They've likely been collecting reader data for awhile and are probably at the point where they can spin up their own internal ad service.
Good example piece: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/01/upshot/are-yo...
"We are the NY Times. If you want to advertise on our site you have to pay a premium."
"But we want to target ..."
"We are the NY Times. We have half a billion ARR. Take it or leave it."
That used to be how ads worked, and I think it is a better model - for both sides in many cases.
It really doesn't. That's why they have to bully google/facebook/etc into giving them favorable/privileged treatment.
> That used to be how ads worked, and I think it is a better model - for both sides in many cases.
An ad model that favors something like the NY Times can't be the better model.
It absolutely can, let me count the ways:
1. You are never, ever on a bad site - no matter how good Google et al are, bad things happen. If avoiding that matters, NY Times is a smart move.
2. You don't pay for the AdTech - everyone know who the NY Times readers are - is spending 40%-60% to overcome the problems of mass advertising better than splitting the difference with NY Times?
3. AdFraud - NY Times can charge rates and using methods that are more fraud resistant (e.g. get rid of CPM).