NYT execs struggle over iPad edition subscription pricing - rumor

2456

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 106
    I would possibly pay $10 per year, if I bought an iPad, which I probably won't.
  • Reply 22 of 106
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Apparently some people actually enjoy ignorance. They say newspapers are obsolete, but then most of the news they read online "for free," assuming they even bother, comes from that very source. And please, don't try to tell me that cable news is a substitute for written journalism, because then I will know beyond a doubt that you enjoy ignorance. Cable news cultivates ignorance.



    What is obsolete is the method of delivery of newspapers. Newsprint on the driveway is nearly over. I hope the newspapers find a formula that works for the 21st century, so at least those of us who'd prefer not to wallow in ignorance will have something better than the shouted headlines of cable news. If it's done right, I will gladly pay. Ignorance is just too expensive.



    This. They bitch that newspaper quality ahs gone done then bitch that they get the same news for free. I only wish NYTimes wouldn't have stated their site is free until 2011.



    I think a good model would be to give their loyal print subscribers access to the e-version for free. This will help maintain these customers which could be a problem as each drop will push distribution costs to every other account.



    After that marketing will require bean counters but if they are still going to give away their website have to lessen the cost for the e-version, even if they make it as compelling as the print version. I would liked to see a newspaper and magazine section built into the iBook app. I don't want a separate app for each subscription with a separate login and account. I will be more likely to buy more if I can just use my iTS account. I'd also like it to auto-load so when I pick it up it's there waiting for me, like being delivered to my door. I don't want to have to go grab it first.



    Overall, I'm disappointed that the focus on making a viable replacement for print media has not been thought out. It's the one thing that could have made the iPad a must have and potentially save publishers still dedicated to quality writing.
  • Reply 23 of 106
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by filburt View Post


    The last time I read paper newspapers, which would be about 15 years ago, I read mostly NYT. Each daily edition was less than 50 cents (I can't remember the exact price though). Anyway, I read perhaps 2-3 daily editions per week (rarely the overpriced Sunday edition), which works out to about $4/month.



    I still read NYT, courtesy of RSS feed (forget the bloated iPhone app), but just few articles per day. I am sure some will pay $10/month, perhaps even $30/month for the iPad version. But there's no way I would pay anywhere close to that. Perhaps NYT should considered tiered-pricing:
    • $30/month: unlimited full contents (including puzzles) with access to every single articles from its archive

    • $10/month: unlimited article read, cannot access articles older than 1 month

    • $10/year: 5-10 articles per day, cannot access articles older than 1 month

    • Free: Just the top articles




    Making a tiered access method like that would be very wise to pull people in. I'd also have an option for access certain days of the week.
  • Reply 24 of 106
    irelandireland Posts: 17,798member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Larz2112 View Post


    Inconceivable!



    You keep using that word.
  • Reply 25 of 106
    I keep hearing about how worthless news is when you're able to get it for free.



    I think what a lot of people are forgetting is that the "free" news comes from sources like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.



    Just because you saw it on the Yahoo! homepage for free, doesn't mean that a paid reporter from one of the news companies didn't write it.



    To have news, you must have reporters.. to have reporters you must pay them. If people quit paying for news... who will report it?



    ---



    What the news companies need to realize, is that when it comes to online content it's all about the user experience and synchronization.



    They need to simplify the experience and offer one flat-rate fee per month and offer paper, app, and website access. (An additional discount for opting out of the paper delivery in order to help the environment would be a good idea.)



    I would recommend they target the $25 price point.
  • Reply 26 of 106
    $10 per month is the magic number for me.



    Considering that Apple takes 30% for distribution, I'm willing to pay $14 so that the NYT can get their full $10 per month.
  • Reply 27 of 106
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,256member
    I think anyone willing to pay for an iPad is going to be willing to pay for high quality journalism and analysis, but the key phrase here is "high quality." The Times needs to step up their game a lot if they think anyone is going to pay $30/month. If every article they printed was free of factual or conceptual errors of the sort that are fairly obvious to an expert in the relevant field, then that would certainly be a good start. Add to that analysis that is original, insightful, and leaves me feeling like I really understand something important that I didn't understand before, and I'd be willing to pay (oh, and it has to be well written).



