Slashdot Mirror
Who Will Control the Cost of the NYT On Digital Readers?
RobotRunAmok writes "Ryan Tate, at Gawker, describes the 'heated turf war' waging at the New York Times. The print and digital divisions have differing views over how much a subscription to the Gray Lady (iPad edition) should cost. The print troops believe $20-$30 monthly is the proper price point (fearing that setting the mark any lower will jeopardize print distribution), while the digital soldiers are digging in their heels at $10 a month. The Kindle version is already managed by the Print Army, so don't count on logic necessarily driving any decisions here. It's complicated: the Web version of the paper is still free through 2011, and the computer 'Times Reader' has already been released and priced at $14.95 monthly."
I think the real question should be, how much should a paid subscription cost?
As a long time subscriber to online.wsj.com, the online version of the Wall Street Journal, I have watched my online subscription cost float up from around $75 promotional price to $155 on the latest bill. (I have a query in to customer support to find out why they were advertising a combined print + online deal for only $135 a month or two ago, yet they're sticking it to me.) Thus far, I have tolerated this annual fee in exchange for excellent content.
Once an online subscription exceeds about $25/year, you would expect it to have some substantial and unique value that compels you to pay. The WSJ has a tremendous volume of financial and business content, plus provocative commentary, active talk-backs, and broad news coverage. I can't get through it in a day, certainly not in 30 minutes over coffee at 7am, and tend to cherry-pick the interesting titles during little breaks throughout the day (and, now, on the bus/bathroom/in bed using a Nexus One android phone).
Unlike the WSJ, which is truly a national/international content provider, the NY Times has a regional quality to it that reflects its liberal, middle-to-upper class urban New York readership. Furthermore, all of the national and international news can be obtained from AP, Reuters, and BBC websites for free. Will someone in Boston, Toronto, Fresno, or Omaha feel as compelled to spend $25/month (i.e., $300/year) for such content?
My recommendation to the New York Times is to keep the price low initially, then start to add premium features (more video, interactive stuff, discounted 3rd party deals, etc.) for subscribers only and try to build up your paid online readership. If you start out by gouging people who are used to a free NY Times online, most of them will simply jump ship to one of the dozens of other, free news services available. Hubris will get you nowhere.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
Does it really matter? The price doesn't change the fact that the NYT's journalism is basically shit most of the time, even though they are one of the most "respect" papers in the US.
Their coverage of the run-up to the Iraqi War was abysmal, for instance. It was pretty clear then that they should have done their journalistic duty and printed much more about how those pushing for war were just plain wrong. And now we know that they basically just repeated the lies and bullshit spewed by various Republican and Democrat politicians during that time period.
It's not a "Democrats vs. Republicans" or "left vs. right" situation, either. They should be tearing Obama and the Democrats several new assholes for their handling of Wall Street, Afghanistan and other issues. But for whatever reason, they don't, or if they try to it's quite feebly done.
The NYT, were it actually concerned with journalism, would themselves be ripping into Wall Street and corporate America. But then again, I suppose they can't, because they seem more concerned with advertising revenue over realistic and quality reporting.
Regardless of what they charge, I'm not going to pay any money for their content when they don't ask the hard-hitting questions of politicians and corporations, and do the real investigative journalism that's worthy of money.
And if they keep failing to deliver my dead tree version the price will be zero.
Whether the digital edition affects sales of the print edition is beside the point. Online news is going to affect the sales of the print edition anyway. the question is whether the NYT wants a segment of that or not.
Digital media is distruptive technology. If the NYT doesn't clobber their print sales someone else is going to do the job for them.
Print is dead.
The consumer will. The consumer ultimately determines the value of any item sold.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Why would different digital versions cost different amounts of money?
What they should do is just charge $X for the stories, giving them all digital formats (as digital is relatively free to distribute). and then charge a little extra if they also want it in print, as that actually costs them money to print.
This way it looks like if you want NYT available to you in all formats you would need to fork over ($10-$30)+Free+$14.95+(whatever they charge for paper)= [lots of money]
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I think they mean "record" as in "phonograph". Sure, a small minority still love vinyl but everyone else has moved on.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Doesn't anybody remember Compuserve? AOL? Do we have to wait for the Asians to free us from the walled gardens this time? I will not buy a "digital reader" until it is nothing but a computer under my control, with access to all media I choose to load on it.
Dear reader, consider
The New York Times has chosen to cling to the conventional business model as long as possible. But there is a better way: recognize that newspapers are something special, and have worth in society as more than just another business. Endow them and let them self-finance.
