Not sure what fantasy world the NY Times is living in. At least The Daily and the Wall St. Journal have nice apps that take advantage of the iPad. NYT provides a boring replication of a plain browser experience with equally uninteresting content and then charge extra for it!!! Other than David Pogue they have become useless. GOODBYE NYT.
This is because through the iPhone, the NY Times has access to an educated and rich ordinance. Like the dumb Wall Street Journal, they can keep their paid content concept cloistered for the dumb few willing to chalk any amount of money for something that is normally free. I plan to remove the NY Times application forthwith from my iPhone when a subscriber fee is initiated. And that is all to be said about that subject.
What makes this extra problematic is that NYT didn't charge from day one. Now they are in a position of making everyone mad.
Actually, the funny thing is that they did, but they weren't getting many takers. Then they did a promotion with Microsoft that if you went to the site using IE, you could sign up for a free account and their readership skyrocketed. (I remember downloading IE onto my Mac, signing up for the free account, deleting IE.) now they are trying to return to what was already demonstrated to be a failed model.
The folks at The Daily must be pouring champagne today!
Actually, NYT's biggest mistake was making their news free then suddenly yanking it away from us if we don't pay. As you can see, that is backfiring. People would be far less offended if NYT had done what WSJ did and charge from day one. NYT wouldn't have many takers at first, and would likely have lowered prices over time, but at least they wouldn't have pissed off everyone like they did today. All papers that gave away their content for free online will receive a similar backlash.
I think this new subscription plan by the NYT will be a complete failure. They're a top notch news organization (despite the belief of the extreme right that they are a "liberal mouthpiece", and despite the fact that they've seriously weakened their online brand with too much blogging that doesn't meet basic standards of journalism), but as a general news organization, their product isn't completely unique, and, for example, any big stories they break will be picked up quickly by other news services.
On the other hand, they have lost a lot of ad revenue, much of it to craigslist, which has pretty much decimated their classified advertising revenues for both print and online editions. One problem I think is that the quality of the ads on the online version has been pretty much crap. If you read the comments, on their website, in response to this announcement, you'll see a bunch of "rollover ads" complaints, and when I think back, I realize that it was those ads on their site that originally prompted me to install an add blocker. The quality of ads and products is well below that which has been traditionally embedded with news content in the print editions, particularly, for example, in comparison to the print version of the Sunday magazine.
I think part of the problem is that they ceded control of the ad content to ad networks who, as we all know, produce crappy, annoying ads, often for crappy products and services. Cheap ads for a cheap, annoying experience experience. One solution for them and other newspapers may be to first recognize that cheap Internet advertising isn't enough of a money maker for a large organization.
I think a better alternative for them, one that would maintain their readership levels, might be to approach Apple regarding bringing iAds to the web. Just as these seem to be proving their merit on mobile devices, fewer, higher quality, more engaging ads on high quality websites would likely be more effective for advertisers, and more profitable for website operators. I don't think the problem is that you can't monetize a news site through advertising; I think the problem is that you can't monetize a news site with the trash that current web ad networks put on your site.
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?
Uh, who are those guys exactly? You're missing the point. No one begrudges the Times' right to make money...or need to make money. The point is they are going to fail with this model. It's not just the specific price point that's the issue. It could be $9.99 and still fail. The point is that people in general--even NYT readers--aren't necessarily interested in replacing their physical copies of the paper (perhaps some will, but not enough). In other words, the Times' mistake was assuming there is quite a bit of brand loyalty. "We're the greatest newspaper in the world. If we have a good product at a reasonable price, people will buy." The problem is this is a 20th century media business model. They fail to realize their product might be good and their price might be reasonable, but there are literally thousands of other products that do the same job--for free. When push comes to shove, people won't way $15.00 a month for content they can basically get for free elsewhere. So what would they pay? Probably $5-7. But even there, I don't think they'll get to critical mass. They might stay afloat. To really be successful, they need a totally different model: Cheap, but bulk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkevwill
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.
Totally agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Hell yeah there is and they stomped the stuffing out of Tom Brady.
Whatever. Props for beating the Cheatriots, but your QB is a girl.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
I think this new subscription plan by the NYT will be a complete failure. They're a top notch news organization (despite the belief of the extreme right that they are a "liberal mouthpiece",
Stop right there. They ARE a liberal mouthpiece. That's not really part of this discussion, however,
Quote:
and despite the fact that they've seriously weakened their online brand with too much blogging that doesn't meet basic standards of journalism), but as a general news organization, their product isn't completely unique, and, for example, any big stories they break will be picked up quickly by other news services.
On the other hand, they have lost a lot of ad revenue, much of it to craigslist, which has pretty much decimated their classified advertising revenues for both print and online editions. One problem I think is that the quality of the ads on the online version has been pretty much crap. If you read the comments, on their website, in response to this announcement, you'll see a bunch of "rollover ads" complaints, and when I think back, I realize that it was those ads on their site that originally prompted me to install an add blocker. The quality of ads and products is well below that which has been traditionally embedded with news content in the print editions, particularly, for example, in comparison to the print version of the Sunday magazine.
