The same founders return with a new argument for why the Times isn't optimizing its business
For the second time in three years, the New York Times Company finds itself in the sights of activist investors who believe its potential remains unrealized. Fivespan Partners — founded by the same architects of the 2022 ValueAct campaign — has quietly accumulated a stake and returned with a new argument: that artificial intelligence holds the key to subscriber growth. The episode raises an enduring question about legacy institutions navigating modernity, and whether the family trusts that guard editorial independence can also shelter a company from the pressures of an impatient market.
- Fivespan Partners, a firm barely a year old, has moved swiftly to acquire a stake in the Times and signal its intent to push for AI-driven subscription expansion.
- The news sent the stock up nearly one percent on Tuesday, adding momentum to an 87% climb since the same investors first circled the company in 2022.
- The Times is already deploying AI for data analysis and article summaries, but Fivespan is expected to push for something more ambitious and systemic.
- Neither the Times nor Fivespan would comment, leaving the scope and urgency of their demands unresolved and the market reading between the lines.
- The Ochs Sulzberger family's dual-class share structure remains the decisive variable — activist pressure can shape the conversation, but it cannot commandeer the company.
The New York Times Company is once again drawing activist attention. Fivespan Partners, founded just last year by Dylan Haggart and Sarah Coyne, has taken a stake in the Times' common stock and intends to push for strategic change. It is the second such campaign in three years — and notably, Haggart and Coyne are the same figures who led ValueAct Capital's 2022 effort to influence the company's direction.
That earlier campaign centered on bundling the Times' suite of products — news, games, cooking — to drive subscriber growth. Now, operating independently, they are returning with a sharper argument: artificial intelligence could meaningfully expand the Times' subscriber base. The news became public Tuesday via Bloomberg, and the market responded with a modest but telling uptick in the stock price.
The Times has not stood still on AI. It has already introduced tools for data analysis and article summarization, gestures toward the technology-forward posture Fivespan is likely to champion. But the depth of change the firm will seek — and how management will receive it — remains an open question.
The more durable constraint is structural. The Ochs Sulzberger family controls the company through Class B shares that carry disproportionate voting power, a design meant to protect editorial independence across generations. Activist investors holding Class A shares can apply pressure and shape the conversation, but they cannot compel outcomes. Fivespan's return signals continued investor belief that the Times is leaving value on the table — yet the family's architecture ensures that any transformation will happen on the institution's own terms, not the market's.
The New York Times Company is facing pressure from activist investors once again. Fivespan Partners, an investment firm founded just last year by Dylan Haggart and Sarah Coyne, has accumulated a stake in the newspaper's common stock and intends to push for strategic changes, according to people with knowledge of the situation. This marks the second time in three years that the Times has drawn the attention of an activist investor seeking to reshape how the company operates.
Haggart and Coyne are not newcomers to this fight. In 2022, when they were partners at ValueAct Capital, they led that firm's campaign to influence the Times' direction. At that time, they advocated for bundling the company's various offerings—its news subscription, games, cooking content, and other products—to accelerate growth. Now, working independently through Fivespan, they are returning with a fresh argument: artificial intelligence could be the key to expanding the Times' subscriber base.
The timing of Fivespan's move became public on Tuesday when Bloomberg reported the stake. Neither Fivespan nor the Times would comment on the matter. What is clear is that the market took notice. The Times' stock price ticked up nearly one percent in the hours after the news broke, continuing a broader upward trajectory. Since ValueAct first invested in August 2022, the stock has climbed 87 percent, a gain that reflects investor appetite for the kinds of operational changes activist campaigns typically advocate.
The Times has already begun experimenting with artificial intelligence in its newsroom. The company has deployed AI tools to analyze data and generate article summaries, moves that align with the kind of technology-forward thinking Fivespan is likely to champion. Whether the firm will push for more aggressive AI integration—or for the bundling strategy it championed three years ago—remains to be seen.
One structural reality may constrain how much influence Fivespan can wield. The Times operates under a dual-class share structure designed to preserve editorial independence and long-term strategic thinking. The Ochs Sulzberger family, which has controlled the newspaper for generations, holds Class B shares through a trust that gives them outsized voting power. The public holds Class A shares with standard voting rights. This arrangement means that activist investors, no matter how large their stake, cannot simply force their will on the company. They can make their case, apply pressure, and influence the conversation—but ultimate control remains with the family.
Still, the return of Haggart and Coyne signals that the Times remains a target for investors who believe the company is not fully capitalizing on its assets. Whether their focus on AI-driven growth will resonate with management, or whether the family's protective structure will insulate the Times from significant change, will become clearer in the months ahead.
Citas Notables
The Times is already integrating AI in the newsroom, including to analyze data and help write article summaries— New York Times Company statement
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why would an activist investor return to the same company just three years later? Didn't they already make their pitch?
They did, but the world has changed. In 2022, they were talking about bundling products. Now the conversation is AI. It's the same founders with a new argument for why the Times isn't optimizing its business.
And the stock has gone up 87 percent since they first got involved. Doesn't that suggest their ideas worked?
It suggests the market thinks the Times is worth more. Whether that's because of ValueAct's influence or just because the company executed better is harder to say. But it certainly gives Fivespan confidence that there's more value to unlock.
The Ochs Sulzberger family controls the voting shares. Can Fivespan actually force anything?
No. They can't force anything. But they can make noise, attract media attention, and put pressure on management to explain why they're not pursuing certain strategies. Sometimes that's enough.
So what's the real leverage here?
Reputation and narrative. If Fivespan can convince other investors that the Times is leaving money on the table by not embracing AI more aggressively, that affects stock price and how the market values the company. The family cares about both the business and its legacy. Pressure from investors matters, even if they can't be overruled.