The marketing department would like to have a word with you.
They need to be realistic about the price. The majority of Americans won't be willing to pay..... oh, it's for the iPad. Double the price.
"Thbbft!" - Bill the Cat
An even better example would be natural gas prices. Remember when Enron got caught in its scheme to artificially inflate natural gas prices? They had shell companies bidding and selling to each other driving the price up by creating artificial demand.
Of course when the scheme was uncovered the price of natural gas should have dropped down to the consumer set price...
It didn't drop at all. The price is at the still artificial high. The ultimate consumer of the product doesn't have the power to influence the local monopoly enough to drive the price down.
The people still in the gas business are splitting the revenues from the mark up.
Some free market huh?
While book publishers can claim that printing and distribution is not a major cost, newspapers cannot, and online newsreaders cannot subsidize the offline equipment. Given this anything over $100 a year is likely unreasonable. We do not have to a pay a human to deliver. We do not have to pay for a vehicle and gas. We do not have to pay for waste. The cut for the news agent does not have to be nearly as much.
There is an argument for artificially keeping the perceived value high, but there is also a value to having more customers for the advertisers.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
If the price is higher than the value it presents to the consumer, why would the consumer buy it? Are they stupid?
Call me old fashioned but I prefer my ladies to be flesh coloured. Gray? WTF is ths - necrophilia?
Supply and demand.
I think they mean "record" as in "silly, pompous, official organ of the establishment's conventional wisdom and the status quo". And: Did you get a whiff of the latest stink of scandal from the "All the news that's fit to print" outfit today? Yet another NYT plagiarism scandal.
"If you want to know what happens to you when you die, go look at some dead stuff."
It's the closest homeowner equivalent of vendor lock-in. If I have a natural gas oven or water heater, the price of not buying natural gas is high even if natural gas is overpriced relative to electricity or other forms of energy.
Why do the print guys have ANYTHING to say about what the digital version cost? Just lower print circulation down to bare minimum (i.e. enough for politicians and news stands), cut out home delivery, and go almost all digital, and then in 10-30 years cut out print circulation completely. It will lower their costs and increase their profit.
Why are newspapers so scared about giving up the most expensive part of their business?
Living With a Nerd
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Take the two biggest fucked up States in the Nation (New York and California) and then look at the publications from their cultural capitals (LA and New York) and ask ourselves do we really want to be like either of these groups of idiots, much less listen to what they have to say.
Now answer me this: Exactly how is the New York Times relavent anymore?
As far as the price goes, it will continue to work its way to zero as all media with little worth will. Who cares who controls the price, in the long run in it will not matter.
It takes a little bit to switch providers. You need to figure out how you're going to pay for your electric water heater and furnace\space heaters. If people decide the cost of changing doesn't pay for itself through the reduced cost of energy, many will wait until they have no choice but to replace the unit, and switch then.
Indeed! I fail to see why this article is talking about the Ipad. It's not an e-reader[*], and it's not even released. Yet already, the media are trying to spin it as being a generic term for e-readers? It was bad enough doing this with Iphone/phone, but at least there they waited until the thing was released.
When in years to come, Apple fans are predictably and tediously claiming that Apple "popularised" e-reading, remember it now: it's the media who are doing the popularising, over a device that doesn't exist, and even if it did, it wouldn't fit into that market.
[*] If someone is happy with LCD and short battery life, then any bog standard laptop, netbook or tablet out there is an "e-reader".
They have profit from the printed version, even if the cost that the user pay includes the cost of paper/ink/infrastructure to make it, plus all the costs around distribution (that is a big percent of the total). The digital version and distribution have its costs too, but are close to nil for each reader. and the distribution goes really global and on time. And that, without taking into account the income of ads. Is a field where they have more potential readers, but more competition too. But still,they choose to raise their profits several times selling the digital version at a price comparable to the print version one, a move that could have some margin be done if you have the monopoly of something, but they dont have the monopoly of information in internet.
Oh, well... the digital world needs Darwin awards too.
Yes.
In Soviet Russia meme tires of you!
Yeah, why would the consumer want to cook? Or heat their house? Or want hot water?
Silly consumers, buying overpriced necessities from a monopoly! They should just pay $5000 and convert all their appliances over to run on energy provided by the local electric grid.
Oh, wait, that's usually another monopoly....
