TL;DR
The New York Times remains a newspaper with a website attached. It is optimized for:
- one distribution channel (newsstands / deliveries)
- one format (big sheets of paper)
- one consumption pattern (peruse the current edition, then throw it away)
- one production pattern (professional journalists)
- one means of attracting eyeballs (the front page / home page)
The digital folk are enormously frustrated. They know they could do so much better, if the organisation would get behind them. Time after time, they miss opportunities to:
- repackage old content that remains relevant, or becomes relevant again
- promote curated collections of material
- monitor the "online impact" of stories
- take advantage of user-generated content
- and so on...
So they get their lunch stolen by the likes of the Huffington Post.
The infrastructure and processes are also lacking. There are too many one-offs and "just make it work now" hacks, and material is not tagged properly.
The New York Times remains a newspaper with a website attached. It is optimized for:
- one distribution channel (newsstands / deliveries)
- one format (big sheets of paper)
- one consumption pattern (peruse the current edition, then throw it away)
- one production pattern (professional journalists)
- one means of attracting eyeballs (the front page / home page)
The digital folk are enormously frustrated. They know they could do so much better, if the organisation would get behind them. Time after time, they miss opportunities to:
- repackage old content that remains relevant, or becomes relevant again
- promote curated collections of material
- monitor the "online impact" of stories
- take advantage of user-generated content
- and so on...
So they get their lunch stolen by the likes of the Huffington Post.
The infrastructure and processes are also lacking. There are too many one-offs and "just make it work now" hacks, and material is not tagged properly.