I'm quite skeptical that this was just about finding a new business model. In my opinion, they made exceptionally smart editorial decisions that allowed them to pull this off.
Wild speculation, of course, but perhaps they're doing incremental design and playing with A/B/multivariate testing to see what works? They have the traffic to pull it off.
It's a shame, but it's easy to see why they're starting to succeed merely through how open, honest, and downright charming this apology is.
Any time HN wants to remove the 'feature' that prevents users from changing votes, that would be great.
An even more successful one is Germany's Der Spiegel - they employ about 380 people and run a pretty intellectual ship. They have entire sections of their building dedicated to things like the "fact checking department" and such. Turning a profit with such a large ship either shows how good they are or how loyal Germans are to their flagship magazines..
He also has a fantastic eye for style (not surprising), more people should aspire to his level.
I know of a few big global macro hedge fund managers that actually get investment ideas from articles they find in it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1969/12/as-we-ma...
(NB: the timestamp says 1969, presumably because there's some code somewhere which isn't expecting a timestamp from prior to 1970-01-01)
It seems fitting that the publisher of an article that so accurately predicted so much future technology should be keen to embrace it.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/not_just_w...
I've heard news sites make $7-10 CPM. Is this per ad, but they show multiple ads, so they make more like $20RPM in total (which would line up with my estimates)?