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
If you have to pay for news, how good can it possibly be? The very act of the news agency profiting means they are driven to give you the news you want to hear in an effort to gain more subscriptions.
I'd much prefer to read news from free sources who are reporting with no vested interest in the story one way or the other.
Have a range of offerings from a budget version to a gold-plated one. Set them at different prices (duh!) and see which is / are the most popular. Hardly rocket science. I don't see why they're so hung up on talking about *the* price for *the* publication.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
It didn't drop at all. The price is at the still artificial high.
That statement is factually untrue.
Gas prices have been set by the real market. Even in California after Enron.
Most people seem to believe that because content is available in electronic form that it's somehow significantly cheaper to produce than in print. Having had some experience with the printing industry I can assure you that printing costs are relatively small compared to the overall cost of producing a newspaper or magazine. And in the case on NY Times or WSJ printing costs must be even cheaper given the relationship they've obviously established with their printers, assuming it isn't done in-house. Also keep in mind that some of the expense that may be spared by not printing physical copies inevitably goes to hosting and site maintenance.
And most publications live on advertising, almost more so than actual sales. Another department at my company does a lot of publication work and their clients have cut pages if they don't have a sufficient density of advertising versus content. There are obvious exceptions where they're just taking advantage and cramming the magazine excessively full of ads. Magazines like Maxim, Cosmopolitan and other such crap come to mind.
However, advertising on the web versus print are very different animals. While web ads can be more intrusive they're also easier to ignore. It's a lot easier to quantify their effectiveness. So it's difficult to charge what would be charged for print ads. Although in print, the publications actually have the work of having to place these ads and ensure there are no printing issues with them.
I had to deactivate ad block to get a sense for how they place advertising. I'm surprised by how few ads both NYTimes and WSJ run on their homepage. WSJ features a house ad at the time (advertising for themselves) and the first other ad appears pretty far down on the right which means if you're browsing on a netbook, for example, you probably wouldn't even see it. NYTimes has two small ads to either side of their header and then links to sponsored content here and there which most people may miss.
On the other hand, visit some of the news aggregate sites, anything from Gawker Media is a good example. Their sites feature more invasive advertising and they routinely do themed promotions, like one they're running now for some HBO show. So they're obviously getting a lot more bang for their buck even though they're producing far less content themselves. Of course the audience is a little different. I think most readers of WSJ and NYTimes would be pissed if suddenly they started covering their sites in advertising. Whereas the visitors to these other sites, who I'd say skew younger, tend to have lower standards and are more tolerant of this sort of thing. But of course, it enables them to continue offering content for free.
The work that NYTimes and WSJ does is not cheap by any stretch of the imagination. So if charging for content doesn't work they need to embrace a more advertising-heavy model. And even then they may be forced to cut staff and content which will hurt the quality of their work and make them a little more generic.
I personally hate advertising. But I acknowledge that sometimes you have to pay a little more for quality. Unfortunately, on the internet people seem to believe that everything should be free. They're apparently oblivious to all the work that goes into creating this content.
Errrm, ... the market and the customers? ... Maybe? ... Just some random thought.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Unfortunately, supply-and-demand economics models fall apart when you're talking about monopolies, which cable companies and energy companies are at the local level. It's most definitely not a competitive market. You can actually almost say that supply in this case is perfectly elastic, where one supplier sets the price and if people don't want to pay that price, then they don't buy it. Demand for essentials is fairly inelastic, especially in the short run, since basically consumers always will need gas, and they tend to need about as much today as they did yesterday.
Of course, in the long run when prices go up people will work to conserve gas a little bit to save money (y'know, turn down the thermostat, use less hot water in the shower, that kinda stuff) so demand goes down, but the gas companies still rake in huge profits because people can't COMPLETELY stop buying gas.
the "lyfestyle" and other sections I really dont care about so they have a zero value to me
This bundling is a problem in other places as well... I am this close (fingers 3mm apart) to canceling ALL of my cable TV, because the prices keeps going up - the reason "channels such as CNN and ESPN are raising their rates."
Fine, can I get a package with Discovery, History, and a few others, WITHOUT CNN and ESPN? no.
Broadcasters are starting to have many of the same issues The Press is having.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
When the cost of producing one more of your product is zero (e.g. on-line media), your pricing model has to change. You're not delivering a rag to peoples' doorsteps any more. If priced right, it's feasible to sell a billion more of your product. If priced wrong, you're overlooked and irrelevant. And bankrupt. That's mistake #1.