    Right now it is rare for any newspaper to generate more than one such article per edition. If they really want me to pay $30 a month, then the paper had better be filled with those types of articles.
  • Reply 28 of 106
    takeotakeo Posts: 445member
    They are insane. The sweet spot would be $6/mo. I'd say. People would sign up for that. $30?! Not a chance. Even $10 is a little high.
  • Reply 29 of 106
    I gave up my dead tree newspaper almost 15 years ago. Online news sites, online classifieds, online comics ;-), etc filled the 'need' nicely.



    Newspapers are on the road to extinction. They seem to hold the misguided belief that there is some intrinsic value in holding a newspaper in your hand. Those who have spent their lives reading a newspaper every morning/evening are a, literally, dying breed. In 20 to 30 years( or less), there won't be any of them.



    The iPad offers a bridge from what newspapers were to how news is/will be consumed. And they are worried about cannibalizing their already shrinking customer base, instead of seeing it as an opportunity to reach a new audience.



    I say let them die. Creative Destruction. The world is harsh place. Old, fading industries must die to make room for new, vibrant ones. Until the new ones also age and die. Circle of life.
  • Reply 30 of 106
    NYT needs to think about global penetration. They need to maximize their number of readers globally for the right price. iTunes will give them the world, they'll need to maximize their number of readers.



    They should have professionals really research this and advise them. This is serious business.



    Time will tell.
  • Reply 31 of 106
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jacob1varghese View Post


    $10 per month is the magic number for me.



    Considering that Apple takes 30% for distribution, I'm willing to pay $14 so that the NYT can get their full $10 per month.



    I agree.. but it should be $10 a month for a basket of newspapers and magazines for $10 a month.. then trillions of people would order the ipad so they could get this great deal.. The NYtimes would easily sell 4 times more subscriptions (a net gain of $10 for every four subscribers over the $30 plan!!! ) imagine the nYtimes, national geographic and .. the new yorker.. or sailing magazine etc etc in a package .. pick any three (of a big selection offered) and enjoy all editions of your three choices for one year by choosing the $10 a month box.. or !!! By choosing the 24 month box, you can receive a free Ipad soft mitten case!!!!! Just choose #24 box and select a color of your free (!!) soft mitten case... Colors are: turtle neck black, polar apple white, or desk top gray...



    And in a short time.. all pulp paper will cease to exist.. because with a deal like this .. everyone would switch to an ipad ...
  • Reply 32 of 106
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Apparently some people actually enjoy ignorance. They say newspapers are obsolete, but then most of the news they read online "for free," assuming they even bother, comes from that very source. And please, don't try to tell me that cable news is a substitute for written journalism, because then I will know beyond a doubt that you enjoy ignorance. Cable news cultivates ignorance.



    What is obsolete is the method of delivery of newspapers. Newsprint on the driveway is nearly over. I hope the newspapers find a formula that works for the 21st century, so at least those of us who'd prefer not to wallow in ignorance will have something better than the shouted headlines of cable news. If it's done right, I will gladly pay. Ignorance is just too expensive.



    Newspapers are obsolete. Sorry, they are. The delivery of news is not. I don't watch cable news. I read multiple news source -- very few of which are actually 'news papers'. I read Reuters and AP -- the same source of the majority of 'news' in most news papers. I pay for it by allowing myself to be subjected to advertisements.



    This is not about information and ignorance, it is about an industry who's time has past. News will still 'get out'. But newspapers, like most dying industries, are so trapped in their own idiom, and so deep in denial that they are incapable of foresight.



    Boutique content shops, either advertiser supported or subscription based are the future. Newspapers are the past.
  • Reply 33 of 106
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by svesan03 View Post


    Newspapers just don't get it... there is no value in news any more, it's too accessible to all for free. It's not as if they can offer anything unique that we can't find for free elsewhere.



    The reason news content has been free is that it was subsidized by print or broadcast operations, and those aren't cutting the mustard any more. So guess what: It's time to start paying for information that costs money to collect, report, edit, and package. On the other hand, expecting readers to pay the same as print delivery when there are no newsprint, trucking, or associated personnel costs involved is ridiculous.
  • Reply 34 of 106
    bawbaw Posts: 12member
    The most telling line in the story is:

    Those with the company are allegedly "afraid people will cancel the print paper if they can get the same thing on their iPad," the report said.

