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

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 117
    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.
  • Reply 42 of 117
    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.
  • Reply 43 of 117
    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
  • Reply 44 of 117
    $15 for 4 weeks....and still have ads?



    Hello USA TODAY!
  • Reply 45 of 117
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,600member
    Buh bye
  • Reply 46 of 117
    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.
  • Reply 47 of 117
    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.
  • Reply 48 of 117
    msanttimsantti Posts: 1,377member
    And The Daily is overpriced at $4.00 a month.





  • Reply 49 of 117
    msanttimsantti Posts: 1,377member
    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.
  • Reply 50 of 117
    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.
  • Reply 51 of 117
    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)...
  • Reply 52 of 117
    welshdogwelshdog Posts: 1,833member
    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.
  • Reply 53 of 117
    modemode Posts: 163member
    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.
  • Reply 54 of 117
    recrec Posts: 217member
    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.
  • Reply 55 of 117
    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
  • Reply 56 of 117
    resnycresnyc Posts: 90member
    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.
  • Reply 57 of 117
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,600member
    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.
  • Reply 58 of 117
    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.
  • Reply 59 of 117
    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.
  • Reply 60 of 117
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.