Gloomy tales <a href=" http://www.dazziemckelvy.com/Pages/award.html#instantly ">forzest tab</a> I'm going to give you, I'm afraid, a kind of soft problem, a hard answer on this. But we're starting from a relatively low base, and a relatively low base of expectation from users of NYTimes.com, and our other digital assets, all video from The Times. But I think there are really quite encouraging signs over the last 9 to 12 months, but when we do get video right, be it a newsfeed for a big breaking story, some of the video used during the election campaign, the video included -- not all monetized, it must be said, during the Boston bombing or the video around stories like the selection of a new pope, we do well there. I think the partnership I mentioned, with Retro Report, aggregation of other high-quality video were successful. I think use of video in the multimedia story, Snow Fall, at the end of last year, are all examples. When we get it right, it can be very eye-grabbing. What Rebecca is now leading work on now, between the newsroom and the business side of The New York Times, is an integrated programming strategy for video. And although currently, the numbers for revenue video advertising are very low, the extraordinary rates of increase, 600%, 700%, 800% in some months of increase in revenue, and the creative potential and the appetite for advertisers mean, I think that in due course, the opportunity can be very large indeed. Over time, we expect, because we are not the only publishing house, interested in video, most of the world's content players are thinking hard about video. We expect to see [indiscernible] video to come down. But the appetite, specifically from advertisers, for opportunities to do video advertising on The New York Times are so great, that we think our -- the chance we have to grow our share of the video ad market is large indeed, even if rates over time, come down.
|