I think part of the problem is that they ceded control of the ad content to ad networks who, as we all know, produce crappy, annoying ads, often for crappy products and services. Cheap ads for a cheap, annoying experience experience. One solution for them and other newspapers may be to first recognize that cheap Internet advertising isn't enough of a money maker for a large organization.
I think a better alternative for them, one that would maintain their readership levels, might be to approach Apple regarding bringing iAds to the web. Just as these seem to be proving their merit on mobile devices, fewer, higher quality, more engaging ads on high quality websites would likely be more effective for advertisers, and more profitable for website operators. I don't think the problem is that you can't monetize a news site through advertising; I think the problem is that you can't monetize a news site with the trash that current web ad networks put on your site.
That might be an idea. But I do think it's been shown that supporting a full news organization through online ads won't work. A subscription model could work...if it's done right.
... Stop right there. They ARE a liberal mouthpiece. ...
Repeating this doesn't make it true, it just identifies your viewpoint as coming from the far, radical right, so everything but right-wing mouthpieces look "libral" (sic) to you. I also don't think you even know what the terms 'liberal', 'conservative', 'left' and 'right' even mean. Being on the right doesn't necessarily make you a conservative, just as being on the left doesn't necessarily make you a liberal. But, lots of people in this country like to think in narrow little political caricatures without understanding any of the issues or the politics involved, mostly out of fear, self-centeredness, and intellectual immaturity.
In other words, the Times' mistake was assuming there is quite a bit of brand loyalty. "We're the greatest newspaper in the world. If we have a good product at a reasonable price, people will buy." The problem is this is a 20th century media business model. They fail to realize their product might be good and their price might be reasonable, but there are literally thousands of other products that do the same job--for free. When push comes to shove, people won't way $15.00 a month for content they can basically get for free elsewhere. So what would they pay? Probably $5-7. But even there, I don't think they'll get to critical mass. They might stay afloat. To really be successful, they need a totally different model: Cheap, but bulk.
Who knows? Clearly they have a loyal readership - if thei model went with the normal print subscription, or with some extra facilities on the website they could be onto a winner.
And of course, there is the non-US market - not something they compete in at the moment.
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'm in publishing as well. If they charged $0.25 for access past the front page (or about half of what they propose to charge), they'd have me most days.
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
Shit! Is that you dad? What the hell you doin' here? This is my hangout... get back to having fun with Scrabble on your iPad!
Comments
O'Reilly's talking points covered the sensationalism of the other networks. His coverage is pretty good. Fair and Balanced.
I hope you don't think you're (remotely) serious.
I am willing to give you the benefit of doubt.
What makes this extra problematic is that NYT didn't charge from day one. Now they are in a position of making everyone mad.
Actually, the funny thing is that they did, but they weren't getting many takers. Then they did a promotion with Microsoft that if you went to the site using IE, you could sign up for a free account and their readership skyrocketed. (I remember downloading IE onto my Mac, signing up for the free account, deleting IE.) now they are trying to return to what was already demonstrated to be a failed model.
First, this is a bit expensive.
Second, the NYT just isn't my cup of tea.
They should have stuck with the model set by The Daily.
If it isn't your "cup of tea," why would it have made any difference?
Actually, NYT's biggest mistake was making their news free then suddenly yanking it away from us if we don't pay. As you can see, that is backfiring. People would be far less offended if NYT had done what WSJ did and charge from day one. NYT wouldn't have many takers at first, and would likely have lowered prices over time, but at least they wouldn't have pissed off everyone like they did today. All papers that gave away their content for free online will receive a similar backlash.
The ones that broke the hearts of their fans by moving to San Francisco. (are there Giants in football?)
Hell yeah there is and they stomped the stuffing out of Tom Brady.
On the other hand, they have lost a lot of ad revenue, much of it to craigslist, which has pretty much decimated their classified advertising revenues for both print and online editions. One problem I think is that the quality of the ads on the online version has been pretty much crap. If you read the comments, on their website, in response to this announcement, you'll see a bunch of "rollover ads" complaints, and when I think back, I realize that it was those ads on their site that originally prompted me to install an add blocker. The quality of ads and products is well below that which has been traditionally embedded with news content in the print editions, particularly, for example, in comparison to the print version of the Sunday magazine.
I think part of the problem is that they ceded control of the ad content to ad networks who, as we all know, produce crappy, annoying ads, often for crappy products and services. Cheap ads for a cheap, annoying experience experience. One solution for them and other newspapers may be to first recognize that cheap Internet advertising isn't enough of a money maker for a large organization.
I think a better alternative for them, one that would maintain their readership levels, might be to approach Apple regarding bringing iAds to the web. Just as these seem to be proving their merit on mobile devices, fewer, higher quality, more engaging ads on high quality websites would likely be more effective for advertisers, and more profitable for website operators. I don't think the problem is that you can't monetize a news site through advertising; I think the problem is that you can't monetize a news site with the trash that current web ad networks put on your site.
