I've read quite a few blog posts today — many by folks added to this branch — about NYTCo's choice of BBC director-general Mark Thompson for its CEO spot. Most, though, have been focused on why the NYT chose Thompson, the pros and cons of the pick, what skills he brings to the table (e.g. video expertise), etc.

But I'm rooting for him and for the NYT, so I'm actually more curious about what should come next than what just happened. What should Thompson do in his first few weeks and months at the company? What should he focus on? What should he leave alone? What are his big to-dos that the newsroom and other employees all know, but the company will probably never acknowledge publicly?

I'd love to hear your ideas.

My own feeling is that he needs to get across the message that while the paywall is doing fine, it isn't enough -- the NYT needs to come up with some other significant ventures, and quickly, or it is going to have to downsize in a very painful way. Oh yes, and I think he should buy Flipboard or Pulse or something like that :-)

Agreed, Mathew. When Ryan wrote the NYTco. was moving closer to a "pure play newspaper company" (cjr.org) I gulped a little. That doesn't sound good. What I'd be looking for in a new NYTco CEO is someone who can build out the company strategically. I know that sounds business-speak-y but, for example, both Thomson and, dare I say it, Newscorp., started as newspaper companies and methodically built around them (with Thomson getting out of newspapers altogether, but let's leave that aside for the moment). It takes a while -- but years, not decades, and I think they've got some breathing room.

To mimic what @Mathew said.

I think a new CEO can/should play off the News Fence - but commit to it in a new way. Right now - it feels like a car that gets great gas mileage - but we can't call it a "green car." It's stuck somewhere in the middle. It's a new revenue stream - but it's making something more efficient - it doesn't wholly point to the future.

I also think any successful media company must also recognize that it is also a technology company and position itself as such.

More explanation of that idea here: blog.digidave.org

Buying Flipboard or another company like that would be an easy way into that world.

"I also think any successful media company must also recognize that it is also a technology company and position itself as such."

> @Dave - This is an unbelievably contentious topic. I've had quite a few people tell me, for instance, not to ever associate Branch with the word media, but I think there's a lot to be said for redefining what it means to be a media company, rather than just running from it entirely. Who's to say the definition of each can't change as they converge?

And agreed with you and @Dean both that the Times could quickly become a strategic leader — they've certainly succeeded with news products — but it's a high hurdle. Is reading the sell-off of the regionals, About, etc. as a try at a fresh start inaccurate?

Just my .02 - I think Branch IS a media company (whether people want to call it that or not). You create a platform that mediates conversations.

You might not be an "editorial" company. But I would def. argue you are a "media" company in the philosophical sense: en.wikipedia.org)

The NYT is a media company that creates editorial content (which is to say - it serves a specific purpose - to collect, filter, distribute information that is of news value). With that in mind - they should build tech platforms that enable editorial media to be produced.

YouTube is a media company - not editorial.
Hulu is a media company - editorial (with the goal of distributing entertainment).

Okay - I'll get off my high horse now ;)

In a lot of ways, the whole media/technology dichotomy is becoming increasingly irrelevant -- tech companies like Twitter and Facebook are effectively becoming media companies, and media players are having to become tech companies. To me, if it doesn't break when you drop it then it's media :-)

I'd love to see the NYT do something really creative like start an open blog network or experiment with some of the stuff the Post has like recommendation engines and whatnot. Get some of that stuff out of the lab and into the real world.

Yeah, the media/technology dichotomy seems a bit of a dead-end. The NYT seems reasonably alive to the fact that technology is changing both its distribution methods, and, to some degree, what its journalists do all day. My concern is that NYTco., like Dow Jones & Co., and many other newspaper companies were terribly run strategically. That NYTco. made a huge investment in the Boston Globe in 1993 is pretty much all you need to know. A killer. The WaPo, at least, has cable and its (yes, discredited) for-profit education wing to keep it afloat (but that company is a whole 'nother branch). Newscorp.'s big money makers are -- wait for it -- cable, TV, and movies. materials.proxyvote.com

Does Mark Thompson have a plan, is what I want to know.

And yes, Newscorp. isn't going to be a newspaper company anymore, but that's another branch, too. cjr.org