[upbeat music] This episode is presented by Beehiiv. I wanna tell you a little bit about a company that is doing something really impressive with email newsletters, and that's Blockworks.
They're a crypto media company that runs seven daily newsletters. Seven. Imagine doing that, and they all run on Beehiiv. When Blockworks started using Beehiiv, they didn't just make email easier, they made it smarter.
Everything from segmentation to monetization happens in one place. Their editors can publish faster, experiment more, and actually see what's working across all seven audience segments.
And that's the beauty of using Beehiiv. It is built for serious publishers who want control, speed, and scale.
It is the same platform powering newsletters from places like TechCrunch, Time, the Texas Tribune, and Blockworks, and The Rebooting.
So if you are running a large publication and wanna see what your next stage of growth could look like, go to beehiiv.com/trb, that is B-E-E-H-I-I-V.com/trb and talk to their team today. Welcome to The Rebooting Show.
We have a series of good conversations coming up as we close out the year. I think we can say close out the year. It's already... It's only, like, six weeks out.
Later this week, I'll have a conversation that I held as part of a TRB live last week with Luke Bradley-Jones. Luke's the president of The Economist.
One thing that stood out to me during that interview was that The Economist did a project where they imagined the media landscape in five years and how the brand would thrive in it.
I think a lot of people should be doing that exercise.
I also have conversations coming up with Isaac Saul, the CEO of Tangle, which is a really fascinating independent news publisher that seeks to give both sides to very fraught political issues.
I have another one with Josh Schneps of Schneps Media about how you make local news a sustainable business. And Ramin Beheshti of Caliber and I spoke about making news for Gen Z.
A bunch of other good conversations coming up. Always like to hear your feedback. My email is brian@therebooting.com. On this week's episode, I spoke to Joy Robbins.
Joy is the chief advertising officer at The New York Times.
The Times has been something of a star pupil of the class, making a decisive move to focus on reader revenue at a time when most news publishers were still focused on traffic.
It has built a formidable business that aspires really to be more like Netflix for liberals than a newspaper.
Joy and I discuss how the focus on subscriptions has turned out to be a benefit to its ad business, why The Times bundle of lifestyle products is critical to offering news-weary advertisers attractive alternatives, and whether display advertising has been a complete failure as I posit.
And finally, why the Watch tab in The New York Times app is so critical that it is holding off on fully monetizing it. [upbeat music] Hope you enjoy this conversation with Joy.
Joy, thanks for joining me on the podcast. I think we last did it in person several years ago. Back when in person was the thing to do. I wanna go back to it. It's great to be here. Thanks, Brian. I wanna go...
We should do it in person again. There's, there's advantages to both. Let's get started. I mean, The New York Times, l- uh, you, you guys are the sort of envy of a lot of publishers.
You know, when I [chuckles] when I talk with them... I was talking with one publisher a couple weeks ago who was...
Who has, like, a very subscriptions-heavy model, and this, this person who's the CRO there was like, "It's so much better. It's so much better."
So The New York Times is, you know, subscriptions first, and, you know, the, the mission is described as to become the essential subscription for every curious person seeking to understand and engage with the world.
It has been very successful at, at getting some 11 million people to, to become paying subscribers. Actually, it's over 12 now. Oh, is it over 12? Sorry.
So talk to me about the role that advertising plays, 'cause I can remember, you know, it's a shift that takes place when you start to focus on subscriptions, and the initial feeling, a lotta times it used to be- Mm-hmm...
that this, that these things are counter to each other. If you're going to...
You're gonna put friction up to get people to pay, you're gonna have a smaller audience, and a smaller audience means a smaller advertising business.
On the other hand, when you have a subscription business, y- the quality of your audience is higher, and we saw that in the traffic era a lot of people had a fairly flimsy audience that they got from, from various platforms, and you have a lot more data.
So tell me about how... And you guys, y- the, the advertising business is, is growing, right? It's back to, to growing. So tell me about how- Yes...
subscription or how advertising fits in with a subscription-focused model and why they don't... These two things don't work against each other. Sure. I think it's a great question and a great place to start.
I think first and foremost I'd say advertising is an essential part of The New York Times' business.
And the thing about a subscriptions-first business and even a business that is both subscriptions and advertising, both of those things happen downstream from audience engagement, right?
So the thing that we have to make sure we are doing as a company is creating journalism and product so good that people seek them out by name, create direct relationships, and ultimately pay for that experience.
But through that, we are really focused on building engaged relationships with our audiences, and that means a much stronger ad business. For all of the reasons that you just listed, we have a lot more signal.
We have relationships and frequency with these readers.
But I'd also say it makes us relentlessly focused onOur product, our user experience, and the excellence that both of those represent, and that's really important to marketers too.
They wanna be where, uh, you know, user experience is and trust is really high. So I think that everything it requires to build a subscription-first business ultimately is in service of a stronger ad business.
And that's not to say that there aren't... I mean, I think, I believe that you can have a strong subscription business and a strong ad business. There are not, not trade-offs, right? Mm-hmm.
And I think that knowing that, you know, there is friction that needs to be in place in appropriate places, you know, is, is, is just part of that.
