Why do the NYT wedding pages seem so upper crust?

Here is their own explanation:

One challenge, though, is that our published announcements are culled from the couples who submit their wedding to us through the online form. We would love to see more economic diversity and a broader range of careers represented. The biggest step in that direction would be for more readers to submit announcements, giving us a wider and deeper pool of candidates. Recently, we had a push for a more racially diverse submissions, and it has helped create a more inclusive section.

Every submission is read and seriously considered. Some weeks, we’ll have 125 to 200 submissions; other weeks we’ll have 20. It can be agonizing to pare down to only 35 couples during the heavy wedding season. (If you want to really increase your odds of getting in, try a Christmas week wedding.)

And, yes, choosing our couples is subjective. Factors, in no particular order, include life achievements, job information, how-we-met stories, ages of couple, college backgrounds or not, parents’ information and other interesting anecdotes. We also strive to have as diverse a selection as we can, based on the submissions for any particular week.

While I consider that a perfectly fair response, I wonder how an NYT labor market story would evaluate a comparable response from say a top tech company in Silicon Valley.

Comments

...:"wonder how an NYT labor market story would evaluate a comparable response from say a top tech company in Silicon Valley."

I guess I knew marriages required work ; now I'm sure.

Video ads are more intrusive but viewers might actually prefer them to display ads. They carry a much higher CPM, and so naturally a better margin. That said they cost a lot to implement for want of engineering resources, which I assume the NYT is far lacking.

The home page takeover that won't leave is a middle finger to the reader. But might actually be more profitable than the video ad in terms of signing up people. That hybrid model won't be leaving anytime soon.

Video ads are only branding though so any marketer seeking a CPA arrangement will be less than satisfied. Video ads are easier to run in the background and even in-view, essentially fraudulently like in Facebook. This will further drive down the CPA. That's why there is a disconnect between the gold standard in advertising called viewability decided by Group M and the creative side, lets call it BBDO, which resides in UBS.

Zing! Nice work, Tyler. Inconsistency for me but not for thee amirite

What's the economic/ethnic diversity of NYT readers? Seems that might answer most of it.

I doubt that the demographics of the tiny subset "people who request the NYT to publish about their wedding" are representative of their readership as a whole.

I wonder if I could get a fake wedding announcement past them. They're pretty gullible.

I'll bet you $1 that in a maximum of five attempts during the remainder of this year you will not succeed.

This year 1807, pulled back the muslin curtain on the beginning of our last glorious act -- a neutralized Prussia.
And a helmeted manakin from the Pantal flew over the copse of dogwoods.

Marriage costs money.
It has been severely damaged as an institution in this country, yet weddings cost ever more.

Their wedding pages will likely remain as they are, much like tech companies remain overwhelmingly male, despite everyone bending over backwards to change it.

My wedding was relatively inexpensive. I "made" money on it after gifts.

We went the Justice-of-the-Peace route. Under a tree in the courthouse yard.
When I die, I want to be creamated, because it's cheaper.

City garbage truck might be cheaper still.

I wouldn't want to become an externality.

The cheapest way to be cremated is to jump in a volcano, which is free.

Presumably Hazel wishes to be dead before cremation. Also, it costs money to get close to an active volcano.

Nor would I want to force my descedants to unnecessarily risk their lives by climbing up one to cast my body in. Although I wouldn't mind being set adrift in a flaming boat like an ancient Viking.

Art Deco, just because you are a diopthalm born in Tilsit, and those tremolos you got on your guitar stir the heimweh in the, well Lolita is a hell of a story, but I know thou are not sempiternal nor even have once though that you got to find a reason for the postmeridian, well Hazel, I suppose Gordon Gund wafers the thin membrane between the ridiculous and the sublime.

Weddings cost whatever you want them to cost. There is no obligation to throw a huge and expensive party to impress people you don't really care what they think about you.

What if you want to impress people you DO care what they think about you, like your family?

If your family thinks it's a good idea that you should blow tens of thousands of dollars on an expensive party, then you might reconsider whether they are worth impressing.

It's a milestone event, often the biggest party you will ever throw for yourself, your friends, and your family. Sometimes money exists to allow us to enjoy our lives. Obviously you shouldn't spend what you can't afford. But many people like to spend their money on experiences not stuff.

"It’s a milestone event, often the biggest party you will ever throw for yourself, your friends, and your family. Sometimes money exists to allow us to enjoy our lives."

Oddly enough, our Wedding didn't seem at all enjoyable from the Bride and Groom's perspective. It seemed expensive, stressful and tiring. My wife wanted to elope, I talked her out of it. Which makes it clear that I married up.

