or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › New York Times to start charging $15 for iPhone, iPad subscriptions by June
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New York Times to start charging $15 for iPhone, iPad subscriptions by June - Page 2

post #41 of 118
NYTimes.com + smartphone app: $15/mo.
NYTimes.com + tablet app: $20/mo.
All Digital Access (i.e., NYTimes.com + smartphone + tablet): $35/mo.



The incremental increase of All Digital Access seems nutty to me. They must not understand the "supersize me" concept.\
post #42 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

You have to wonder don't you? If they use an ad based model they should be going for numbers which means free. They still think in 1990's mode even though they have an iPad version. Amazing! They are exhibiting the same mentality as Kodak did clinging on the film and wanting to play in the digital world too.

I used to work for a newspaper - small, locally-owned (not by Gannett or Knight-Ridder). Even though the company was profitable, the subscription fees did not even pay for the cost of the newsprint. It's all about ads. The only thing having more subscriptions does is justify charging more for the ad space. If they had a clue they would see this as a low-cost means of adding (free) subscribers, and charging more for ads.
post #43 of 118
Getting a paper version of the Sunday NYT delivered to our door in Seattle is one of the weekends little pleasures. For those who do this, nothing changes.

Those who just browse a few times a week, likewise not affected since 20 visits per month are gratis.

Those who use it a lot online only will have to decide if all news is created equal and if so, they will just move to other sites for daily reading. Likewise, they won't be affected since they see no difference in news from provider A and news from provider B. NYT won't 'lose' their business since they currently pay anything anyway.

Upside for NYT is that they will have a new revenue stream and will be able to continue their reporting in a robust fashion going forward. I do think their rates for online only a too high, but its easy to adjust if they figure out that they'd get a lot more subscribers for $10 less a month. More than enough to make up the difference.
post #44 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefferon View Post

nytimes.com/access says their pricing scheme is as follows:

NYTimes.com + smartphone app: $15/mo.
NYTimes.com + tablet app: $20/mo.
All Digital Access (i.e., NYTimes.com + smartphone + tablet): $35/mo.

So they looked at the Kindle idea of buying content once, and making it universally available on all a consumers devices with syncing of progress read / bookmarks / notes, etc, and thought "We are cleverer than that" and came up with the idea of charging per device.

Good luck NYT, you going to need it. A better model would have been;
NYTimes.com + smartphone app: $12.50/mo.
NYTimes.com + tablet app: $15/mo.
All Digital Access (i.e., NYTimes.com + smartphone + tablet): $20/mo.

You would then attract more customers and in total, more revenue. There are too many free / low cost alternatives for this to be viable.

I like in the UK, and used to read The Times online, but since they've been behind a paywall, I now get my news from elsewhere. They are equally too expensive.

The only way these dinasours will learn, is when they are extinct.

Phil
post #45 of 118
$15 for 4 weeks....and still have ads?

Hello USA TODAY!
post #46 of 118
Buh bye

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #47 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I'll take the Daily over the New York Times any day of the week. I'm not fond of liberals.

And yet your handle is named after a computer created by a group of card carrying liberals, made *for* liberals, while working for one of the most liberal companies in the USA today.

Also, "the Daily" is deliberately tailored to appeal to those who like sensationalism more than they do facts. To come to an (ostensibly) "intellectual" form populated by techies and state that you love the Daily is almost guaranteed to attract ridicule.
post #48 of 118
Newspapers didn't anticipate the impact of the internet and now they are screwed. They'll survive but this isn't going to do it. If they think very many people are going to pay, I think they are going to be disappointed. Advertisers are going to have to foot the bills as always. Better to keep online free and have ads. If they want to have a secondary model they charge for that doesn't have ads, that might appeal to some. But the people that will pay for subscription are probably the ones that advertisers want, so who the heck knows.

I know this is not a political forum, but I have no use for the NY Times. As far back as the days of Walter Duranty being an apologist for Stalin and hiding his atrocities, they are not to be trusted.
post #49 of 118
And The Daily is overpriced at $4.00 a month.


post #50 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Whoops! No one cares but fandroids.

Droids want everything for free.