But I will also say the audience of The New York Times is bigger than it's ever been. Yep. You know, 50 to 100 million people are coming to us every single week, and so that's also...
So we, we obviously have a very strong ad business given all of the engagement that we have from our subscribers and our registered users, but also we are producing journalism and products that tens of millions of people are coming to every single day, and that matters too.
Yeah. And so your, the ad business is still based on scale to some degree. I mean, in that, like, you have scaled audiences.
Like, I mean, there's a lot of publishers who have seen their headline audience number shrink, like, quite a bit, you know, through [chuckles] some of them.
I mean, because they're incredibly reliant on, for instance, Google traffic, which has become a lot less reliable in many, in many areas. And so they've seen just, you know, their audiences g- go down by 30, 40%.
You guys don't have that, that dynamic, and so I'm wondering, like, but you're able to go to the market and say, "Not only is this a premium environment, not only do we have a lot more data on, on, on these people, but we're kind of like a scaled option."
So I, I feel like The New York Times is, is the exception to a lot of rules, to be honest, with, in the publishing- It's funny.
I've been listening, I've been listening to, you know, your last few episodes, and I think you've talked about scale not necessarily being as important.
And I think The New York Times has the benefit of being able to play in both worlds. Right.
You know, we've spent the better part of a decade deeply investing in making sure we have direct relationships, so people are coming directly to our products.
And at the same time, so yes, we are able to reach massive scale, whether it be through our homepage, which is one of the most premium products I'd say that we have to offer advertisers, or, you know, a games takeover where you can reach, again, tens of millions.
So, so we can achieve scale pretty quickly, but, and we can also target pretty specifically. So our first-party data allows us to get into really segmented audiences where if you don't want...
If an advertiser isn't looking for mass reach, but they're looking for really specific audiences in business or in style or, you know, or sports enthusiasts, we can target pretty precisely as well.
So it does give us that best of both worlds opportunity for, for marketers. Yeah. And I think one of the, the hallmarks of The New York Times strategy has been going beyond news. Like, so for, for many years, like, I...
Probably going back, like, a long time, and people have been complaining about, like, the screenshot industrial complex forever, and was like, "Oh, we saw this ad next to some horrible news event."
And someone's like, "How did this happen?" As if [chuckles] there's, there's worse things out there in the world. But, like, The New York Times has diversified quite a bit from just the core news product.
Okay, the core news product is still the core, right? But you've got games- Yes... you've got cooking, you've got Wirecutter, you've got The Athletic, you've got different surfaces, right?
How important is that in the ad business?
I don't suppose you're, you're gonna tell me how you break [chuckles] how you break it out, but I'm sure that there i- is a percentage of your ad business that is not going to the core news product.
And just to be clear, I mean the core news report, which is, you know, is, includes Gaza. I don't mean fashion. I don't mean T Style. Nothing against them. I think they're wonderful. But, like, you know what I mean.
Like, there, there's always been this idea that advertising is not, doesn't mix well with news. Has that always been the idea though, Brian?
Like, would you say that it has been a long-standing, or do you feel as though that has become something that's been more of the narrative in the last- Well, I mean-... five to 10 years?...
I'm, you know, since we're, we're all conspiracy curious these days.
[laughs] Like, I think that, you know, as, as the brand safety companies have gotten larger, the conversation around brand safety has surprisingly gotten bigger, and how brand safety has been applied has perhaps not been as finely tuned as it should be.
It's my diplomatic- Well, look, we could have an entire episode- It's my diplomatic way of putting it. We could have an entire episode, I think, debating that and, and un- undercover, and maybe we should one day.
[laughs] But look, I think, you know, the dynamic between news and our lifestyle products that you described is, like, core to the essential subscription strategy that we launched, you know, four, four years ago.
You know, we wanna be the best news destination in the world.
We wanna build market life's, market leading lifestyle products that help people make the most of their lives and their passions, and we wanna create a more expansive and connected product experience to g- get both of those together so people can really experience the totality of what The New York Times has to offer.
In terms of what that means for the ad market-Look, I think news is incredibly important to The Times because I think it really helps our brand and reputation, and it is why marketers have been so excited to work with New York Times Cooking and Wirecutter and New York Times Games, and even The Athletic, because while those are in very big spaces with broad marketer appeal,
it is also because they come from The New York Times.
So that credibility of The New York Times extends itself into our lifestyle products that are, yes, helping us attract more advertisers than we would have with just news alone.
And I know that, you know, you're saying news should only have credit for, you know, politics or war, some of the things that advertisers are more skittish to be around.
But I'd actually really argue with that, because I think that it is why advertisers have written off news as a vie- as a, as a place for them to be, because they don't appreciate how broadly defined news actually is.
And so there are plenty of advertisers that we work with who
want to stay away from politics and war, but do find the real value of the readers who are coming in for style or culture or, you know, science-backed health and wellness content or our technology and business coverage.
So I mean, I think that the lifestyle products have helped us create new funnels for new kinds of advertisers who may have never thought about The New York Times as a place they'd want to put their brand.