JWatts: no doubt, it's not for everyone. My wife and I loved ours and it was a fairly big event, likely the biggest party I will ever throw.

I'm glad it was good for you.

Also, I don't mean to insinuate that our wedding day was horrible. It just wasn't magical.

We definitely stressed about it, and were exhausted after, but overall very glad we did it that way.

Well, I hope you didn't spend money on it that should have gone towards a down payment on a house, or your kids college funds.
If you're in a position where you can afford to spend more than $10,000 on a wedding, you're pretty lucky.

If an expensive wedding where you live costs only tens of thousands of dollars then you could probably buy condo or a small house for what an expensive wedding costs in Manhattan.

It's elaborate recreation favored by a certain feminine type. The last bridezilla party wedding I attended was the point of departure for a marriage which blew up after 28 months. One day the wife deposited her son (age 12) at his father's abode and ran off on vacation with her new boyfriend. The youth had rather liked his stepfather. His question to his father (the high school bf from long ago), "Was my mother always a whore?".

The excuse offered by her family was 'she's bipolar'.

Elaborate weddings are tempting fate.

The whole fairy tale wedding thing is drilled into girls from infancy. I mean ... Cinderella. The entire Disney Princess franchise is built on it. If you don't have a wedding that rivals something out of a Disney movie, you're clearly a failure, since your whole purpose in life is to marry a prince and live happily ever after.

I do not believe there is actually a wedding in Cinderella, is there?

It sort of ends with a wedding. But the whole story is about a giant party in a palace with pretty dresses, that ends with the heroine marrying a prince. Close enough.

Well, it's the newspaper of an above average city of one of the wealthiest nations on Earth.

What's going on here? Does having money is a source of shame?

I imagine a big part of it is to whom such an announcement is seen as valuable. I would have paid to prevent my wedding from being announced in the New York Times.

An enterprising editor could start a business based on being paid to not announce people's weddings in the New York Times.

A striking feature (or maybe not) of NYT weddings in the last decade is the number of Indian women (mostly Hindu but occasionally Muslim) who get married to White guys. I understand there is some kind of Coasean arrangement here, but I can't quite figure out what is in it for the White guy? A virgin? A highly educated woman who still has domesticated tendencies? An opportunity for the White guy to appear to be cosmopolitan while marring someone who is or is close to Caucasian?

White guys are much more common than Indian guys in America. So it would follow that unless Indians actively selecting for their own ethnicity, such unions would be very common. There doesn't have to be anything "in it" for the white guy.

"but I can’t quite figure out what is in it for the White guy?"

Love. Desire. Companionship. Sometime money and status.

The same things that drive all marriages.

Your speculation says more about you than the "White guys".

And people say economists are soulless bean counters. "Coasean arrangement" LOL...

Surely this poster also posts about "opting out" of marriage because of those cunning womenfolk, to cover for his inability to connect with the opposite sex (even the White girls).

Oh, I'm sorry, am I "nerd-shaming" again? No, racist/misogynist-shaming.

Also, spare me the PUA reply calling me a "white knight" or whatever, I'm a well-adjusted, successful, happily married hetero dude with plenty of fun history with women. You aren't.

You're an idiot.

LOL, you are so easily triggered.

Great example of overcompensation. In a good mood today?

Very, I love when the misogynist/racist nerds come out for me to torment. I figured you'd be by soon enough.

And I love your nerd shaming. We need the nerds on our side, and your behaviour is helping that.

LOL! "the nerds" on "OUR" side? As if you aren't King of the Nerds.

King? It's a elective office.

Suffice it to say I'm not the guy who feels the need to bring up my "fun history with women" in a completely irrelevant context.

It's relevant to show you guys that there's a better way to happiness than treating women as the scary other. They're just people who make good and bad decisions just like you do. Choose love my friend!

Sure, but the question is, do you want to put yourself in a situation where someone's bad decision can pretty much ruin your life?

Choose love? I choose freedom.

"Choose love? I choose freedom"
I read on the newspaper that they are launching a new videogame, but I do not remember the details. Do you want the newspaper clipping sent to you?

Wife won't let you buy the game, eh?

I have things somewhat (to put it mildly) more interesting to do. But I have heard Americans talk so many about how they love their videogames so I paid enough attention to the news to remember there was something about it on the paper. Usually I woukd have forgotten by now. Living in a country with n

* Living a country with few emotionally crippled people makes for a dull life sometimes, I fear. But I played videogame sometimes when I was 10, it was not bad, I think.

Did the commenter say something objectionable in another thread? Because otherwise your reply is unhinged. It's an econ blog, of course people are going to use econ babble.

Internet arguments don't need to be based on anything either commenter actually said. It's much more efficient and fun to argue based on things that they might have said or might have thought about saying, or even things which other people might have possibly said. The possibilities are limitless.

