It isn't a surprise that most of the comments are negative: many of the comments are clearly from non-NYT readers so this wouldn't effect them in any way.
The question will be how many loyal online readers will be converted to paid customers?
I am on record as being a skeptic. I think it is easier to sell an electronic subscription to a financial newspaper than a consumer paper -- that is why both the WSJ and Financial Times are doing OK selling digital subscriptions.
But what about the Times? Hard to say. Times readers, based on the demographics, tend to be wealthier, more educated than the general population (sorry Fox News watchers). So if any of the major consumer dailies have a chance to succeed at this, the NYT might just be the one.
But . . . that doesn't make it a good model for everyone else. If someone is willing to pay $15 every four weeks for the Times, that doesn't mean they will pay for the Chicago Tribune or the Torrance Daily Breeze. If the NYT succeeds at this experiment it might only prove that the NYT is the exception to the rule (that web readers won't pay), not that the rule is wrong.
It isn't a surprise that most of the comments are negative: many of the comments are clearly from non-NYT readers so this wouldn't effect them in any way.
Most of the comments are negative based on the proposed business model. Even NYT fans above seem to indicate this.
Well, I read the NYTimes app everyday on my iPhone. It has been my go to app for news. I don't think there is another app (that doesn't require a subscription) that provides nearly as good of news as the NYTimes (and I am saying this as a conservative Republican, for what its worth). However, with this development, I can definitely say that I will not be looking to the NYTimes app for news anymore. First, $15/month is way to expensive. Second, if I were going to pay for news, I would go with the WSJ before the NYTimes.
What is a NYT fan? Is a newspaper something to root for? I read the NYT, but I am no "fan". But having said that, go Giants!
The term fan can actually be used in a non-sports context (i.e. I am not a fan of meatballs), Here I only meant people who indicated they were readers of the paper. But perhaps fan was the wrong term.
My main point still stands though. (btw I am also a Giant fan, so it seems we have one thing in common!!)
Dude relax. The term fan can actually be used in a non-sports context (i.e. I am not a fan of meatballs), Here I only meant people who indicated they were readers of the paper.
By the way, you failed to address my point. (I am also a Giant fan, so it seems we have one thing in common!!)
I am actually in this business and I have not decided whether the model will work. I think the vast majority of AI readers are not really the targets for a metered paywall approach. The perfect target is someone who reads the NYT website (or apps) every day and fairly deeply. (me, for instance)
Also, don't forget that on any day they could do what app developers do and suddenly say "hey, today it is only $50 for the whole year" suddenly quite a number of people will become good prospects. (And yes, they do plan on offering an annual subscription, they apparently haven't figured out how much they want to discount that level yet.)
I find that most people in tech hate the idea of paywalls, while most journalists think they are a great idea. As a publisher, I am skeptical, but know that newspapers are personnel intensive operations -- and paying for those newsroom and production folk costs big bucks. The job of paying for all of that became a lot harder once newspapers lost (some would say 'threw away') the classified advertising business that accounted for a lot of the profit in the newspaper business (in addition to being a former publisher, I was once a classified advertising manager, as well).
I _may_ go for this. If any news source can charge this amount for access, it's the NY Times. I'm now so used to the NYT app (buggy as it is) that I actually prefer it to reading a physical paper, with all its page- (and in the case of the NYT, section-) turning.
To those who think that Yahoo is a trusted news source, you tell me how many reporters they employ.
The problem is that I already pay $24 a month for my dead-tree LA Times subscription, and increasing my monthly news nut to nearly $40 may bust the budget. And then what happens when the Washington Post starts charging too? Perhaps all the "papers" need to get together and charge one amount for access to all of their content.
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.
Documented by whom...Media Matters? Give me a break. ALL news organizations are influenced by their corporate culture at least to some degree. ALL present a point of view. The NYT's liberal bias truly IS well-documented, for example. The same applies to CBS, CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, the Houston Chronicle, The LA Times, et al.
Remember $4.50 of that $15 goes to Apple. The price is really $10.50 plus the Apple tax. So stop whining, because you're the same guys that defend Apple and its rates. Is Apple the only one allowed to eat?
TNYT has some stones. Now we?ll find out if the MSM?s decline is due to ?the Internet? or the bias of the reporters. (Hint: it?s the bias of the reporters.)
Remember $4.50 of that $15 goes to Apple. The price is really $10.50 plus the Apple tax. So stop whining, because you're the same guys that defend Apple and its rates. Is Apple the only one allowed to eat?
But even at $10.5 it's still way too expensive. So yes, the distribution channel (in this case Apple) does cause the price to be higher but it's not really the main reason why people won't pay for it. If it's like $3 a month, yeah ~$1 goes to Apple, but those who'd pay $2 a month would likely still pay $3 a month.
