Dear New York Times,
As a web marketer, I work with many businesses at all levels of technical know-how.
But for a company as massive as The New York Times to be making some of the most basic of Internet Search Engine Optimization mistakes makes me worried.
When I saw this today, I’ll admit I chuckled for a second, but it honestly got me worried to see how can a company your size can be overlooking the most basic aspects of online marketing.
Fix These Mistakes and Exponentially Grow Web Visitors
Although your article ranks on the search engines for a few keywords related to the article topic, there are still some serious changes needed on the site.
Considering you know print is dying and that your newspaper needs to be online and focused on getting website traffic (thus ad revenue), I would hope the great minds at NYTimes.com already have this on the radar.
But just in case, I thought I’d put in my 2 cents…
Fix Your Amateur Addresses For Articles
Think of your actual website address (technically called the webpage file name) as a street sign that tells search engines “this specific article is about X, Y, and Z“.
The article file names on your site are hurting your web traffic. For example, the article about Pandora.com possibly going public after a very challenging startup journey has the file name of “08pandora.html” (circled in picture below).
This tells search engines “my article is about ‘o8pandora’”…

Needless to say, your current webpage address makes no sense.
Make This Change
You should have named it “pandora-going-public.html“, “pandora-ipo.html“, etc.
While I know there is more to the article topic then just the IPO, this serves as a simple example.
Wouldn’t it make more sense if you told search engines “this article is about Pandora’s IPO” or “this article is about Pandora going public” instead of “my article is about ‘08pandora’”…
This is a simple change to make, but something that could have huge results for your web traffic.
Secondly, Your Meta Keywords Are Horrible
I’ll spare my readers the technical mumbo jumbo of what meta keywords are, but you can simply think of them as yet another way to tell search engines “this article is about keywords such as keyword 1, keyword 2, and keyword 3. If someone searches online for those words, then you should show my article”.
Again, the article at NYTimes.com is about Pandora, a web based company, possibly going public this year. Therefore, you would expect that the meta keywords would be something along the lines of “pandora going public, pandora ipo, etc. etc.”.
Here’s what your staff at NYTimes.com decided to put.
Computers and the Internet Radio Music Start-ups Westergren Tim Pandora.com
Honestly, This is Pathetic
You need to get specific when you’re telling search engines what your article is about.
Yes, your article is somehow related to “computers and internet“, but that doesn’t mean that you should put that in your meta keywords. Put keywords directly related to your article topic such as “Pandora going public“, etc.
Action Plan For NY Times Web Department
If NYTimes.com wants to remain relevant and respected as a modern website that is the source of important information online, you can’t be making amateur mistakes that are costing you website visitors…seriously, if you change just some basic things on your site, I’m confident your web search traffic will increase exponentially!
These Simple Changes Will Exponentially Grow Your Web Search Traffic
- change your page file names to include keywords / the actual topics your article is about.
- in making these changes, do not forget to “301 redirect” your old amateur webpage file names so that if someone visits 08pandora.html they’re taken to the new pandora-going-public.html webpage.
- optimize your meta keywords to include keywords specifically related to the article. It’s a good idea to stay relatively focused when doing this, so I wouldn’t recommend putting “computers” or “internet” as your keywords even if the article is about a internet based company that just so happens to run on a computer somewhere going public in the next year…Nearly every article in the “technology” section is about “computers and internet”…don’t put these as keywords for articles.
I have a million other suggestions for the site in terms of easy ways to increase your website visitors, but these first two make for a simple but effective list of changes you need to make.
Looking forward to your response,
To Readers: Seeing Big Companies Make Newbie Mistakes?
This is not the first time I’ve seen a big company make an amateur mistake. I think it’d be interesting to discuss ideas of where you see that some of these untouchable companies could improve.
Looking forward to your thoughts…




{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
Great letter
It makes all of my stumbling mistakes while learning marketing strategies seem not so bad.
I would think that the New York times has plenty of resources to hire the best.
