My Tumblr post today to infovis658:
This past week, Ryan Chittum of the Columbia Journalism Review published a series of articles examining the effect of The New York Times’s paywall on revenue.
Accompanying the pieces are a series of graphs breaking out various categories of revenue. The first article exclaims that the paywall has overtaken digital advertising as a source of revenue for the Times. Chittum follows up with two additional articles exploring, with graphs, how digital revenue figures compare to revenue from print advertising and subscriptions and whether having a paywall at all is justified. The analysis seems to indicate that a paywall is not only justified, but necessary.
There are no graphs in the first article, only a series of paragraphs citing revenue data and subscriber statistics. Without a graphic, one simply understands that revenue is up, that digital subscriptions have surpassed digital advertisement and that the paywall has some significant, positive effect on print subscriptions. (Chittum links to an earlier article on this topic).
What is interesting about the series of articles is how it has become a conversation of sorts between two colleagues at the Review. Chittum notes that his colleague, Felix Salmon, had a negative interpretation of the digital revenue figures, suggesting that the only reason digital subscribers surpassed digital advertisement is because ad revenue is falling. In response, Chittum published a number of graphs, addressing concerns from his colleague in the November 5 article and continues the conversation with additional analyses on November 6.
Most of the graphs are stacked column charts, representing the total revenue for various income categories. In the November 5 article, Chittum places stacked column chart of digital advertisement versus digital subscription revenue next to a standard column chart to highlight the difference between the two categories. The stacked bar charts showing revenue with and without the paywall shows a similar trend (shape) in overall revenue, albeit with a much higher total revenue.
There is a clear drop in overall revenue between 3Q 2008 and 3Q 2009, primarily due to a drop in print advertising, despite what appears to be slight growth in print circulation during that period. Chittum notes that the paywall appears to be the reason that revenues have not fallen over the past few years, and that while it is currently “peanuts” compared to print revenue, that it will play an important and necessary role in the future, especially as the Times moves toward an all-digital medium within the next ten years.
References
Chittum, R. (November 5, 2013). “The NYT paywall don’t get no respect: despite saving the paper’s bacon.” Columbia Journalism Review. Web. Retrieved from http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/the_nyt_paywall_shores_up_the.php
Chittum, R. (November 1, 2013). “The NYT’s paywall overtakes digital ads: Meantime, the Globe’s drag on the Times, quantified.” Columbia Journalism Review. Web. Retrieved from http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/the_stand-alone_new_york_times.php
Chittum, R. (November 6, 2013). “The NYT paywall plugs the hole: charting the state of The New York Times.” Columbia Journalism Review. Web. Retrieved from http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/the_paywalls_piece_of_the_pie.php