In the same way, our lifestyle products has also helped us increase our total addressable market for subscribers. Yep.
So, you know, it's helping us bring on new types of advertisers, and in some cases, we can bring those advertisers in through something like Wirecutter or Cooking, who would not have thought about ever wanting to be in news.
And those advertisers are then running in some of our, you know, business or technology or culture coverage and seeing real improvements and increases in their overall performance.
So it's like it gives us new entry points for how brands can work with us,
rather than, I think, what had traditionally been the really finite set or categories of advertisers that just are thought of as being relevant to news. So what categories then are, are being opened up?
Because, I mean, last...
n-not this just recent quarter, but the previous quarter had, had attributed the rise in, I think there was eighteen point seven percent increase in ad revenue from new advertising supply in areas of strong marketer demand, was, was how it was put.
What are those? Yep. Yeah, I mean, I think there's two things in that, because I do think it's worth saying that
we have all of these lifestyle products that up until, you know, for The Athletic two and a half years ago, for Games just about two years ago, for Wirecutter, just they didn't have any ads.
So we've opened up ad supply and ad opportunities- Yeah... and that has helped us grow.
And we have also been able to mature some of these new lifestyle products to be more relevant to the advertisers in those specific categories.
So there are sp-sports budgets that some advertisers have that are completely separate from budgets that, you know, we would have had access into in the past.
So now we actually have an opportunity to take more share because we have more relevant passion points that fulfill where advertisers are looking to, to show up more cultural relevance, because that's a thing that we're hearing a lot from marketers, that they want to be in the cultural conversation.
They want to be around cultural moments. And because of the way that we now have this really robust portfolio, we're more relevant for those moments than ever.
So it's allowed us to go into categories that were maybe more consumer-led, that may have not spent in the traditional news sector before, but now, you know, through Cooking and through Wirecutter and through, again, Sports and Games, we're a lot more attractive and opportunistic for, for some of those CPG or retail-based clients.
Okay. And is this like... Is the growth mostly in, like, brand-focused advertising?
I know obviously there's, like, bleeding into it, but I think the big question for publishers is so much of the market has shifted to performance, and I don't...
Like, the, the, the platforms have built better mousetraps. They have, they have better data. They have, you know, they have massive customer bases. I mean, they are user bases and they have massive customer bases.
Like, they're made for direct marketing. I wrote about direct marketing. They, they call it performance, but it's direct marketing. They're made for that stuff.
Really difficult for publishers to compete head to head on, on that kind of performance when it comes to just feeding money into the platforms.
So what is the pitch to advertisers about why to spend on, in The New York Times environment from a performance standpoint?
Or do you just focus mostly on advertisers that wanna be part of, you know, a softer kind of, be part of a cultural conversation and, and that part of advertising, which is, don't get me wrong, is incredibly important, and I think that maybe brands are waking up to the fact that, like, not everything can be performance and there's a limit to that.
I mean, believe it or not [chuckles], it's, like, weird. But, like, how do you, how do you think about that?
Like, I mean, 'cause I, I assume that, like, again, The New York Times is unique in that I don't think it ha- it can, it can compete on, on, on a lot of different levels where a lot of publishers simply can't.
But do you try to compete on performance as well as brand?I mean, the first thing I'll say is I believe there's a lot of headroom in the brand space.
You know, we've been able to grow pretty significantly in our digital ad business this year without video. So I would say, you know, and as we build, and I know we'll probably talk about that- Yeah...
but as we build more and more video-like experiences, there's a lot of headroom in, in the brand space.
I would also agree with you to say the Times' audience, and our depth, and our ability to target does put us in a category of one in terms of, yes, we can do all of the things that are the best parts of working with trusted premium publishers when it comes to brand, and we also have an opportunity to be able to more granularly target.
We have a shopping platform that is Wirecutter that drove a billion dollars in commerce last year. So, you know, we have an opportunity to be both in a way that I don't think many other media companies can accomplish.
Mm.
You know, I think one of the things, there was a study that Kantar just did of 21,000 consumers across the world to understand how advert- how, you know, advertising lands with them and their receptivity to it across, you know, media writ large, and The New York Times actually ranked first among US consumers for advertising receptivity ahead of Amazon, ahead of Apple TV, ahead of Netflix, and ahead of X.
So, so we have the data from studies like that that demonstrate that what readers, listeners, viewers see on The New York Times influence what they buy. Mm-hmm.
And we're increasingly building products and measurement capabilities that are going to help us better reflect that to marketers.
You know, if you, if, if you take it, like, kind of up a bit, we know that when The New York Times covers a restaurant or a destination through "52 Places," the amount of attention and business that goes that way is pretty striking.
I mean, I've been on vacation, I've told someone I work for The New York Times, and they'd be like, "Oh my God, you know, when you guys wrote about this restaurant, it, it, you know, it was impossible to get into."
It can be a bad thing. I- I, I was going to... I... There's a place in Italy- [laughs]... we'd gone on vacation, and it got the "48 Hours" treatment. I was like, "Oh, no." Like- Uh-huh. But it moves markets, right?