Thanks for the tips in the letter
Sheila http://www.seniorhomecareusa.com
Thanks for reading Sheila. It’s not that they don’t hire the best, as I’m sure NYTimes.com has smart minds at the offices. I believe that this is just yet another case of a company not truly understanding web marketing and implementing it across their web sites. It just surprised me that a company as large as NY Times dropped the ball on their website search engine optimization.
Great post Jon! I did a quick search for “Pandora going public” on Google, and your post is ranked #6, outranking the NY times (ranked #12).
wow. That’s funny. I would bet NYTimes.com could easily be #1 for “Pandora Going Public” if they made just a few changes on their site. I’ve actually received a few visits today from people searching Google for “pandora going public”. Interesting…
Trung, the NYTimes article now ranks for “Pandora Goes Public”, but the lesson in horrible website optimization still applies. They should easily be able to increase their overall search engine traffic with just a few basic changes to their site. All their pages are structured in the same weak-seo way.
Your site outranking the NY Times?….hilarious!
Good observation Trung!
Yes, was pretty interesting. Did you take a look at their site Dan? I know you know your SEO stuff…check out how basic their site is. It amazed me, but I’m an SEO nerd lol.
Nice try to write to a big site in that way!
I have seen some evidence to show that short URLs generate much better click-through rates than longer URLs. See, for example: http://searchengineland.com/supercharge-your-urls-for-maximum-seo-impact-14006
Do you think the positive SEO effect of long URLs you outline outweighs this? If so, how long of a title is too long?
Secondly, now that Google and Bing do not make use of meta keywords, and Yahoo pays very little attention to them (see, for example: http://searchengineland.com/sorry-yahoo-you-do-index-the-meta-keywords-tag-27743) do you really think it’s that important for publishers to pay much attention to them?
Finally, can you explain how New York Times making the changes you suggest would “exponentially” grow visitors to the site, rather than simply grow them?
Looking forward to your response
Heenal
Thanks for your thoughts Heenal
Yes, I have read that post re: shorter URLs getting better CTRs. However, the post also notes that “an unoptimized URL is money left on the table”. I would argue that having the URL be “08pandora.html” is hugely unoptimized. Even something as simple as “panora-ipo.html” would be much better optimized then their current URL but still fall within a “short” URL to get higher CTRs.
Re: meta keywords, yes search engines pay much smaller attention to them these days. However, it’s basic SEO best practice to make your meta be optimized. Notice their keywords are “computers and internet” and “radio”. This tells me that they think they’re optimizing by putting in keywords, but that they’re misunderstanding how to properly optimize meta keywords. Again, I think that unoptimized meta data may still end up being (a smaller bit) of money left on the table.
I appreciate your detailed thoughts. It’s great to meet another well-read internet marketer.
I forgot to address one of your questions re: how my suggestions will exponentially grow their search traffic.
Note that I said exponentially grow their “search traffic” (not their entire website visitors). A site like NYTimes.com gets traffic from many sources, only 1 of which is search engines. My suggestions above (and the others I alluded to) are only meant to increase search traffic from search engines.
Based on a quick analysis of their site, you can see that they’re not applying many of the basics of SEO. Based on what I’ve seen on many small business sites I manage in addition to a few large-enterprise level projects colleagues of mine have worked on, I would definitely bet that their search traffic would at least double if they put serious focus on their SEO. I said exponentially instead of “increase” because I honestly feel their is room for huge improvement in their SEO and potential for huge results.
Hey Jon,
Good catch!
I know pretty much nothing on SEO, but I really need to learn it. Any tips on sites, books, etc. where I can educate myself on it? I know there’s tons out there, but your direction would be appreciated!
Thanks!
Hi Aileen. Good to hear from you.
I’d recommend seomoz.org and/or searchengineland.com as a start. seomoz is a bit technical, and searchengineland tends to have technical and really long drawn out articles, but both are great sources of info on strategy, tactics, and the industry.
Try using NetVibes.com to aggregate multiple blogs / website content in a single location. It’s like your own personal newspaper.
I use it frequently and will be doing a blog post about it at some point soon. Check it out