For the Times, drawing freely on ideas already suggested, plus my own, my model would be:
1. Continue to push publication of content online first and foremost. Everyone must “get” that they now work for NYTimes.com, not a printed newspaper.
2. Discontinue the national edition. This is analogous to the CS Monitor dropping their daily edition. As part of this, get out of the Globe’s back yard and discontinue the New England edition. Push all those non-metro readers online.
3. Create a New York region free commuter “Metro” published Mon-Fri; drop all other daily print except:
4. Publish on Saturday a weekend package incorporating parts of the existing Sunday and weekday extra sections and a lot of repurposed content from the site. No breaking news, but, perhaps, longer investigative stuff, longer analysis, and features. Charge a premium for classifieds that want to be in print; make online classifieds free (with paid upgrades).
5. Farm out all printing and distribution; be a truly digital business.
6. Consider going private by spinning off the Globe, regional dailies, and the printing operations.
7. Consider spinning off the Metro and Sunday publications into separate entities as well so they can focus on NY metro advertising, including a regional TMC product.

why not just a (fat) weekly?

Excerpt:
So if we owned a newspaper and wanted to consider a nice nuclear blast to position themselves for the future, today or soon, what would the aftermath look like?

Here’s my suggestion: drop Monday and Tuesday, consolidate Wednesday and Thursday (for delivery Wednesday), drop Friday, and consolidate Saturday and Sunday (for delivery Saturday). So, a twice-weekly Wednesday and Saturday paper.

Jeff’s proposal of spinning of the local/metro reporting (into an even less profitable NYC paper) is a version of that idea.

Not that there’s the slightest chance of any serious reform will happen unless alot of top mgt are changed; the board clearly isn’t as unhappy enough to do that – as they should be. NYT is the GM of its day, not even being willing to think more than the least about keeping up with the slimmer and better competition of its day.

Don’t forget McClatchy’s nice, newish national offering. It’s how papers OUGHTTA be. It’s gotten this longtime wapo-reader away, by their great Gitmo investigation, properly skeptical election-machine coverage, and a commitment to facts over made-up worry.

I appreciate you continuing to bring up this topic, but — with deep and due respect — I don’t think we’re making much progress on getting to viable models.

So, let’s start by cataloging what we’re considering. Let me know if I missing anything, but I think there are three basic ideas that have been floated on this blog, Fred Wilson’s, Dave Winer’s, and Doc Searles’:

1. Taking NYTimes non-profit

2. Reducing the size of the NYTimes organization (to be more in line with its shrinking revenue opportunities)

3. ‘Spinning off’ the editorial talent of the NYTimes into an About.com/ad-plus-navigation network

A few points before getting your feedback on what I’m leaving out:

* Note that 1 and 2 aren’t necessarily incompatible with 3. Both 1 and 2 probably involve a pretty drastic reduction of the newsroom, and that might lead to the ’spun off’ journalists being re-engaged through a pay-for-performance/About.com network model.

* There are a wide number of *additional* revenue models that can also be considered, from a speakers bureau to consulting network to product endorsement to e-book/e-commerce to e-learning/e-lectures. I think these are probably worth examining, and even the most controversial should be considered. I don’t consider them separate scenarios, because they are possible in all three strategies.

* In all three scenarios, we agree that there will still need to be asset sales.

Anyway, just to move the conversation forward, I wanted to try to identify the real strategic options.

Okay, here’s what I really think, the Times is going to go out of business unless they hire me to restructure their organization.

Seriously, I’ve called out trend after trend after trend before this all happened in the news market, consistently. I warned of all this years ago.

Most of my ideas have actually never been published, nor have I published my best work. I made a conscious effort years ago to stop publishing my best ideas & material unless somebody paid me for them. If you’re familiar with any of my work online, then you’ve only scratched the tip of the iceberg.

I have a lot of solutions to the problems that the Times if facing.
If they’re smart, then the Times will hire me to restructure their organization.

If they’re not smart, they will go out of business.

If the problem is making money. Sell printing, mailing and delivery logistics. That’s a defensible advantage. Or do shoppers. That’s working pretty well all over the place.

If the problem is being a newspaper. Then start being the newspaper they always pretended they were. No more Judith Miller. Some real national news instead of trying to define that day’s buzz.

On the tech front. Cut the daily to 24 pages. Put links to summaries on line. Then put out a weekly with customized content for subscription. I like education. Give me a weekly pub with best education stories. Do that, and I’ll give you money. Or sell paperback books in real time with the good investigative journalism they often produce.