Sometimes people marry their spouses because they love them.

That idea is pretty hard for these types to grasp.

Love doesn't just spontaneously appear.(and it's related but distinct to the question at hand, marriage) He's asking why there are patterns, but I guess it's a triggering question for some people.

Actually it kinda does. If you had ever felt it you'd know.

I can't understand this. Show me your model. Does it account for endogeneity? Are you sure the errors are distributed homoskedastically?

In my observation it's mainly a second generation thing, the immigrant women are usually endogemous, as would be expected by their culture. But their American both children behave more like whites or Asians. Since they are recent immigrants, it's only in the past decade that there's a large second generation.

They are Asians.

Well, actually they are Americans, but while we are chopping up the population by contitent of ancestral origin...

Racially speaking they are closer to Whites. They used to be classified as White, but they had it changed so they could qualify for affirmative action.

Those Indians, always with their tricks.

If this isn't the dumbest thing written on July 5, 2017, it should at least get an honorable mention. Affirmative action is worse for Asians than it is for whites.

Read Steve Sailer, he's written extensively about this:

http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-arab-flight-from-white-is-it-good-for-the-jews/

Your claim that affirmative action is worse for Asians than it is for whites is based on affirmative action for elite schools, and indeed there is something to that.(What, you think our race traitor rulers are going to let their own children be out-competed? Fairness and competition and non-discrimination, those are for the proles.) You are forgetting, or perhaps simply unaware, of widespread affirmative action outside of education, such as the Minority Business Development Agency, related to Sailer's point. On their webpage they state:

"Our clients are businesses owned by African Americans, Asian Americans, Hasidic Jews, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders."

https://www.mbda.gov/page/about-minority-business-development-agency

If you're curious about the Eskimos there, yes, they too managed to get on that list, on the theory that sure, Eskimos are a rich group, but Hasidic Eskimos aren't, a logic that is never applied to poor white subgroups.

Certainly there's been no push among Indians to have themselves reclassified as being once more white. Why do you think that is?

Not true, the Supreme Court ruled in the 1920s that immigrants from India were ineligible for naturalization, since the law specified that only "whites" and people of African ancestry were eligible.

Quality write-up, Cyber.

I would guess it's more that Indian women are more traditional big wedding types who think a newspaper announcement is important, whereas white women are more likely to think a formal announcement is unnecessary.

It is so strange what is and what isn't racist. If this was posted by someone you didn't approve of, I suspect you may have believed it was a racist generalization.

Dude, even the Indian girl in Sense8, which is a radically queer television show made by a couple of transexuals, has a gigantic Indian wedding. Nobody thinks there's anything racist about noticing that Indians have big weddings.

You notice the same trend elsewhere...for example, in Singapore you see lots of Caucasian guys married to Asian women. I guess it works well for both of them. The Asian wife may be more comfortable in playing the traditional wife role than a Caucasian woman. That suits the Caucasian guy. The Caucasian husband may be okay with a less traditional wife role than the Asian husband. That suits the Asian girl.

I think the answer is simpler. Non white women are integrated faster than men. White men are usually pretty okay with dating a wide variety of races. White men outnumber Indian men to an Indian women willing to date either.

No special individual needs/goals needed by the couole. Just white men not caring if their wife is Asian, Indian or white, and modern Indian women not caring if their husband is white or Indian.

I guess the real questions is do non white men get dating opportunities slower than the women? I think so, which would answer this question without any "bargain" by the couple.

Nope. This means nothing other than each and every poster's racism according to the resident race baiters.

"The Asian wife may be more comfortable in playing the traditional wife role than a Caucasian woman. That suits the Caucasian guy. The Caucasian husband may be okay with a less traditional wife role than the Asian husband."
Exactly what does it mean? She spends only half of his money, raises half of his children and cooks half of his dinners and he only only complains about his boss half of the time and watch football only half the season?

"Traditional wife role" for the white guy might be "we split labor by me concentrating on bringing in money while you take care of the household" without "and you become my property and take care of my dying mother."

And what he gets from this bargain?

The Caucasian wife expects the husband to change diapers 50% of the time. The Asian husband will do it only 25% of the time. If the Caucasian husband changes diapers 37.5% of the time, both the Caucasian guy and the Asian girl get a better deal.

Because their mothers always wanted them to marry doctors?

A virgin? I don't think the white guy cares much about that, but the Indian man (or his family) does. I think the comment below about a lack of Indian men in this country is a big part of it. The pickings are slim for Indian women, certainly outside of places like Silicon Valley, Chicago, Austin, and NY.

