Field Notes Inside an Integrated Communications Agency

A few days back the New York Times online and LinkedIn (a very popular social network for professionals) joined together in a substantial content deal that will mutually benefit the giants. Its like Web content's Panama Canal joining two oceans of users with a cleverly-placed shortcut.

This is significant for the two sites. LinkedIn is seen as a network reference-only site that is infrequently sourced by an enourmous based of members. The New York Times is a news giant who's seeing their numbers decline like all other news orgs. This is a marriage of convenience that is significant for many reasons.

First, the New York Times is in a unique position to help LinkedIn with catch-of-the-day content relevant to sectors suiting their members' interestes. LinkedIn has seen fresh subscribable content as their Achilles heel. People only visit when they have a specific networking need. The New York Times can address LinkedIn's content freshness with little additional cost or effort. 

Second, this is significant because LinkedIn boasts millions of members who aren't currently visitng the New York Times. Ad revenues will likely increase as a result right out of the gate.

The question is, will people who happen to be confirming the occasional Link request use LinkedIn as their news portal? And will the New York Times online drive more people to LinkedIn? It remains to be seen. I predict this marriage will favor the New York Times as their merely opening another channel for incoming traffic which will boost the money they can make on advertising. LinkedIn, at least in the beginning, will not likely see reciprocal traffic from their new partner because people who are quickly accessing their daily news fix are less likely to jump into relationship building.