    Did I miss something here? Isn't that the whole purpose of going digital?!



    This is an internal turf war at the NY Times, one that has a great deal to do with whether or not the company survives as a viable and trusted news source. The Old World print people are beginning to really understand how much their traditional way of life is going to be threatened by the New World digital alternatives inside their own company. The real transition won't happen for awhile but it is the future, and the print people will be dragged kicking and screaming into it.



    $30 a month is higher than I want to pay. But the curious thing is that at Macworld last week the New York Times was actively marketing their digital TimesReader 2.0, offering a price of $3.45 a week for the complete paper, including the Sunday edition. The last seven days would be stored on my computer without the constant need for an Internet connection. This is the first time I have seriously considered a digital subscription. I probably already spend that amount each week just on toner and paper when I print out favorite articles from the Times. If the iPad does not fall somewhere around this already existing digital price then their efforts to win over new digital readers will probably fail. I might pay $.35-.50 (but not a dollar) a day.
  • Reply 35 of 106
    Actually, I think they should charge whatever they want to. A 'honest' approach would be for them to actually calculate the cost it takes to print, package and deliver a physical copy based on their current print base. Back that expense out of the monthly $30 paper subscription, divide it by 1.3 (to give Apple their mark up) and offer it at that price.



    But they won't be that up front. They will talk about 'cannibalization' and set the price equal to print edition. And it won't sell. And then they'll point to the iPad and iBookstore and say that they are a failure.



    They will cut jobs, have fewer people producing the content and therefore produce lower quality content. Then they will cut more jobs in response to a shrinking readership. The unions will strike. And in the end, Newspapers, like the buggy whip industry, will fade into mists of time.



    Something new will grow up to fill the niche, something that understands the difference between content and the distribution medium. But the 'one stop, everything to everybody' newspaper will be gone.
  • Reply 36 of 106
    I might pay $10 a month for a NYT subscription IF it included many of the Sunday edition features.



    $30 a month? Nope.



    They've got to realize the volume at a lower price point will be magic for them.



    It's the same story for the music cos... out of greed they bumped prices out of the 99-cent comfort zone for iTunes songs, and have watched their sales steadily decline since. At 99-cents a song, sales were becoming robust!



    WIth enough digital subscribers NYT could easily return to a healthy bottom line. They're not going to get there by overcharging for their content. They'll get it by charging so little everyone says "why not"? Then they get the critical mass... and profit.
  • Reply 37 of 106
    daseindasein Posts: 139member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimsz View Post


    The NYT people are as deluded as record companies.



    Raise prices to a ridiculous amount and people won't buy.



    $5/mo, I will subscribe today. $10/mo for the NYT, no. I'll pay for the WSJ instead. $30/mo. I would not even consider it.



    How could they justify $30/mo? Apple is taking care of the distribution. There is nothing physical to print, bundle, truck and then deliver.



    They've got ol' farts making the decisions... clueless. I gave up the paper WSJ when I started the online one. It's head and shoulders over anything print can deliver with constant up2date interactive analysis stuff and video. It's only about $12/month for all that. They even write more of their own stuff. The NYT is too wire-serviced, most of which can be retrieved almost anywhere. Classic case of a foggy front windshield and a crystal clear rear view mirrow.. no idea where the car they're in is going... Mr. Magoo deja vu.
  • Reply 38 of 106
    Offer free e-subscriptions to those who subscribe to the print editions as a bridge to migrating them to the e-model and at the same time charge the e-only subscribers. Publishers can then gauge what the market can bear during the transition based on e-subscriber feedback. I think the publishers may charge a lower price for basic news and a premium for interactive content. Imagine reading an auto review in USAToday Online and touching a photo of the reviewer in the driver's seat, bringing you inside the car as he's driving (without Flash? says Tekstud....Yes, when HTML5 get rolling). You could hear the engine noise, see the interior, etc. I can see that's the direction auto magazines would go, also.
  • Reply 39 of 106
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Apparently some people actually enjoy ignorance. They say newspapers are obsolete, but then most of the news they read online "for free," assuming they even bother, comes from that very source. And please, don't try to tell me that cable news is a substitute for written journalism, because then I will know beyond a doubt that you enjoy ignorance. Cable news cultivates ignorance.