Of course, if you charge a truly nominal fee ($1-$5/month) you'll attract a far greater number of readers, and wield a great deal more influence politically and culturally. For a newspaper like the NYT, that's especially important if you want mindshare and if your columnists are to win Pulitzers. Increasing the number of eyes on your prize "gets out The Word".
Your price also needs to reflect the way people use your product. Unlike readers of snail newspapers, most net-denizens follow many media sources. But they scan them, not read them closely they way you read a newspaper. If you price the product like a newspaper, you force the consumer into *your* model of consumption, not theirs. That's mistake #2.
I'm a big fan of the NYT, and would happily subscribe to continue my access, but only at the right price. That said, I'd be hard pressed to pay for ANY daily newspaper these days, so a subscription fee over $60/year just ain't gonna happen. I'd go back to taking The Economist on paper and RSS the Reuters/AP websites instead.
Wake up, NYT. In the e-conomy you either publish MORE or you perish.
too many of their articles encourage you to go online to view even more in depth content, content that apparently is free and if not bugmenot can do it (they don't charge for it)
Another reason the print side is more costly, more union involvement at each stage. I am curious how they transition to digital without maintaining the legacy costs
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Can you explain how a newspaper with plenty of competition is anything like a utility? News is highly competitive with blogs and internet sites in the market places. The parent's mention of Comcast (a monopoly with high distribution & infrastructure costs) and Shell (sells a very limited-supply good, oil, not information like newspapers do) are false comparisons.
Please ignore.
can you still do the crossword on it?
Why not just charge a billion dollars? That way, they'd only need to sell one...
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Beyond News, newspapers are delivery vehicles for advertisements. When you subscribe to any newspaper you are merely granting permission for the paper to send you their paid advertisements and possibly some new items. All newspapers should be free and the operating cost paid by the advertisers. Will the newspapers delivered to your Kindle be ad-free? Perhaps this sort of content should be treated in the same manner as your RSS feeds.
WindMan
No one here RTFA anyway, so what do we care about more articles on-line? They could charge $0 or $1000, but it's irrelevant for us! Not only do they want us to RTFA, they want to charge us, too!? STFU!
Are they nuts? I honestly doubt whether I'll renew my local paper (The Denver Post) next year. I'm paying about $35/year for a Thursday-Sunday subscription, and even that seems like too much. The news is outdated and I've read it all online by the time the paper is delivered. The only thing I'm really still getting it for is local advertisements and coupons. The NY Times has none of those things, and I can read the same AP/Reuters articles anywhere. I could care less about their editorials and investigative stuff. If it is really important, it will show up all over the web in short order.
Necron69
You obviously don't read the Op-Ed page of the Times, specifically writers Paul Krugman, Roger Cohen, Nicholas Kristof, Frank Rich, (even "the earth is flat" guy) Tom Friedman and Maureen Dowd. They do what you are saying they don't on an almost daily basis.
I've clipped dozens of articles from those writers particularly since the Wall Street meltdown in 2008 that are indeed "ripping into Wall Street and corporate America" and Obama who they largely support.
Gas demand (both natural and gasoline) is fairly inelastic. That is why consumers are not able to drive down costs - they can only reduce their consumption a little without significant lifestyle changes. For a newspaper, I imagine that demand is much more elastic - you have a lot of other alternative options (TV news, internet, other newspapers, etc). I don't know about natural gas, but for gasoline the market is pretty competitive - that's why you see constant fluctuations in price as one station competes with another.
Every newspaper has stuff like that in OP-Ed.
The OP is trying to point out that this stuff needs to migrate out of Op-Ed and into the paper itself, instead of just re-publishing AP content.
You can either pay what the supplier asks, or you can freeze to death. You can decide which is the stupid option.
That's funny, I feel that the organisations that pushed for cheap loans to poor people and developing nations and now later turn around and complain that checks were inadequate should be torn new assholes for hypocrisy, and consider newspapers that don't mention this to have a leftwing tinge. Obama hasn't gotten much shitck for in principle breaking the law about giving labour unions more of the GM pot than the legally strongest claimants had a right ot, and threatening the company if they tried to block it. But each to our own I guess.
I had a Kindle subscription to the NYT, but canceled it recently because it didn't have a lot of the cool stuff - like the puzzle. I couldn't see the point to paying for a neutered product.
