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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 elsewhere?likely 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.
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)
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)
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.
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
Comments
$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.
Two words: too expensive
Yeah, sure.
Riiiiiight...
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?
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.
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.
And why is the tablet version $5/month MORE?
Mo pixels, Mo money.
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.
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.
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.
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
For the rest of the unwashed masses who don't need to pay for a spoonfeeding, we'll find our news elsewhere?likely 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.
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)
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)
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
And why is the tablet version $5/month MORE?
Because you can see more letters on the screen.
(sarcasm)
edit: And I AM a NYTimes reader now