They sure as hell are not buying this.
post #51 of 118
The current pricing for the NYT's on the Iphone and Ipad (both devices registered) is on par with the news stand prices.

It's completely absurd when you can get the print version for almost 50% less than that.

What does the weekend digital edition looks like? are you getting the full Sunday Times in the price?

I understand their costs aren't necessarily lower with digital subscriptions, but does it really cost them MORE? Total fail.

I like the NYT's, but I can just grab the occasional paper from the stand. Maybe there are some offices that have regular subscriptions and really, really want to go green. I just don't understand how this isn't a rip off compared to a print subscription.
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #52 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

yeah, 200 dollars a year for ... a newspaper. Wow.

I bet it has advertisements too and I bet a lot of dumbasses buy it anyway.

It's a news_paper_ when I have wood pulp in my hands... this is a curated news_feed_.


I'm a NYTimes sunday subscriber (the lil missus and I have a ritual/fetish of newspaper and coffee in bed...). I'm curious if my $15/month subscription buys me full digital access.

I _like_ the NYTimes (Hardcopy). The Softcopy is a 'nice' but not 'compelling' iPhone app. I hope the new iPad app is compelling (iPad2 as soon as my tax refund deposits)...
post #53 of 118
As much as some here want to think the NYT came to this model in a fit of whimsy, I doubt that is true. They must have come to this plan after a lot of thought and research and they wouldn't implement it without some kind of assurance it will work. My guess is they aren't looking for it to set web news on fire and grab 80% market share. They probably just see it as an incremental addition to their existing income streams.

Having said that, personally I don't think it will prove to be worth the effort even if they have low expectations. I just don't understand why they wouldn't go with an ad based, free model. It's not hard to force ad viewing on electronic devices. You want the content, you gotz to watch the ad. Even Tivo has that tech, but they are too chicken to implement it.
post #54 of 118
This is very bad news for Apple.
Can this be attributed to Apple's 30% cut & controlling all the advertising (which is pretty much nil)?
One could look at this and wonder if they didn't set the prices so high out of spite - and will release a free version for android (where they can control their own revenue and subscriber info.)
Red herring? They must know this won't fly.
Who tests an American publication in Canada to determine marketability anyways

I guess this is the year we find out if a nifty gadget can sell absurdly expensive media - found for free or greatly less expensive on other platforms.
post #55 of 118
The way anything is successful in digital distribution is to price it inexpensively and go for bulk. If you ignore this you have a bad strategy and are inviting failure.

People will not pay an equivalent price for something digital as they would something physical in the kind of numbers that can support a large business. When you go digital, your profits are more direct. Going digital, your distribution costs are near zero.

I have no desire to see the NYT succeed as an entity, they either get it and will survive based on the merits or they won't and will go away. I don't see this as a good or bad thing, if they ultimately fail as a business, failing to understand 21st century business, then someone else will come along and do a better job. This is definitely one of those cases where the market will sort itself out.
post #56 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav View Post

Do you realize that the NYT employs actual journalists with credentials, editorial staff, etc.?

Well so does Fox and CNN though I doubt anyone takes them seriously either
post #57 of 118
The test offering in Canada has only 1 package (no tablet option), so that would seem to be a test of logistics, rather than a pricing-test for the global 3-tier package - unless they intend to compare the results of a simpler package to the 3-tier package.

If you're buying a limited print edition subscription, then maybe they figure you're entitled to see the full digital version because they are still making so much more money from their print ads (comparing eyeballs-to-eyeballs) than from their digital ads. Just a guess.
post #58 of 118
NYT would make so much more money if they priced for volume, like The Daily did. But then The Daily didn't have to worry about cannibalizing a physical newspaper's sales. It's a tough spot to be in. But the writing is on the wall and digital distribution is the future. The market will quickly tell NYT if the pricing is reasonable or not. Way too high for me, and from what I read here, others.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #59 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Core2 View Post

You have got to be kidding, the CNN coverage of the Japanese Earthquake is a freakin' joke. Filled with anchors who don't have a clue what they are talking about, and sensationalizing american propaganda, I am wondering if they don't have shares in the Potassium Iodide.