But what's in it for the white guy? In my opinion, the main attraction is probably an intellectual, educated woman who is also slightly more feminine than your typical female. But the white man is marrying a couple rungs down the ladder also. He lacks the self-confidence, looks, and social skills to marry a white girl. He may not even be suitable for a far east Asian woman (next step down) who is just looking for someone to start a family with. And now he has to deal with the social pressure and burdens applied to her by family members and other Indians in the community about not marrying an Indian man.

I should add, on average, the far east Asian woman is more attractive and has a nicer body than the typical Indian woman. The Indian woman, in the US, tries to compensate by studying hard and being more intellectual.

We would love to see more economic diversity and a broader range of careers represented.

Doubt it.

In fact, I think this is the actual opposite of what they want. My understanding is that the wedding industry is heavily aspirational (how could it be otherwise?). People want to read about perfect people with perfect lives stretching ahead of them. They want just enough reality to bolster the daydream, without enough reality to shatter it.

My prediction is that racial- and sexual orientation diversity will be welcomed by their readers, and economic diversity / economic reality will not.

And, yes, choosing our couples is subjective. Factors, in no particular order, include life achievements, job information, how-we-met stories, ages of couple, college backgrounds or not, parents’ information and other interesting anecdotes. We also strive to have as diverse a selection as we can, based on the submissions for any particular week.

The exception that proves the rule. You can be as poor as you like if your life achievements, job information, how-we-met story, ages, college background, family history, or anything else is sufficiently aspirational.

But I'm guessing that young couples with great college backgrounds, cool jobs, noteworthy life achievements and important families who met in an interesting or impressive way tend to be upper class, since basically every one of those criteria tend to be class signifiers.

"Doubt it. "

Yeah, they would love it in the same way they seek out diversity in the real estate they feature or the ads they accept.

You have to make 500K + a year to afford anything they advertise in the Sunday magazine.

I make that and I *still* cannot afford that after I pay for rent, private school for kids, etc.

I guess it's in large part a question of the motivation for posting announcements to begin with. Are they an attempt to portray a journalistic cross section of "marriage today", or are they an attempt to document for the historical record unions that are expected to have societal impact and importance. I suspect it's the latter, which serves as justification for including more Goldman Director marries Cravath Associate than Cab Driver marries Nanny announcements.

They should just cut the whole wedding announcement section entirely, or charge people for the ad space.

Um, they do charge for the ad space. And I bet ads in the wedding section go for a premium too.

Who still has giant weddings with formal announcements in the newspaper? I think there's your answer.
I doubt that many people outside of the upper, upper crust really think the newspaper announcement is an important part of formal wedding arrangements. Nobody reads print media anymore anyway. The Facebook update is sufficient.

Dear Lakshmi, a message from Hanuman.

Yes, as noted above, the other group is immigrants from cultures where weddings are huge extravaganzas, like India.

And what subset of those people would consider the New York Times to be the best or most appropriate forum for such an announcement?

Upper crust people who live in New York, and really really upper crust people with enormous egos.

I had a wedding announcement in the NY Times a couple years ago. Had a picture and everything!

Neither my spouse or I come from families of any consequence. It is possible to get in without a parent who sits on the Supreme Court or the board of the Met.

IMO one reason they don't get more submissions is that the submission form is quite long and involved. Unless you have someone in your immediate family who cares a lot about these things (my parents grew up poor in NYC and so this was a cool thing for them), it's probably not worth the time to fill it out. Especially since you have to submit about two months before, which is bang in the middle of planning the actual wedding.

relevant humor
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/11/wedding-announcement-by-colin-nissan

We would love to see more economic diversity and a broader range of careers represented. The biggest step in that direction would be for more readers to submit announcements,

They'd get more diversity quite easily if they'd set aside 20% of the space to couples chosen out of a hat. They don't do that because 'we would love to see economic diversity' is a bald-faced lie.

Indeed. But I doubt they want stories like "we met when I was watching my ex-girlfriend's son play skeeball with his birthday tokens at Chuck E Cheese and she was our waitress."

Riffing off a comment by Grouch Marx, they'd probably cover my wedding in the agriculture section.

Translation: If you’re registered at Target then you ain’t worth print

The wedding announcements have always been the best part of the NYT.

They are a useful resource to have online. There should be more social science studies of NYT wedding announcements.

I wonder how an NYT labor market story would evaluate a comparable response from say a top tech company in Silicon Valley.

I wonder why these ought to be regarded as similar things, subject to similar standards.

This brings back memories of reading the great 'Wedded Blitz' columns that Katie Baker used to do at Grantland, systematically scoring NYT wedding announcements, and using tableau to visualize the results.
http://grantland.com/features/wedded-blitz-yolo-edition/

Comments for this post are closed