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?
Uh, who are those guys exactly? You're missing the point. No one begrudges the Times' right to make money...or need to make money. The point is they are going to fail with this model. It's not just the specific price point that's the issue. It could be $9.99 and still fail. The point is that people in general--even NYT readers--aren't necessarily interested in replacing their physical copies of the paper (perhaps some will, but not enough). In other words, the Times' mistake was assuming there is quite a bit of brand loyalty. "We're the greatest newspaper in the world. If we have a good product at a reasonable price, people will buy." The problem is this is a 20th century media business model. They fail to realize their product might be good and their price might be reasonable, but there are literally thousands of other products that do the same job--for free. When push comes to shove, people won't way $15.00 a month for content they can basically get for free elsewhere. So what would they pay? Probably $5-7. But even there, I don't think they'll get to critical mass. They might stay afloat. To really be successful, they need a totally different model: Cheap, but bulk.
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.
Totally agreed.
Hell yeah there is and they stomped the stuffing out of Tom Brady.
Whatever. Props for beating the Cheatriots, but your QB is a girl.
I think this new subscription plan by the NYT will be a complete failure. They're a top notch news organization (despite the belief of the extreme right that they are a "liberal mouthpiece",
Stop right there. They ARE a liberal mouthpiece. That's not really part of this discussion, however,
and despite the fact that they've seriously weakened their online brand with too much blogging that doesn't meet basic standards of journalism), but as a general news organization, their product isn't completely unique, and, for example, any big stories they break will be picked up quickly by other news services.
On the other hand, they have lost a lot of ad revenue, much of it to craigslist, which has pretty much decimated their classified advertising revenues for both print and online editions. One problem I think is that the quality of the ads on the online version has been pretty much crap. If you read the comments, on their website, in response to this announcement, you'll see a bunch of "rollover ads" complaints, and when I think back, I realize that it was those ads on their site that originally prompted me to install an add blocker. The quality of ads and products is well below that which has been traditionally embedded with news content in the print editions, particularly, for example, in comparison to the print version of the Sunday magazine.
I think part of the problem is that they ceded control of the ad content to ad networks who, as we all know, produce crappy, annoying ads, often for crappy products and services. Cheap ads for a cheap, annoying experience experience. One solution for them and other newspapers may be to first recognize that cheap Internet advertising isn't enough of a money maker for a large organization.
I think a better alternative for them, one that would maintain their readership levels, might be to approach Apple regarding bringing iAds to the web. Just as these seem to be proving their merit on mobile devices, fewer, higher quality, more engaging ads on high quality websites would likely be more effective for advertisers, and more profitable for website operators. I don't think the problem is that you can't monetize a news site through advertising; I think the problem is that you can't monetize a news site with the trash that current web ad networks put on your site.
That might be an idea. But I do think it's been shown that supporting a full news organization through online ads won't work. A subscription model could work...if it's done right.
... Stop right there. They ARE a liberal mouthpiece. ...
Repeating this doesn't make it true, it just identifies your viewpoint as coming from the far, radical right, so everything but right-wing mouthpieces look "libral" (sic) to you. I also don't think you even know what the terms 'liberal', 'conservative', 'left' and 'right' even mean. Being on the right doesn't necessarily make you a conservative, just as being on the left doesn't necessarily make you a liberal. But, lots of people in this country like to think in narrow little political caricatures without understanding any of the issues or the politics involved, mostly out of fear, self-centeredness, and intellectual immaturity.
Media is dead due to content not method of delivery. Not worth reading for free, certainly not worth paying for.
The NYT is a fine newspaper. It is worth buying, of course. If the "content" is bad, thats you, not them.
In other words, the Times' mistake was assuming there is quite a bit of brand loyalty. "We're the greatest newspaper in the world. If we have a good product at a reasonable price, people will buy." The problem is this is a 20th century media business model. They fail to realize their product might be good and their price might be reasonable, but there are literally thousands of other products that do the same job--for free. When push comes to shove, people won't way $15.00 a month for content they can basically get for free elsewhere. So what would they pay? Probably $5-7. But even there, I don't think they'll get to critical mass. They might stay afloat. To really be successful, they need a totally different model: Cheap, but bulk.
Who knows? Clearly they have a loyal readership - if thei model went with the normal print subscription, or with some extra facilities on the website they could be onto a winner.
And of course, there is the non-US market - not something they compete in at the moment.
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'm in publishing as well. If they charged $0.25 for access past the front page (or about half of what they propose to charge), they'd have me most days.
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
Shit! Is that you dad? What the hell you doin' here? This is my hangout... get back to having fun with Scrabble on your iPad!
You can;t even wrap electronic fish in the eTimes.
15 more good reasons I won't see their biased and oft-fabricated tripe.
You can;t even wrap electronic fish in the eTimes.
Have you ever actually read the NYT?