CNN is a terrible example of news reporting, they get way too hung up on who they are and forget about the actual news source. Come on, reporters going around comparing what their counters say for 24 hours a day, and getting their knickers in a knot about the depleted cores and creating a panic in America about their fully functional reactors...

Gimme a break , please.

This, I agree wholeheartedly with. I stopped watching that disaster of a network a while ago, and when I do occasionally check back -- with the sole exception of Fareed Zakaria -- I cringe, and go away for another couple of months.
post #60 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mode View Post

This is very bad news for Apple.
Can this be attributed to Apple's 30% cut & controlling ....

Yeah, sure.
post #61 of 118
Buh-bye NYTimes app.

Seriously, I love having it on my iPhone and enjoy reading it when waiting in line or on the bus or plane - but the pricing model is out of touch.

They need to make it relatively painless - say 99 cents a week or $1.99 a month to get much traction, IMO.

And I was looking forward to using this app on the iPad2 (when I can get one). Oh well.
post #62 of 118
And not intending to derail the thread, but for those bashing CNN - what other alternative on mainstream cable or satellite is better? Fox News? they are a friggin' joke! I thought Anderson Cooper did an excellent job with his show during the Egyptian uprising and found little else on my satellite package that offered much more depth. Sure, there are better sources in print or online - but for mainstream subscription TV I do not see much of an alternative.
post #63 of 118
bits tongue so hard that it bleeds!
post #64 of 118
I'm sure the rich would still pay for this, but for most iOS users, this just means 1 fewer app to use. Even the Daily looks too expensive IMO, let alone this.

$10 cents per issue (no ads) would probably be ok for the masses, but not more than that. If on average $1 million iOS user buy it everyday you still get $3 million a month, more than enough to cover the cost.
post #65 of 118
I've been reading the NYT for 50 years, paper then digital.

Two words: too expensive
post #66 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Yeah, sure.

Riiiiiight...
post #67 of 118
They can kiss my German you know what, if they think I am going to pay for what I can get for free from CNN, and MSNBC. Goodbye NYT!!!
post #68 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever View Post

I'm sure the rich would still pay for this, but for most iOS users, this just means 1 fewer app to use. Even the Daily looks too expensive IMO, let alone this.

$10 cents per issue (no ads) would probably be ok for the masses, but not more than that. If on average $1 million iOS user buy it everyday you still get $3 million a month, more than enough to cover the cost.

Does that cover the writers, the IOS devs, the management?
post #69 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefferon View Post

nytimes.com/access says their pricing scheme is as follows:

NYTimes.com + smartphone app: $15/mo.
NYTimes.com + tablet app: $20/mo.
All Digital Access (i.e., NYTimes.com + smartphone + tablet): $35/mo.

Regardless, it's DOA. Do you know anyone that will pay for this? I think this will be the greatest disaster since New Coke.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #70 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double0Diablo View Post

And not intending to derail the thread, but for those bashing CNN - what other alternative on mainstream cable or satellite is better? Fox News? they are a friggin' joke! I thought Anderson Cooper did an excellent job with his show during the Egyptian uprising and found little else on my satellite package that offered much more depth. Sure, there are better sources in print or online - but for mainstream subscription TV I do not see much of an alternative.

Fox News may be conservative, but it is no "joke." They have all the same headlines and stories that your precious "real" media have. And they don't charge for their news app.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #71 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClassicGuy View Post

And why is the tablet version $5/month MORE?

Mo pixels, Mo money.
post #72 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by REC View Post

The way anything is successful in digital distribution is to price it inexpensively and go for bulk. If you ignore this you have a bad strategy and are inviting failure.

People will not pay an equivalent price for something digital as they would something physical in the kind of numbers that can support a large business. When you go digital, your profits are more direct. Going digital, your distribution costs are near zero.

I have no desire to see the NYT succeed as an entity, they either get it and will survive based on the merits or they won't and will go away. I don't see this as a good or bad thing, if they ultimately fail as a business, failing to understand 21st century business, then someone else will come along and do a better job. This is definitely one of those cases where the market will sort itself out.