Newspaper corporations are expert at missing the boat on media changes. Newspapers could easily have gone into radio when it became a mass medium in the 1920s-1930s. Either running an entire station that just read the paper over the air, maybe with extra features inserted, in between the ads, or just syndicating readings to other stations. They could have done the same when TV came around. Both times they let their hugely popular, powerful and profitable industry get knocked down by newcomers in the new medium. By the time the Internet arrived in prime time, they were already pros at missing the boat, and this time missed the perfect medium for them to dominate.
Now they'll screw up mobile readers, because they are locked in a late 1800s mentality. They hate interactivity, customization by readers, sharing, or anything else that's different from being the voice of a central authority on facts increasingly out of touch with the reality they say they cover.
The only new medium newspapers ever tried to adopt was movies, with newsreels. A terrible way to present anything but the most sensationalistic and trivial news, but an effective propaganda tool. That is what the newspaper industry reduces itself to by treating its consumers with contempt, instead of embracing opportunities to communicate more effectively: a manipulative entertainment tool.
No wonder nobody even wraps fish with them anymore.
--
make install -not war
Because you're dead right in this case.
People are not stupid. They're not going to pay that much for a subscription to the mishmash that the paper edition has to be. This newspapers and others have stars in the eyes. This former journalist makes a good argument here
I have to admit that I know nothing about the newspaper industry, and if this was so easy to solve that it would have been done already. However, I can’t resist thinking that most of these companies will need to fail in order to allow other models that can be profitable to rise out of the ashes.
Maybe it's time for the company to split into 2 parts - one for content, one for printing. In other words, completely outsource the printing/delivery of the paper into a separate company. I know they do this on some level now. They could change their model to where they could charge a price for the content, and add on a "delivery" charge for receiving it (which would be from the print company). If you are using their online reader the charge would be free, but physically printing it and sending it would incur an additional charge.
The print division can then focus towards getting their costs under control and adding features. Maybe they would be inclined to make themselves more efficient like using on-demand printing, other paper sources, customized sections (only receive only sections you desire), etc.
The answer to the submission's query is so simple that it's mind-boggling that folks at the NYT and elsewhere haven't even considered it. Who will control the cost of the NYT on digital readers? The Consumer.
If iPad/Nook/Kindle/netbook/etc users aren't willing to pay the price for the product, the Times will have to bring the price down until enough people are willing to pay.
This is an ongoing problem with print media. They think they're still playing in the arena they've been in for the last 100 years. It ain't so, and the awakening will be a rude one for them.
Hmm. Bandwith is free. Servers are free. Web design, construction and maintenance are free.
Must be a neat world you live in. How are the replicators working?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
The NY Times print folks need to learn from the same lessons the leadership of the Dallas Morning News learned a year or two back - namely that news consumers do not consider the print and electronic versions of the paper equal or interchangeable substitutes. That is, there is far less crossover in each of the customer bases than the newspaper execs or the conventional wisdom might suggest. Unfortunately, if the print folks win out, they will learn this lesson the hard way.
Here is a crazy idea:
What if the news papers started give their readers a choice in how they want news. Have a basic fee for the content, say 15$/month. Then add a certain sum for each medium you want to use. Say 8$/month for paper distribution, 1$/month for digital edition distribution. 1300$/month for the version were Pamela Anderson comes to your house and reads you the newspaper.
Then there would be no discussion on how to charge. Each medium would be priced accordingly to costs of delivery and demand.
The value of the NYT and other large newspapers isn't and shouldn't be just spitting out the latest breaking news. It should be about finding facts and figures, making meaningful comparisons and correlations that us normal people wouldn't be able to find.
For example, it'd be great if they provided insight into the number of recent robberies in a particular neighborhood when reporting a robbery. Or the amount of time service delays cost subway passengers per month in an article about subway service cuts and changes.
They don't even have to generate this data. They just need to be able to aggregate it, filter the meaningful from the irrelevant, and present it in the story. The reader comes to his or her own conclusions about society based on the presented information.
The purpose of the newspaper is to report facts. Social commentary belongs to a section called Opinions, and for a very good reason. If you wanted social commentary, go read a blog or a tabloid.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
The problem with NYT coverage during the leadup to the Iraq war wasn't the op-eds. It was the freakin "unbiased" stories from a journalist with a long-time axe to grind publishing story after story on page 1 screaming that Baghdad was minutes away from a full scale nuclear capability.
I can read any kind of news from a first person perspective on a blog or forum.
If they expect me to pay for the privilege of consuming their sensationalist hyperbole then what they have to say must not be that important. I could care less and they won't be receiving a page impression from me.
