New York Times Landing Pages: All the Irrelevance That Fits the Pixels


I’ve often used my hometown paper, The New York Times, to
exemplify the disconnect between digital publisher content strategy, the goals
of visitors and the resultant impact on advertising. The root of this
disconnect is the way search, social media and the landing experience fracture
content hierarchies. Behavior has changed and so too must the content experience.

Let’s face it, taking the 300 year old idea of a newspaper
and essentially throwing it on the web while likely the only option 13 years
ago is not optimal one for anyone today. So why has the optimization needle moved so
little in the right direction?

Huge amounts of traffic to bypass the homepage. With
the growth of search, the opening of the Times content archive and the rise of
Social Media, success for the Times, its advertisers and most importantly its visitors, relies on the quality of the landing experience. The current NYT landing experience is quite simply dreadful.

It was a link from Social Media that brought me to this
page. Keep in mind I'm at 1440×900 so ideally I'm getting the most of this page above the fold.


After now having this awful NYT landing experience a number of times from Social Media and Search links I felt compelled to figure out exactly how irrelevant is the
 above the fold on the typical New York Times landing page.

New York Times Landing Page Irrelevance


  • 622,740 pixels above fold (970×642)
  • 145,500 pixels given to relevant content (485×300)
  • Only 23% of the page above the fold dedicated to relevant



  • 235 words (approx) on the page
  • 60 of those words are the relevant content
  • Only 25% of the words on the page (above the fold) dedicated to relevant


  • 18 Distinct content areas (color coded below) above the fold (including the piece of content that is relevant to me). Many of these are navigation. Many have
    multiple links. Really, do we really need two search query fields?
  • Only 5.5% of the content areas on the page (above the fold) dedicated to relevant content 


No "Next Click" in the Archive

I mentioned the Times’ has opened their historical archive. This is
an amazing contribution to the web (and the correction of another NYT digital content strategy failure, TimesSelect
). These archive landing pages while
offering less clutter also represent another missed opportunity.

See this first New York Times mention of the Internet. It is a fascinating historical read but it is also a dead-end. Visitors landing on this page as with most of the archive have goals that are discovery. Yet, there are no
links to the subsequent 15 years of Internet related content!
This is analogous
to Amazon’s product pages not having “add to cart” buttons. Even if this is exactly the content the visitor was looking for most of these visitors will likely hit the back button (to Google). This is simply
inexcusable strategically and poor business financially.

The Times needs to do better. Its future depends on it.
Spending less time selling ads on the front page
 and more time into creating better digital experiences offers their best hope
for survival.

Related Posts:

Optimizing Content Pages

Social Media Landing Pages

Landing Page Utopia: 7 Lessons from Google


  1. Scott-
    Thanks for pointing out the Daily News. This is very impressive.They are doing a great job with their content. Quite the contrast to the NYT page. They must be a happy customer. 🙂


  2. Love the post! I worked closely with a Canadian equivalent of NYT and I absolutely agree with your post. Unfortunately things are very very slow to change in the “online print” world since many of the influent people involved with the newspaper have the last word on the online version as well. This situation slows down the progress of the online version because the print people have two priorities; making sure their print content gets on the internet and never letting the user forget they are reading a newspaper equivalent…
    This fear of becoming obsolete is the crutch of “online print” operations. Change is good AND necessary!
    Thanks for the post!


  3. Jon,
    Great analysis. However, did you try eating your own dog food? Apply the same analysis to this page and doesn’t seem like even 23% of the page above the fold is dedicated to the relevant content.


  4. Sorry CKB, You are wrong. There is no irony.
    1) If you clicked a link to get to this story it is there with an obvious headline front and center in the top 1/3 of the page
    2) I have no ads
    3) This is a blog, not a newspaper
    4) All content here is focused on a single topic. digital marketing – so there is topical relevance with every link
    5) The header is relevant as it is the title/branding of the blog and the images are all relevant in some way to the story


  5. CKB- your anonymous post is busted dude!
    IP Owner lookup
    OrgName: The New York Times
    OrgID: NYT-1
    Address: 229 West 43rd Street
    City: New York
    StateProv: NY
    PostalCode: 10036
    Country: US
    NetRange: –
    NetName: NYTCO
    NetHandle: NET-170-149-0-0-1
    Parent: NET-170-0-0-0-0
    NetType: Direct Assignment
    NameServer: NS1T.NYTIMES.COM


  6. The NYT is a lot cleaner looking than your blog. And while you may not have ads for other companies on your blog, your margins are filled with ads for your “personal brand.”


  7. stphn – With the amount of full-time paid staff dedicated to working on the Times digital design and dev I would sure hope their web site is better looking that my typepad blog!
    My issues are with the content experience.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s