The NYT is a great paper--although I think they've fallen off the beam a bit. The lead up to Iraq knocked them down two notches in my book. Still, for main stream news, I can't imagine picking another paper over it. But this is the age of the Internet and they can't charge that amount. I think only loyal, rich, older people will pay it. What sort of demographic is that to base your future on? If people stop reading, they are losing young eyeballs for good. Ain't coming back.
Personally, if I had to dish $15-20/mo. for very publication I read online, I'd be broke. How about a basket I can put some of my faborites into for that amount? And one price per subscriber--not per device. If I buy a paper, I share it with my wife. Would they charge me twice?
So I'll take my 20 freebies a month for now and get the rest elsewhere. The New Yorker, another great publication likewise blew it on pricing but my wife still gets the print edition so I'm covered there.
For those that think CNN, MSNBC, FOX, et al, cover the news in the same depth and quality as the NYT, you simply have no ability to discern quality journalism. And this has nothing to do with liberal vs conservative either. Good journalism is good journalism.
I think they will find, if they were charging like $25 a year, they would have 100 times the subscribers. They need to figure out, the web/internet is not like delivering pulp to the door.
Do you realize that movies and news are different things?
Do you realize that the NYT employs actual journalists with credentials, editorial staff, etc.?
Where do you think the free and cheap news sites are going to get their content from when the paid journalists no longer have a job?
Do you realize the NYT is the official mouthpiece of the White House and Liberal/Progressives everywhere? The "news" they print is heavily censored and spun
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.
O'Reilly's talking points covered the sensationalism of the other networks. His coverage is pretty good. Fair and Balanced.
Do you realize the NYT is the official mouthpiece of the White House and Liberal/Progressives everywhere? The "news" they print is heavily censored and spun
Go NY Giants!!!
They may be a WH mouthpiece of sorts (I would call it establishment, to be more precise). But they hardly liberal--unless you consider pro Bush's Iraq War liberal. There are way morel iberal sources to read in the US and worldwide but Americans are so right wing that everything looks left of center to most.
Comments
The question will be how many loyal online readers will be converted to paid customers?
I am on record as being a skeptic. I think it is easier to sell an electronic subscription to a financial newspaper than a consumer paper -- that is why both the WSJ and Financial Times are doing OK selling digital subscriptions.
But what about the Times? Hard to say. Times readers, based on the demographics, tend to be wealthier, more educated than the general population (sorry Fox News watchers). So if any of the major consumer dailies have a chance to succeed at this, the NYT might just be the one.
But . . . that doesn't make it a good model for everyone else. If someone is willing to pay $15 every four weeks for the Times, that doesn't mean they will pay for the Chicago Tribune or the Torrance Daily Breeze. If the NYT succeeds at this experiment it might only prove that the NYT is the exception to the rule (that web readers won't pay), not that the rule is wrong.
It isn't a surprise that most of the comments are negative: many of the comments are clearly from non-NYT readers so this wouldn't effect them in any way.
Most of the comments are negative based on the proposed business model. Even NYT fans above seem to indicate this.
Most of the comments are negative based on the proposed business model. Even NYT fans above seem to indicate this.
What is a NYT fan? Is a newspaper something to root for? I read the NYT, but I am no "fan". But having said that, go Giants!
What is a NYT fan? Is a newspaper something to root for? I read the NYT, but I am no "fan". But having said that, go Giants!
The term fan can actually be used in a non-sports context (i.e. I am not a fan of meatballs), Here I only meant people who indicated they were readers of the paper. But perhaps fan was the wrong term.
My main point still stands though. (btw I am also a Giant fan, so it seems we have one thing in common!!)
Dude relax. The term fan can actually be used in a non-sports context (i.e. I am not a fan of meatballs), Here I only meant people who indicated they were readers of the paper.
By the way, you failed to address my point. (I am also a Giant fan, so it seems we have one thing in common!!)
I am actually in this business and I have not decided whether the model will work. I think the vast majority of AI readers are not really the targets for a metered paywall approach. The perfect target is someone who reads the NYT website (or apps) every day and fairly deeply. (me, for instance)
Also, don't forget that on any day they could do what app developers do and suddenly say "hey, today it is only $50 for the whole year" suddenly quite a number of people will become good prospects. (And yes, they do plan on offering an annual subscription, they apparently haven't figured out how much they want to discount that level yet.)
I find that most people in tech hate the idea of paywalls, while most journalists think they are a great idea. As a publisher, I am skeptical, but know that newspapers are personnel intensive operations -- and paying for those newsroom and production folk costs big bucks. The job of paying for all of that became a lot harder once newspapers lost (some would say 'threw away') the classified advertising business that accounted for a lot of the profit in the newspaper business (in addition to being a former publisher, I was once a classified advertising manager, as well).
To those who think that Yahoo is a trusted news source, you tell me how many reporters they employ.
