Stop benchmarking against the New York Times

The publishing industry loves a winner, and few titles dominate industry conversations like the New York Times. Its meteoric growth in digital subscriptions—now surpassing ten million—has made it a popular benchmark. Publishers frequently look at the Times and ask: “How can we do that?”

The problem? The Times is not the blueprint most publishers need, and continually benchmarking against it can be actively harmful. It can mislead publishers into chasing unattainable goals, distract from their unique strengths, and overlook realistic paths to profitability and audience loyalty. It’s time publishers recognised the dangers of comparing themselves to the industry’s most celebrated outlier.

Exceptional—but not replicable

The New York Times is exceptional in the truest sense of the word. It commands global recognition, decades of established brand equity, substantial financial resources, and a talent pool unmatched by most publishers. Its scale enables vast investments in journalism, technology, and product development, unmatched in scope or ambition.

Yet many smaller publishers attempt to copy elements of the Times’s model—such as aggressive subscription pricing, vast content volume, or ambitious multimedia projects—only to find these strategies unaffordable, unsustainable, or simply ineffective at smaller scales.

This isn’t just about budgets or resources; it’s about understanding audience fit. The Times’s broad, global audience expects expansive coverage, sophisticated apps, podcasts, games, cooking verticals, and more. But such an expansive approach often makes little sense for niche, regional, or specialised publishers, whose audiences want depth, authenticity, and focused coverage—not breadth for its own sake.

The danger of unrealistic metrics

Benchmarking against the Times creates unrealistic expectations around scale. Publishers risk becoming fixated on vanity metrics—such as total subscriber counts or international reach—that don’t align with their actual business model or reader needs.

For most publishers, sustainable success won’t come from tens of millions of casual subscribers. It will come from deeper relationships with smaller, highly-engaged audiences. Trying to chase Times-like scale means diluting your brand, weakening editorial focus, and risking your core readership in pursuit of unattainable mass-market appeal.

Take regional publishers, for example. Their strength lies in community relevance, local trust, and authenticity. But when these publishers benchmark themselves against the Times, they risk pursuing generic “one-size-fits-all” content strategies that undermine their unique local appeal and dilute reader engagement.

Celebrating your unique strengths

Instead of benchmarking against a global giant, publishers should celebrate their distinct advantages: deep reader insights, clear editorial identity, niche specialisation, and trusted community relationships. Smaller publishers often know their readers better and can act more nimbly, adapting quickly to shifting preferences.

Publishers such as Axios, Politico, and Morning Brew achieved success precisely because they defined their audience carefully and served it exceptionally well. Rather than emulating the Times’s expansive approach, they doubled down on clarity, brevity, and consistency, crafting content perfectly tailored to their audience’s needs. They focused on quality of engagement rather than quantity of readers—proving that publishers don’t need Times-like scale to succeed financially or editorially.

Similarly, many regional and niche titles thrive by focusing on meaningful interactions, relevant subscription offers, and direct relationships through newsletters, events, and community memberships. Success comes from clearly defining audience value—not from chasing elusive global scale.

Define your own benchmark

Publishers shouldn’t entirely ignore industry leaders—but they should choose better benchmarks. Instead of idolising unattainable successes, publishers need realistic reference points aligned with their actual scale, mission, and resources.

Choose benchmarks based on genuine similarities: regional publishers should learn from successful local and community-driven models, while niche publishers should look to other specialist outlets that thrive on smaller but highly-engaged audiences. Benchmark yourself against realistic, achievable goals—reader satisfaction, retention rates, subscriber growth within your niche, or revenue per subscriber—rather than arbitrary milestones.

The Times is inspirational, undoubtedly, but the publishing industry doesn’t need another imitation of it. It needs publishers who confidently pursue their own unique path, understand their audience deeply, and deliver exceptional value within their specific context.

The future belongs to publishers who stop asking, “How can we become the next New York Times?” and start asking, “How can we become the best version of ourselves?”