NYTimes Reports Digitial Subs up 40%

2676866737_1f173f1663[1]The New York Times posted their quarterly earning report today, and the news is mixed. The media organization formerly known as the paper of record reported a marked increase of digital subscriptions and a general increase in revenue.

The NYTimes had an operating profit of $53.4 million in Q2 2013, up from $44.1 million in the same period of 2012. Total revenues decreased by just under a percent to $485.4 million from $489.8 million in the sale period of 2012, largely as a result of a drop in print and online ad reveres.

They also reported that circulation revenues rose 5% due to both a price hike for print subscribers and a growing number of digital subscribers. The newspaper had approximately 738,000 paid digital subscriptions at the end of the quarter, an increase of nearly 40 percent over last year.

Approximately 699,000 of those digital subscribers were signed up for the NYTimes and the International Herald Tribune, while the remaining 39,000 were subscribed to The Boston Globe. That last figure is paltry but also represents an increase of nearly 70 percent YoY.

The NYTimes is well known for their paywall, a  boondoggle which is intended to replace free website traffic with paid digital subscribers, so I was particularly interested in reading how the recent tightening of the paywall had affected website traffic. Unfortunately there is no mention of a change in traffic, just that:

Print and digital advertising revenues decreased 6.8 percent and 2.7 percent, respectively, largely due to ongoing secular trends and an increasingly complex and fragmented digital advertising marketplace.

image by Joe Shlabotnik

Nate Hoffelder

View posts by Nate Hoffelder
Nate Hoffelder is the founder of The Digital Reader. He has been blogging about indie authors since 2010 while learning new tech skills weekly. He fixes author sites, and shares what he learns on The Digital Reader's blog. In his spare time, he fosters dogs for A Forever Home, a local rescue group.


  1. Will O'Neil1 August, 2013

    Running a rumor-mill and vacuous-opinion blog is cheap, but running an actual news organization is very expensive. The alternatives are (1) Pay for it through advertising by companies that pass the cost on to consumers (with overhead) or (2) Pay for it by charging readers for what they get. Under the circumstances, I’m happy to pay for what I get. When and if I decide I’m not getting my money’s worth (as I did with WSJ) I’ll stop paying and not miss it.

    1. Nate Hoffelder1 August, 2013

      Funny, “rumor-mill” is how I would describe the WSJ’s tech coverage.

Leave a Reply

Scroll to top