Like, New York Times coverage has a massive amount of influence. And so, you know, you apply that to you, you... That extends to the advertising. And so I think that, you know,
we can be a place for both, and, and I want to be a place where brands can see they can, yes, come to us with brand message, but also- Yeah...
at the very least, build a deep consideration layer with what we're doing, too. Well, let's talk about how you do that, 'cause you mentioned video. And, like, I think we first talked when you were at Quartz, right?
And I think, like, about- Yeah... Quartz, like, really focusing on brand and trying to make... I mean, honestly, like, I really feel like the internet has failed at brand advertising, right?
Like, the only thing that has worked is video, right? And, like, Quartz was trying to come up with a different flavor of display, and display has been, like,
honestly, from my standpoint, I'm not selling display ads, it's been a failure. Like, display advertising on the internet has been a failure at this point. It's never gonna work.
The best ad units on the internet are absolutely not display advertising. They're search advertising. They are, like, Instagram ads, amazing. Amazing ads. And they're basically Netflix, right?
Like, I mean, some kind of, like, connected TV or something like... Tell me if I'm w- wrong here. But to me- I, I, I would take a different view. Keep going. I, I, I- [laughs] Keep, keep going.
I like the provocative- As I, as I s- I like the provocative view... s- as I smear the reputation of banner ads. No, of, of display. Come on, keep going. [laughs] I didn't call them banner ads. It could've been worse.
And so you gotta get, you gotta, you... I, I...
It seems very clear, like, The New York Times' next act, I mean, we talked about this on my other podcast yesterday, is like, you know, Troy was going on about, like, The New York Times trying...
N- is gonna be CNN before CNN can be The New York Times, and I think that's an easy one. But, like, you know, like, the... You guys are, are clearly emphasizing video in the app, and for a bunch of different reasons.
You're adding a watch tab to that app. It, to me, it seems pretty clear that the, the, the strategy is an everything app for, an every- like, lifestyle app.
Like, it's got news, it's got, you know, video, and the, the video that you guys are doing, y- I... It, it seems to me it's, it's a strate- strategic priority. As it happens, brands like video, I've been told.
So I don't think you're gonna break out how much of your ad revenue is video advertising, but I would guess that video i- is a major part of, of the growth trajectory.
So there's so much to- [laughs] Yeah, it's a long statement... to, to, to unpick in all of that. I mean, I would say first and foremost, I think
display advertising that is completely unstrategic, untargeted, not thought of through first the user experience and the environment is probably, as you described, not effective.
You know, and, and I think back to what Quartz was trying to do with the ad model that they created that would have focused, and that did focus far more on brand ads.
If you look at what the Times built probably nearly a decade ago with our Flex Ad suite, it is similar- Yeah... in nature that it happens right in the flow. It's native to the actual platform.
And what we've seen is theProprietary ad formats combined with the deep, deep first-party data signals that we have actually does perform, and our display business is growing.
And so I would say yes, we are certainly- Okay, so your display business is growing. Yes. So there is still like an appetite for- Yes. Yes... banner ads on webpages basically.
I mean, I would not put it in, in, in [laughs] as simply as a banner ad on a webpage. Gotcha. I think there's a lot more craftsmanship behind what we're doing. For sure.
No, but I, I think the display formats are working. We have launched several new formats this year, one of which is a carousel that where you can actually kind of shop through a few different panes in, in the ad unit.
Mm-hmm. And yes, we have also prioritized video in that experience, and really thought about ways to make our ads more watchable in the same way the product is becoming more watchable.
But I would say that I am not Team Display is useless or invalid- Okay... you know, it has no value. It has a place. I think that we've really seen it. It ha- it, it does, it has a place. It does. It does have a place.
I agree. It... Yes. It does drive results. However. However, uh, brands want video. That is also true. And I think so do consumers. I mean- Yeah, I think so... you asked about the strategy. Look at Instagram.
You asked about the strategy. Instagram has amazing ads. Like, they're amazing. Yeah.
Like, anyone in publishing, like go and go to Instagram, and I don't like a lot about Instagram, but the way that ads work on Instagram is the way ads should work. Yeah.
It is not, it is not how ads work on webpages in my view. There's a reason that Instagram- Say more... is a massive- What is exactly... Can you- It, it is, it, it is within the flow of the media experience.
If y- the internet... This is my soapbox. The internet was, like, trying to recreate the magazine experiences with pages- Mm-hmm... with webpages, with the ads. Like e- it...
The people who came up with the internet ad system were either technologists or they were people from the magazine industry, and it got- Mm-hmm... kinda got in some ways a little bit of both.
And the, the page concept works really well within magazines. It's completely integrated. People get the Vo- you know, they, they would always go through as Vogue for the ads- Mm-hmm. Yeah... as much as the content.
Yeah. It's wonderful. Yeah. Yep. That is- Sure... that should not translate to, to webpages. It simply didn't. And so but with video, it works perfectly. It's, it's not trying to intrude. You have 100% of attention.
You're... Think about TikTok. You're going through. Mm-hmm. You watch a video, then all of a sudden you have another video, and the video is, is- Yeah...
and there's a little promoted or sponsor or advertising on there, and it, it works well.
