Courtesy of I Want Media, via Romenesko: Says Google content honcho David Eun, “frankly, the New York Times is a fantastic partner of ours. And that’s one message that is important for folks to understand. We have thousands of partnerships. The New York Times, for example, is a partner in the Google AdSense program. We place the ads on their Web site. They have their own ad sales force but we help them sell ads. The Times participates with us in various initiatives. The Times also has a branded channel on YouTube. A lot of people aren’t aware of that. We feel like we have a great relationship with the Times. We hope that they’re very successful. But what they do as a company — with journalists, news bureaus, thinking about what people want to read, producing a newspaper — that’s not what we do.”
Yet.
4 Comments
January 31, 2008 at 3:42 pm
As much as i generally like the Goog (it enables the externalization of my memory!), this would be an unsettling step. Still, it has to be better than Murdoch, right? Especially if the FCC’s relaxation of the media ownership rule holds up.
Do you really think they’ll sell the NYT at all? Honestly i haven’t been keeping up with this story too much.
January 31, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I don’t think it’s going to happen. But I DO think that the NYT, like all print-first publications, is in some serious financial shit (peep that Romenesko link about their losses). And I DO think, like all print-first publications, they’re gonna have to do something to address this fact. The Google thing may just be all fun and games for market-watchers–I mean, the would-be deal makes not much sense for the GFolks–but it’s still an interesting thought.
February 7, 2008 at 5:37 pm
[...] California-based duders who are super good at the internet. Right now, they insist that they have no interest in your fading enterprise–but it might not be too late to convince them [...]
February 14, 2008 at 4:21 pm
[...] sit idly by? Maybe. And even if they were to make some sort of responsive move, it would–for reasons already discussed–probably not be in the direction of Arthur Sulzberger’s office. [...]