The problem is that I already pay $24 a month for my dead-tree LA Times subscription, and increasing my monthly news nut to nearly $40 may bust the budget. And then what happens when the Washington Post starts charging too? Perhaps all the "papers" need to get together and charge one amount for access to all of their content.
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.
Documented by whom...Media Matters? Give me a break. ALL news organizations are influenced by their corporate culture at least to some degree. ALL present a point of view. The NYT's liberal bias truly IS well-documented, for example. The same applies to CBS, CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, the Houston Chronicle, The LA Times, et al.
You should avoid politics here, this isn't a political forum. Plus, remember Steve is a kind, caring, big soft hearted liberal too
I hear he's a socialist too...LOL!
Not to mention the fact the the NYT is one of his favorite publications apparently.
Nonsense. He is an asian scalper.
What is a NYT fan? Is a newspaper something to root for? I read the NYT, but I am no "fan". But having said that, go Giants!
Which Giants are you referring to? The football Giants or baseball Giants?
Which Giants are you referring to? The football Giants or baseball Giants?
The ones that broke the hearts of their fans by moving to San Francisco. (are there Giants in football?)
Remember $4.50 of that $15 goes to Apple. The price is really $10.50 plus the Apple tax. So stop whining, because you're the same guys that defend Apple and its rates. Is Apple the only one allowed to eat?
But even at $10.5 it's still way too expensive. So yes, the distribution channel (in this case Apple) does cause the price to be higher but it's not really the main reason why people won't pay for it. If it's like $3 a month, yeah ~$1 goes to Apple, but those who'd pay $2 a month would likely still pay $3 a month.
Personally, if I had to dish $15-20/mo. for very publication I read online, I'd be broke. How about a basket I can put some of my faborites into for that amount? And one price per subscriber--not per device. If I buy a paper, I share it with my wife. Would they charge me twice?
So I'll take my 20 freebies a month for now and get the rest elsewhere. The New Yorker, another great publication likewise blew it on pricing but my wife still gets the print edition so I'm covered there.
For those that think CNN, MSNBC, FOX, et al, cover the news in the same depth and quality as the NYT, you simply have no ability to discern quality journalism. And this has nothing to do with liberal vs conservative either. Good journalism is good journalism.
Do you realize that movies and news are different things?
Do you realize that the NYT employs actual journalists with credentials, editorial staff, etc.?
Where do you think the free and cheap news sites are going to get their content from when the paid journalists no longer have a job?
Do you realize the NYT is the official mouthpiece of the White House and Liberal/Progressives everywhere? The "news" they print is heavily censored and spun
Go NY Giants!!!
Half surprised no one here mentions this ...
Micropayments - dunno, maybe $0.05 per view/visit/page ?
If not already able to do this, technically speaking, then we should be close, yes ?
Seems is The Way to go, and not try hold on to the old methods and models of past
Apple proved that already to the Music Industry
.
And not surprised in least this word gets used very little here in comments ...
Journalism, Journalist, etc
Are many 'reporters' and 'bloggers' and 'talkers' - Journalism is an Academic Pursuit
Doubt many of you under 50 have a true appreciation of the difference
Has been a concerted effort by the Mass Media Conglomerates to 'dumb down' our Culture
Makes their job easier - and all they really want anyway is to 'sell advertising'
But wasn't always like that - CBS News is good example
William Paley kept it independent, that's long gone and now we get a joke like Katie Couric
.
Finally ...
The New Media, like AppleInsider - must find some way to make enough to survive
Imagine they're making a little bit off ads, etc ... but doubt it's enough to call this a 'real job'
And, TY AppInsider - you're about only one left of the Mac Sites to keep that Journalism Standard
10 or so years ago was common with MacSurfer, MacMinute - and even VersionTracker
But many of the original founders are either dead, or sold out
Was nice when we could 'easily trust' the information, cause we could 'easily trust' the source
THAT is Journalism - and 'it' shows in the elegant/simple way of how info is presented
Don't have to think about it, or decipher it, or analyze it - it's just there, and easy to spot
Hummm - sounds like something Apple has always adhered to, yes ? (smile)
Anyway ...
AppleInsider, and others, at some point will probably need to 'charge something' to stay in Biz
Let's hope it's that $0.05 per visit
With 7,000,000,000 potential customers every day
Would be LOT of nickels
.
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.
O'Reilly's talking points covered the sensationalism of the other networks. His coverage is pretty good. Fair and Balanced.
Do you realize the NYT is the official mouthpiece of the White House and Liberal/Progressives everywhere? The "news" they print is heavily censored and spun
Go NY Giants!!!
They may be a WH mouthpiece of sorts (I would call it establishment, to be more precise). But they hardly liberal--unless you consider pro Bush's Iraq War liberal. There are way morel iberal sources to read in the US and worldwide but Americans are so right wing that everything looks left of center to most.