- Dan.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
So you're saying then that the consumer looked at the costs (what the supplier charged versus freezing) and determined that the costs is less valuable than freezing? Sounds like the consumer made the determining choice in setting the price of the commodity.
Sorry, but print is dying.
Sure, but mid- and long-form don't have to.
In this twitterific RSS-enabled environment feeding an entire generation of instant-gratification kids (uh, talking about 12 - 24 year-olds), who also seem to be "suffering" from ADD/ADHD, just how long do you think the type of reader profile YOU speak of is going to be around?
I don't know the exact length, but I'm pretty sure it's only few decades short of the end of society as we know it.
I'd explain, but that's probably a tl/dr.
Tweet, tweet.
It put my foot firmly down with shell, on the accelerator... they named me their customer of the day. Now if you excuse me, I got to lube up for the arab nations else they won't be selling me a barrel of oil I need to drive to the end of the street.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
What you got to realize is that for most people unbiased really means: they are saying what I want to hear.
True unbiased reporting is non-existent. If you want to see it, go to your local government weather station and look up the temps of the day. That is unbiased news. Don't read the weather report because "cold" is already a bias based on the reporters view on temperatures. What I find cold is not what you find cold.
In one of the articles you link the BBC would not show an item that might insult muslims while allowing every other religion to be insulted. Clearly biased (and anyone who actually watches the BBC knows they are biased, recently they had several hours of "examination of Islam" that might as well have been written by Osama for its complete lack of any critism whatsoever, it was a travel brochure rather then a report let alone a documentary) but what can they do? People get killed over Islam, and the BBC would be roasted alive if it started a riot, so they shut up.
And by its nature TV attracts the super rich elite that does not actually life in the real world. Quick, name a single TV personality making less then 100.000 a year. Can't think of one can you. They don't exist. So they report on cultural problems when their only exposure to it is that the janitor has a dark skin. In Holland a few years ago you had a program "Ook dat nog" that started to be preachy towards the end about race issues. One problem, not a single non-white person on the panel AND the station that aired had a tv-cook who had refused muslims service. Did they happen to mention that? No sirree. Racism only exists in other people.
If you want real unbiased news, you got to roll your own. Follow several news sources, it can be very amusing to see what political leaning you can give to a story just by leaving out a few sentences.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Yes, which you're right. Your original statement is correct
It was completely irrelevant to the post you replied to, which is why I misunderstood what you were saying. But there's no rule about staying relevant.
putting aside the ethics of the situation...
any article you want to read on WSJ.com can be read via doing a google news search for it and then clicking on the generated link
such a strategy yields an unpaywalled version of the article
In general, associations of people have the freedom to contract with other associations of people. Competition laws such as the Sherman Act and Clayton Act limit this freedom on paper, but over the past decade or so, it appears the United States has leniently enforced these laws. Otherwise, there might have been lawsuits when all movie studios decided to adopt CSS encryption on DVDs at the same time.
I've clipped dozens of articles from those writers particularly since the Wall Street meltdown in 2008 that are indeed "ripping into Wall Street and corporate America" and Obama who they largely support."
Yep...a good laundry list of the left you have there.
I am a little surprised that they have been ripping into the 'chosen one' myself. Then, I read it and realize they're only bad because Obama and company haven't moved us even further into the leftist, govt. runs everything category by now. By and large I think they completely agreen with what Obama and Dem's have done so far...they just want even more of it.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Mod parent up
If you make it cheap and convenient enough, your market will expand. Anything above $5 a month is too much in my opinion.
The consumer and the market will control the price. They are fee to ask whatever they want, let them see what the market will bare or they price themselves out of the market.
Am I missing something here?
Wow, these things are also monopolies in the US? I live in a country smaller than most of your states and I can pick from any of over a dozen different companies for my electricity or gas...you know, the whole free market thing you guys seem to be so fond of?
Of course the actual grid is a different company from the one selling the product...in theory(laws go fully into effect at the end of this year).
Note that changing provider does not constitute an interruption in service, it's just a matter of 1 day paying company X and the next day it'll be company Y.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
And indeed indeed !
And those new-fangled horseless carriages shouldn'a be allowed on the road, unless preceded by a walking man waving a red flag fifteen feet ahead of it. The damnable infernal contraptions are mere fashion and playthings, anyway. Carriages are and have always been much more comfortable and safe. Weel worth the extra ha'Guinea, or two.
All the carriage industry has to do is improve quality a bit, and it'll promptly recover.