Totally agree. In this digital world, low priced bulk succeeds. That is one reason the App Store has been so successful. Take a game for example...like Angry Birds. It's always been $1.00. It's been the number one game for nearly a year. They have sold MILLIONS of copies. The NYT (which frankly, I don't care about either) should follow this model. Charge $5.00 a month. But I don't know...even that may not fly. The problem is they are selling a product that is not at all unique. People can get news free. They don't care about getting a digital version of the Times. They just want the information. Apparently the Times doesn't come close to grasping that. As one poster said, it's the content that's the problem. There is nothing in the NYT that would compel me to purchase access. I will just get my news from other sites. The only way they will be able to do this is if they can succeed in eliminating free news from the internet. I don't see that happening.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #73 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Fox News may be conservative, but it is no "joke." They have all the same headlines and stories that your precious "real" media have. And they don't charge for their news app.

Fox news is a joke when you consider the "news" they report is warped by the agenda of their corporate masters which has been well documented.
post #74 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Regardless, it's DOA. Do you know anyone that will pay for this? I think this will be the greatest disaster since New Coke.

What makes this extra problematic is that NYT didn't charge from day one. Now they are in a position of making everyone mad.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #75 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Extensor View Post

Fox news is a joke when you consider the "news" they report is warped by the agenda of their corporate masters which has been well documented.

Giggles
post #76 of 118
It seems this new subscription model is designed to attract folks who seriously think that spending $700 for a device that replaces their newspaper subscription is a good idea. To anyone in that tax bracket, an additional $15$35 per month is a minor inconvenience fee.

For the rest of the unwashed masses who don't need to pay for a spoonfeeding, we'll find our news elsewherelikely from direct sources curated by our peers.

The executives who run the 23rd most-visited website in the US have no business complaining that their ad revenue isn't self-sustaining. Even if their whining was based in fact, it would mean that someone (everyone?) is being overpaid for gross mismanagement of the web marketing department.
post #77 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

Does that cover the writers, the IOS devs, the management?

Depends.

Right now the online division is clearly sharing resources with the printed division, and management is managing both divisions. $3MM a month is $36MM a year, definitely enough to cover the salary of the hours writers/journalists/dev put on the online newspaper plus a lot more left as profit. The problem is that the printed division is losing money and they want the online division to be the new revenue stream to help subsidize the printed division, and they're trying the wrong solution. (over-charging online news)
post #78 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever View Post

Depends.

Right now the online division is clearly sharing resources with the printed division, and management is managing both divisions. $3MM a month is $36MM a year, definitely enough to cover the salary of the hours writers/journalists/dev put on the online newspaper plus a lot more left as profit. The problem is that the printed division is losing money and they want the online division to be the new revenue stream to help subsidize the printed division, and they're trying the wrong solution. (over-charging online news)

Source for these numbers please? I know as a corporate entity (which includes all of the NYT's media assets), they had operating costs of $2.3 bln ( FYE 2009)
post #79 of 118
I don't watch Fox News nor do I watch MSNBC. I just let my sub. expire to the Wall Street Journal bc they wanted $392 to renew. I read the NYT and Wash. Post online.

This NYT paywall is too expensive. I guess I will just continue listening to NPR, read my paid Time mag. weekly. To stay on top of things.

Best
post #80 of 118
The cost of a subscription to a magazine or newspaper, used to be the cost of delivering said material to the subscriber. Advertising paid all the real bills. I love the NYT as a source, but the newly listed subscriber fees are way too high. I have recently switched almost all of my online news viewing to of all places, Al Jazeera. Their in-depth news coverage of the entire world is unmatched by any US 'news' services, even the BBC or NPR. Their website is easy to navigate and full featured, there is even an app for them. Their lack of bias is unbelievable. No more having to skim-by articles like Sarah Palin's lunch menu for the day or how the Chicago fire department rescued a cat up a tree. This is the most complete up to date news reporting I have ever witnessed. I am an old white Christian non liberal guy who is tired of corporate control of news. The NYT was a fairly good source until now, now it will be aljazeera.com
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • New York Times to start charging $15 for iPhone, iPad subscriptions by June
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › New York Times to start charging $15 for iPhone, iPad subscriptions by June