I watch football, I'm wa- and they constantly break it and then, like, I, I'm sitting through, you know, various Cialis ads and whatnot, and, like, it works. [laughs] And, and so I, I...
That's what I wonder about, like- Yeah... video has to be a, a top priority. Particularly, it seems like you guys are really focused on under-monetizing your video right now to get people to consume more of it. Yeah.
I mean, I think that that brings us to sort of why video for the Times, which is again, if we're going to reach a wide as possible audience and bring people into the Times, we have to make sure that we're doing it in modalities that they are predisposed to.
And we know video is obviously one of those.
And so making sure that we're as easy to read, as we are to listen to, as we are to watch, is gonna be really important to make sure that we can bring in that wide as possible audience and keep them coming back.
So we have doubled viewership, you know, pe- amount of people watching videos on the Times over the last year.
And the watch tab is sort of the next manifestation of making sure just as we have a listen tab, we now have a watch tab where you can scroll through videos from all around the Times, whether that be in news, whether that be in lifestyle, whether that be a clip of Ezra.
You can, you can really watch the Times. And the point you made about us really downplaying ads, at least, you know, to start, is that entire
watch tab is really dedicated to making sure that we are optimizing for engagement. And once we better understand how that audience engages, we will then think about what the ad model for it looks like.
The ad model has got to come downstream from engagement.
Just sort of back to where we started on what the benefit of being a subscription first business is, we are constantly optimizing to make sure that we are first thinking about the engaged audience, um- Okay.
And then commercially monetizing. So, so first it's to get that habit within o- on the watch tab- Yeah... i- in, in the app, and then- Yes... it's to monetize it.
In the way that it is appropriate and that will not suppress engagement. But to your point, how are we gonna do that?
I mean, I think what is going to be native to that format is going to be, you know, video, is going to be video in the same way that you see on the platforms from ads in bet- as, as interstitials. Gotcha.
Yeah, because I mean, people are used to it. It, it, it works basically- Yeah... at the end of the day. And we'll be doing...
We'll launch a beta for a few select advertisers probably in the beginning of next year once we really have a better understanding of exactly how audiences are engaging and making sure we have a critical mass of people who are engaging in that tab.
And do you see this as, like, a mobile experience, or is it to be an app, like, on, on a TV eventually?
We're starting right now with, you know, I think making sure that The New York TimesCore app is a reflection of all of the best things that you can get from The New York Times on any given day, and, you know, I can't predict the future of where that necessarily goes, but, you know, we, we wanna make sure that people are seeking us out wherever they are- Yeah...
getting content. So how are you thinking about direct versus indirect demand? And by that I mean the programmatic question. I can remember- Yeah...
back at Digiday, we had, like, stories, it's like The New York Times is stopping open programmatic and, you know, look, publishers, I mean, I think this is another...
Maybe you catch me on Friday, but, like, a, a programmatic for the most part has been a disaster for publishers. I think we can call it that [laughs] right now.
Like, it just has, has not, like, really for, for premium publishing, I don't think it has really been a, a boon, [laughs] to say the least. I always go back to who has the odds, who can, and it's not the publishers.
[laughs] I think there's a reason for that. How do you end up... W- explain, like, how you think of...
'Cause look, I mean, u- ultimately, like, programmatic is just a form of buying, et cetera, and if your buyers- It's automated buying... yeah, your buyers- Yeah... wanna transact that way- Yep...
they wanna transact that way. There's a lot of different ways to do programmatic. It's not all open programmatic. But wh- where, where is... You know, I'm just, like, looking around.
I see, I see more, I see more programmatic ads appearing. How are you thinking about that?
Because there's an amazing pool of demand, obviously, that you're only gonna reach through these kind of scaled, automated- Yeah... channels. But at the same time- Yeah. I mean, I think-...
you wanna, you wanna keep the quality high, and you wanna, you wanna be premium. Yeah. Yes. Well, I mean, like, that's exactly right. We are focused on premium programmatic.
We are focused on building out our, you know, direct programmatic relationships as much as possible. I think, like every other piece of the business, programmatic should be looked at as strategic execution.
If you just put your inventory in the open and, like, let it rip, you're gonna get exactly what you put in, right? Like, you're gonna get crappy ads. You're gonna get terrible yield.
And so people think of programmatic as just the set it and forget it part of the business, and I will say the way that we look at that part of the business is it is a method with which, through which many, many, many advertisers want to transact, and we should treat it as a channel that deserves that kind of attention.
And so making sure we have appropriate ad quality,
making sure that we are building products that advertisers can access programmatically that, you know, benefit from the signals that we are also, you know, able to achieve. Not all of them. You know- Mm-hmm...
there is still gonna be a difference between what you are going to be able to get through The New York Times through a direct relationship versus what you may be able to get in a PMP or even more s- you know, even further afield, the open market.
But we wanna make sure that, you know, we are attracting quality demand by investing in what, you know, the bid supply, the decoration looks like, making sure that, you know, we're appropriately getting sort of the right advertisers in through that channel.
