<story><title>The New York Times Is Now Supported by Readers, Not Advertisers</title><url>http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/07/new-york-times-supported-by-readers-not-advertisers.html</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>JumpCrisscross</author><text>The Economist Group, parent of &lt;i&gt;The Economist&lt;/i&gt;, made 48.9% of revenue from circulation and 35.08% from advertising for fiscal year 2012 [1].&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/annual_and_interim_reports.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/annual_...&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>The New York Times Is Now Supported by Readers, Not Advertisers</title><url>http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/07/new-york-times-supported-by-readers-not-advertisers.html</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>veidr</author><text>TL;DR NY times now gets (slightly) more revenue from paying subscribers than advertisers, but they still lost $88 million last quarter.&lt;p&gt;I think it&apos;s an interesting milestone, and wonder how many other papers have now had that happen (and how many were already doing that).&lt;p&gt;EDIT: mention the loss</text></comment>