    And what does print media like the NYT's cultivate? How can we trust their source? Who is their outside fact checker? It is known as the 'Paper of Record' and 'All the News that's Fit to Print' but IMO, the news section is nothing more than a liberal mouthpiece for the Democrat party. They were scooped on the John Edwards story by The National Enquirer of all "papers". They were a week late to report on the ACORN scandal and yet the person who exposed the ACORN scandal was front page news ABOVE the fold, day one, when he was arrested for investigative journalism. You know the stuff "60 Minutes" used to do and if they were doing it and were dragged out they would be screaming "Freedom of the Press! Freedom of the Press!". What of the AP, they had 11 fact checkers to review for accuracy, Sarah Palin's 400+ page book and yet 2 fact checkers for the 2000+ page health care bill from Congress.



    Todays print news like the NY Times is not professional investigative journalism. IT reports what it wants to, when it wants to. Nothing more. It is no longer "The Paper of Record" unless you are a politician wanting to cite it as some official source which boggles my mind and probably explains a lot as to why we are, where we are, as a country.





    Quote:

    If it's done right, I will gladly pay. Ignorance is just too expensive.



    You've got that right! And we are gladly paying an expensive price because too many were just too ignorant and were easily beguiled.



    Oh and to be "Fair and Balanced", I wouldn't trust everything being reported from a right leaning news organization cable OR print media. It is just the sad state of affairs that the news profession has become and why I'm so skeptical. It is a shame that I am so skeptical, but I only have those "professionals" in the news media to thank!
  • Reply 40 of 106
    ltmpltmp Posts: 204member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Outlandish you say. Not at all, especially for an electronic edition. The average news paper is hardly worth more than a dime a day, the NYT might be worth a bit more but hardly more than a quarter.



    This isn't really about editorial content but rather the reality that news is a 24 hour a day business, since the advent of cable TV and then the web. So one element here is that the NEWS in Newspaper is no longer important as by definition it is always old news. So if the papers of tomorrow seriously want to be in the news business they need to deliver the news 24 hours a day. That is not impossible but takes a total change in the mind set of a paper.



    In many ways the news is not journalism. That may shock many but think about it, the news is about the events and activities that make up our days. Journalism, especially investigative journalism is another beast altogether. It is the search for truths, opinions and other elements of a story to inform the community in general. In other words news is really a passive thing where as journalism is a more engaging activity. In order to compete a "newspaper" needs to compete on both fronts to give people a reason to spend their time with the distribution.



    Sadly I don't really think that newspapers in general get it yet. One of the primary reasons for their existence has vanished to more timely and diverse mediums. As the electronic forms gather an ability to cover local scenes and actually employ reporters the dead tree based businesses will slowly wither away. Think about a world where Google, Yahoo or Bing employed reporters to compete directly with the likes of the NYT. Or for that matter Apple starting up a news bureau to work in conjunction with that massive data center they are building. Mind you these organizations would not be hiring people to report the news (which they already to effectively baring Apple) but rather to engage in true journalism. I don't know about you guys but the papers just don't get it.



    Dave



    Spoken like someone who has never read a paper. Journalism, as it is done by good journalists in newspapers, is much more in depth than the sound bites and headlines one gets from CNN and the likes.



    If you try to get all of your information from TV or the headlines you find online, you will be sorely uninformed or worse, misinformed.



    Newspapers provide a depth and balance which is impossible given the time constraints of TV and radio.



    Newspapers also allow the reader the opportunity to pause and consider what is being said, reread what doesn't sink in, and review the total article in a thoughtful manor.



    This is to say nothing of the shear art of journalism. A well written article is a pleasure to read, as apposed to most of the trivial BS one gets from other sources.



    If newspapers give up on the ability to pay good journalists to properly investigate and report, we're doomed as a society.



    News isn't old just because you saw the headline 15 minutes ago. News evolves as more information becomes available. More information becomes available because journalists go digging for it.



    It's true that it sounds like there is an element within the NYT that is fighting to retain an old and unsustainable business model. Fighting to keep print alive is bound to be fruitless in the long or medium term.



    $30 per month will surely price them out of existence. However, they do need to maintain a price which will allow them to continue to support a large staff of trained and experienced journalists.



    End rant.
Sign In or Register to comment.