And so it is a very important part of our business that I think if you only focus on direct advertising, you do miss a good portion of the marketplace that- Yeah...
and, and even not just whole advertisers, but whole parts of advertising budgets that are reserved specifically for those automated channels. Yeah.
I've always wondered, like, over the years, I would always, like, I'm gonna have Adam Singolda on this podcast, like, in, in next month, like, and I've always asked him over the years, I was like, "When are you gonna sell to New York Times?"
And [laughs] you know, because a lot of people like to hate on, you know, the Taboola operating the content recommendation ad networks, but they're one of the most successful of the open web advertising ecosystem.
I don't know, but you guys have never... I don't know. Is, is there, is there ever, like, a pathway be- that, that content recommendation works within a premium environment like The New York Times? I can't say that
I can necessarily see the pathway. I mean, the, the thing I'll go back to is what does the user experience look like? What does the design look like? Is it premium enough for The Times?
And, you know, I don't know that it would be something we would consider, but- Never say never. [laughs] I mean, I don't know. You should ask Adam on a Friday. [laughs] So the other thing is, is, is print, right?
Like, so where... 'Cause look, I think print still has, has a purpose. I mean, you see a little revival of in magazines, particularly niche magazines.
I'm sure, you know, print does real well with, you know, with T Magazine and print as a newspaper product. I mean, at some point it's going to- Yeah... to bottom out.
M- maybe we haven't, like, reached that or maybe it won't. I think it's still, to make a statement with, like, a full-page print ad, I mean, you still need that. I mean, that, that'll still be around. Yeah.
I mean, look, the newspaper is, remains one of our most iconic products. Yeah. It's singularly powerful, unique, influential. It captures, you know, 3 million people.
It still has a very large and loyal audience who really, really value that modality. And I think, you know, just scroll LinkedIn.
When advertisers launch full-page ads in The New York Times, you actually see them post it, right? Like, there's something about- Yeah... a full-page print ad. There...
It is a place that we continue to innovate, whether it be the GE execution that we did a few years back, to we took over the New York Times magazine for Cartier last year with just stories about love. I mean, there...
It, it is a-Format where we see a lot of opportunity for innovation and a lot of opportunity for impact. I like to talk about a cover wrap of The New York Times as another form of outdoor advertising- Yeah...
because you see it everywhere. So, you know, look, print is a sort of channel that is in secular decline.
I'm not gonna pretend that it isn't, but I still think that, A, The New York Times has the broadest reach for any newspaper on the planet, and, you know, whether it's here in the US you wanna reach readers or across the world, and we continue to see really impactful, innovative campaigns coming out of that channel, and it's a really, really valuable,
you know, format for advertisers who are looking to reach a specific audience. Yeah. For sure. And what is the role of content studio now? Like, T Brand Studio, like, I can remember in that, like, sort of- Yeah...
that period, and Quartz was, like, you know, in that. Like, where it's like there was these ad agency-like things that were being created within- Yeah... publishers, and sometimes they won Cannes Lions. I, I...
You know- Yeah... The New York Times. Yeah, T Brand has won Cannes Lions, yes. Has won Cannes Lions.
And, and then kinda, like, reality sort of set in a little bit that these are lightly, like, a little bit different businesses, I feel like. Like, they're...
It's, it's good as a s- support to an advertising business, but, like- Yeah... getting into the agency business is, like, as my fellow podcast [chuckles] host Alex Schleifer
says, it's like, "I leave it to publishers to find the second-worst business to be in." [laughs] But- Oh, man... you know, look, they're different businesses.
But, like, you know, I think of, like, what is the role now of, like, of T Brand? Yeah. T Brand is an exceptionally important part of the overall ad business. It is differentiating.
It is helping our brands tell, tell stories in ways that we know resonate with our readers or our listeners or our viewers. It's...
As we've grown the portfolio, we have now launched, you know, specific content formats for the specific brands. So that's really helped us diversify how we think about T Brand supporting advertisers with whom we work.
I mean, look, we just launched a podcast last year with L'Oréal Group called "This Is Not a Beauty Podcast," and it actually was at the top of charts in the US and in the UK for actual just, like, general interest podcasts.
It was hosted by Isabella Rossellini. So, so it is continuing to really be a differentiator for The New York Times when it comes to products that demonstrate excellence, and ways that advertisers can create
content or podcasts or articles or experiences that, you know, resonate best with that Times audience or athletic audience or cooking audience.
It really, it, it is our center of excellence for creativity on the ad side. Okay.
So I guess what has changed a little bit, 'cause I, I feel like, you know, there was a period where it was like, okay, these are gonna be like ad agencies. They're gonna, like, do ad agency...
And then, like, it got a little- Yeah... I felt like it got a little... I'm not saying it was at The Times, but it felt like it got a little further afield.
Like, I can remember having, like, Craft at, like, one of these Digiday events, and they were going through their list of agencies, and Vice was one of their agencies.
And, and, and I think, like, media is, is a slightly different business and, and it can support a lot of programs. But being- Yeah... an ad agency is a little bit, is a little bit different.
And that's not what T Brand is trying to do. I mean, I think- Right... what you're probably pointing to is, you know, is it profitable to do- Yeah... that kind of business in the way that you're describing?