They already have lots of extra capacity in the pressroom. Why not use the long manfacturing tail to produce books that people will buy. Or how about they go into the textbook business and do real time paperbacks that connect daily events around the world with history, economics and anthropology and eliminate the textbook industry, which is one of the next ones to fall.

It’s a stratgey is knowing what not to do problem. SO.. stop trying to create the phony glory they acheived in a previously protected market and selling advertising in a world that no one knew jif advertising worked anyway.

The times is a certainly no treasure. It’s just a newspaper, like thousands of others. It has it’s arrogant pretentiousness that some have bought into so that they might pretend that reading their paper makes them more elite than someone else. But pretentiousness is all that is or ever was.

The Times is a necessity (national or otherwise) in the same way that livery stables were once a necessity. Every place once needed them. Demand made it sure that someone would open one. But their day is gone and nothing is going to bring the market for them back on any grand scale.

- Focused products
- Outsourcing and partnering on the creation and distribution of content
- Reaching beyond in-house to buy and sell ads
- Finding new streams of revenue

It will take new thinking about products, the workforce, stewardship, journalism and where they sit – or stand – in that mix.

It’s not only about ideas; there are a lot of smart people with great ideas at The Times. It’s about picking some and working to make them happen. And it’s about how much runway’s left to do it.

I wish I could share them here, but realistically,
I can no longer afford to give away my ideas for free.

If the Times wants to hear my ideas, they should contact me.
My rates are very reasonable.

Seriously, I’m sitting on a huge mountain of original ideas here.
No bullshit.

Glancing at NYT’s 10Q tells the story. Advertising revenues have fallen -14% while raw material costs have gone up 7%. Wages and benefits have dropped a steep 9%, but that hasn’t been enough to avoid red ink even on an operating basis.

http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/71691/000110465908069134/a08-25698_110q.htm

NYT has got to cut, cut, cut their expenses. The advances in remote technology have opened up opportunities for cost cutting that they haven’t even begun to tap into. They could cut expenses in half and still deliver a comparable product.

This is not Tribune — Tribune shows $11 b in debt. NYT has $1.1 b in debt. Tribune is hopeless, not so the NYT. At least financially.

This is an interesting concept; the Kindle and other readers are clearly the wave of the future as book consumption is concerned.

But I think there’s a question of viability for paid daily, weekly and monthly subscriptions to be delivered on the Kindle, especially for newspapers, that continues to go unanswered. I understand the argument for this sort of reader is its portability and accessibility (after initial purchase of course) compared to the computer and its ability to download whatever you’ve subscribed to through 3G networks (I think this is how the Kindle works?), but the question remains, if I can read the New York Times for free everyday online, even if I owned a Kindle, why would I buy it on a newsstand or pay $13.99/month to have it on my Kindle?

(For me, the only answers are because I haven’t yet ponied up for the online crossword service, and because winding up with ink all over my fingers brings me back to the splendor of my finger-painting days.)

If you’re saying that the Times should have their own reader and have it not be available on other devices like the Kindle, I think many would argue that while they may make some money off of those sales, it’s going to limit readership, and it doesn’t solve the problem of those who read online for free. (Note: perhaps this argument is showing my naivete about the profits of actual print editions, but I digress.)

I’m not sure what, if anything, will return the Times to its glory years. I don’t know enough about advertising to speak towards the differences in that area between print and online. How plausible is it to make a paper completely available online? I feel as though shutting down print completely, even for a regional paper, is still a bit of time off, no? Isn’t there still a sizeable population of people who read the print edition everyday. Surely, online-only papers will make more money, because they’ll cut back their staffs, but (cue The Wire Season 5) wont that produce inferior product?

My question: why hasn’t the Times looked into entirely different types of media? I like the Times and it is important, but other than Freakanomics and the Caucus, what has the Times done to enhance its online presence since it established its website?

they’ll be pitching for bailout $$$ just like detroit under the guise of keeping people employed.

if we’re really going to “reinvent america” we’ll have to resist the urge to do anything of the sort.

As far as physical newspapers, I’ve been wondering if a print-exclusive ‘weekly newspaper’ might work… just the Sunday Times, for example. I doubt this would work for a standard-bearer like the Times but it would be an interesting experiment, perhaps a ’spin-off.’ Granted, I’m basically just envisioning The New Yorker.

No knee-jerk kicks intended here, simply an observation: if the Times is indeed filling a valuable role, then the day and age we live in makes it all the easier for someone else to crop up and take their place should they fall.

The Times is just one institution. If it cannot save itself, I am dubious that we will be worse off as a result.