And I think what we have found is that a mix of content and media- Right... makes those types of businesses far more scalable and sustainable than a pure play- Yeah... I'm just gonna be, act as your creative shop.
We do plenty of work on behalf of brands, but we have to make sure that we are doing it, again, in a way that's- Yeah... sustainable and scalable. What is the role that events play?
Because there are a lot of your peers who don't have as, as, as big of subscription business who are, like, so all in on events. And, like, you know- Yeah... they have pivoted hard into them.
And, like, sometimes I think, well, that makes sense, but at the same time, like, why didn't you do this, like, you know, until now? And so it's probably out of, you know, desperation to some degree.
H- how do you end up thinking about the events a- as, as part of the ad business? I would say about our events business is that we're really focused on quality- Yeah... over quantity.
We have two tentpole events that have been years running. Climate Forward, which is four... which was in its fourth or fifth year this year, and DealBook, which is in its 14th year this year.
And those are news-making events with the most important people on stage and in the room, and that has been an avenue through which our advertisers can work with us, and it's been successful and it's been growing.
We launched our Well Festival this year and our Hard Fork Live event this year as sort of new entrants, but we aren't going for hundreds of events.
We are really trying to think about the quality of the event itself, the newsmaking capabilities of these events, and then how that attracts the right audience, both on the stage, in the room, and then why advertisers are gonna wanna be a part of that.
We are optimistic. It, it is a growing business, but it is not one that we are looking toemphasize quantity. Again, it, it's kind of similar to the way I talked about T Brand. Mm. It isn't just to do it
to say that that's just another top-line revenue stream.
I think we have to think about how it strategically fits into the ad business, making sure it, again, follows a profitable and sustainable model for the ad business, and also is something that, you know, frankly attracts audiences to The Times.
You know, I, I think there has to be a reason for doing it beyond just advertising. Right. So final topic is around AI. Like, we have to ask. It's... I'm legally, legally required to ask about AI.
First of all, how are you, how are you using it? I mean, I, I... Like, AI is such, like, a broad term, right? And I, I know you're- Yes...
using it through targeting, through brand match, but just walk me through how you see AI helping and being a useful tool for the advertising business.
I mean, I think you, you mentioned what we're seeing most readily, which is through that ad product that we launched called Brand Match about a year ago.
And the thesis behind Brand Match was, for a long time advertisers have contextually targeted as a method.
They have audience targeted as a method, but both of those things are pretty specific in the way that they're formed.
You, you can have two advertisers, let's say Chanel and Cartier, who think of themselves as very, very different. They think of themselves as having distinct audiences.
They think of their products as having distinct qualities. Yeah.
But when you looked at the RFPs from both of those advertisers, they were going after the exact same audience segment and the exact same kind of contextual alignment opportunity.
And so what Brand Match has done is it essentially ingests the brief of an advertiser, understands what I would call, like, the essence of the brief- Mm-hmm...
and then it actually displays places across The Times, articles across The Times that would be relevant to that brief, as well as identifying new audiences that would be receptive to this kind of brief or the message that the brand is actually, kind of p- has as a part of their campaign.
And it's actually helped advertisers find new, effective places to run beyond, you know, just fashion or travel, but actually, you know, something that might be in even, like, the athletic or in cooking that, you know, really aligns with the, the sort of essence of what the brand stands for or the brand message stands for.
So we've seen, you know, click-through rates increase, like, plus 30% over more standard targeting. We've seen if an advertiser's running a video, we've seen VCR rates increase over 30%.
So, like, we're, we're definitely finding- Mm-hmm... new relevant places for brands to run that they wouldn't have otherwise.
And I think it actually, as we look into 2026, we're really looking to enhance Brand Match to be more turnkey.
We're looking for other ways we can utilize generative AI and our kind of really large registered user base to kind of continue to help advertisers target.
How about in the ad sales process, like in, like in the background? Like, I mean, I've...
We had a breakfast forum the other, the other week, and a fellow CRO was talking about a generative AI tool in order to speed up, you know, like, responses to RFPs. Like, and I don't know. I feel like, you know, the...
there's a lot of, like, unsexy stuff that goes on at publishers- Mm-hmm... that at least in theory, AI should- Yeah... should help with. You know, 'cause I keep- Yeah... looking for them.
Like, all these, all these billions are going in there, that this has to result in productivity gains and, like- Yeah... there has to be easy pickings within the publishing industry.
[chuckles] I think there's two paths that we're experimenting with. I think there's, like, value creation, so how can we create products that leverage generative- Yeah... AI to do better targeting and create outcomes?
And then we think about productivity gains, which is how do we think about some of those pre-sale prospecting processes, or thinking about how adver- how our sales executives can just find information more easily.
How can we make that experience a bit more agentic so it isn't, "Hey, can I... Let me Slack the Slack channel one more time to ask what the specs are," you know? Like, there- Yeah... has to be a better way.
So, so I think process and productivity gains are things that we are actively experimenting with on the sales side. Okay. So nothing specific to share on the, you know- Not yet...
have a sort of Gen A- Gen AI prospecting tool that you're, you're rolling out. No, but I think it's... I mean, we're definitely experimenting with understanding how it's going to improve upon the process.
I don't think it's completely... You know, it isn't, it isn't replacement. It is, to your point, there's a lot of rote work that goes on.
How can we make some of that more automated to leave space to be more creative, to do more strategic work that is not just plugging numbers into spreadsheets or, you know, looking through media radar reports.
So final thing is around the sort of talent-driven shows.
I mean, you guys have been very successful on, on podcasting, and there's obviously a lot of energy right now in the sort of, quote-unquote, "creator" part of the media ecosystem.
Now, The Times has always been, like, a, a very institutional brand, and I think it will remain that. Doesn't mean that you don't have your own, like, talent and stars, et cetera. Yeah, we've got stars.
We love making stars. Yeah. But how do you end up thinking about that as... But it's still The Times, right? So, like, I mean, you have-There are, there are things that you won't...
You know, it's not like MrBeast is, is, uh, I don't know, Andrew Ross Sorkin's not gonna be MrBeast, you know?
I mean, there's lots of different things that, you know, theoretically you can do with creators that is not gonna work in, in The New York Times.
But how do you think about that within the advertising strategy of how you leverage, you know, the, the reputation and the influence that talent has in a way that does work with The New York Times brand and approach?
Yeah, I mean, I think our talent and stars, as you call them, you know, it's, it's an extension of The New York Times brand. They also happen to have some of their own distinct audiences.
So, you know, you think about "DealBook" and Andrew Ross Sorkin and advertisers who are looking to reach, you know, business executives and C-suite executives.
And so, you know, a million of them are reading "DealBook" every single morning. So that is a really distinct place for advertisers to be able to tap into those audiences.
You know, you have Ezra Klein, you now have Ross Douthat, who's our conservative podcaster. You know, you have "Hard Fork," you have "Modern Love."
We have a lot of personalities, talent with distinct, you know, listenership, communities, and advertisers have the opportunity to run messages that reach these very, very, very big audiences.
I think that that's what the Times really does bring to the dynamic of, you know, our, our stars or our creators, however, our talent.
You know, they come to the Times because they wanna do their best work, and the Times can give them access to the tens of millions of people that we're reaching on a daily basis, so that their work can see the widest possible audience.
I mean, you look at The Daily, you know, eight years running, I think it has something like five billion downloads on, on Spotify.
I mean, that is massive scale, and it is the way that many people have a relationship with The New York Times. They think about The New York Times, they think about The Daily, but it is the very
vast audience that we can bring into the Times that can really help these shows find their audiences.
And I also think that, you know, the access that these talents, these shows, these hosts have inside of The New York Times newsroom when they need experts to talk about AI or what's happening in the Supreme Court, it, it sort of also s- provides them with an opportunity to kind of have access to these experts i-in their own newsroom.
I think they all really take pride in the mission of The New York Times and, and, and sort of our heft- Yeah... when it comes to being experts in, in pretty much every place, everything- But-...
that's going on in the world... the final thing on that is, like, uh, do you, do you see "DealBook" as a, a model that can be replicated? Because it's been, it's been very successful,
and it's a little bit of an outlier, I feel like, with a lot- Yeah... of The New York Times approach. You don't see, you know, I mean, like, Andrew Ross Sorkin's on, on his s- he's got CNBC, he's got- Mm-hmm...
you know, "DealBook." I don't know how he, he, he must never sleep. He just wrote a book, too. I don't think he does. [laughs] He is one of the most impressive people I have ever worked with in my entire career. Right.
So, like, I'm wondering, like, do you, do you see that kinda... 'Cause it's a very valuable franchise, you know? I mean- Mm-hmm... as a standalone business- It really is... it would be valuable.
Is that, like, a model that y- that, that is, is able to be replicated, or is that unique? I mean, I think that works for "DealBook" because it is that, you know, really specific audience.
Andrew does so much cultivating on his own of, you know, his guests and curating that, that program. He is very, very, very, very hands-on throughout that entire franchise, and it makes it excellent.
You know, I can't s- I think every show, every host, each franchise is gonna have its own version of that. I don't think they all need to be "DealBook."
You know, I think The Athletic has several really popular programs and hosts who convene and cultivate audiences in their own ways. I don't think that it's... I don't-- I wouldn't say everyone has to be a "DealBook."
I think that there is a lot of value to audiences and to the ad market through the fact that, you know, each of these shows increasingly have, you know, a very, a very distinct, loyal audience.
"Hard Fork" is another example of- Mm-hmm... you know, it, it covers wide-ranging topics of AI on a weekly basis in, like, a very, very deep way.
And when we did "Hard Fork" live out in San Francisco, we had people lining up outside the door at SFJAZZ to, to come in. So they, they each have their own fan base.
And again, when you have that kind of engaged audience, it is something that creates a lot of value for the advertising business and, and, and for the, the broader subscription business. Okay. Cool. Joy, thanks so much.
Really appreciate you taking the time. Brian, this was really fun. Thank you so much for having me. Okay. [outro music]