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."

13 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. $10 for crap, or $20-$30 for crap? Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Printed newspapers is a shrinking segment by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Economics 102 by Mononoke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who Will Control the Cost of the NYT On Digital Readers?

    The consumer will. The consumer ultimately determines the value of any item sold.

    --
    NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
    1. Re:Economics 102 by djupedal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >"The consumer will. The consumer ultimately determines the value of any item sold."

      How's that working out for you with Comcast and Shell Oil, by the way? They both accepted it when you put your foot down, did they?

    2. Re:Economics 102 by natehoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Different markets.

      NYT has competition. There are still plenty of news sources out there, even if you're in the market for local news in New York City. If they set their price too high, people will choose others. They aren't a monopoly.

      Comcast is a monopoly, at least in my area. If Comcast sets their price too high, I could still choose others, but no one else is authorized to use the cheapest means to reach my house (coaxial cable), so it's not competition in any real sense. I can't go to anyone else and get wired Internet for any price, and wireless options are either slower or more expensive (and usually both). The only other possible competitor is our somewhat-new local phone company (Fairpoint) and they are imploding at the moment, so I don't expect to see any new service offerings from them between now and their Chapter 7 declaration, which many of us are expecting any month now.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  4. Business model fundamentally broken by QuoteMstr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dear reader, consider

    1. The newspapers business model is based on information scarcity, which is increasingly difficult to enforce today; yet
    2. Newspapers are great to have because they offer better-researched, more compressive, and less biased news and commentary than random blogs. Compare the Huffington Post to the Washington Post.

    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.

  5. Re:Watch that price, NYT by Albanach · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A good newspaper should be doing that for you. Newspapers are no longer about delivering 'breaking news'. The 24/7 news cycle has ended that. The typical readership of a quality newspaper know what happened in the world yesterday. They want to know why it happened and what the consequences might be.

    Today newspapers should be about the insightful commentary, bringing together of sources and unique investigative journalism. Of course these are also the most expensive parts, so have been targeted for cuts by many newspapers.

    The problem the print division at the NYT faces is that the cost per printed copy is directly dependent on subscription volume. So if folk stop taking the paper copy, they cost to produce it increases - you have all the same costs for typesetting and running a print works, you just saved some cents worth of paper and a blob of ink.

  6. Re:Watch that price, NYT by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To me? I dont think the NYT is worth more than $4.99 a month. and that is only if it's available on ANY of my readers not just a blessed one they want me to have.

    Honestly, they have to compete with every other source of news on the net, Many free, some I pay for. and honestly the "lyfestyle" and other sections I really dont care about so they have a zero value to me. AND not being a New York resident it has even lower value to me as it's only a source for national news which I can get myself elsewhere. Google,CNN,Yahoo and others give me a ton of that for free. So outside of NY the NYT has even a lower value, most people I know think my $4.99 is way too much.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  7. Re:Watch that price, NYT by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Likewise you forget the costs of the servers, the electricity, the computer screens, the work done to typeset/format the webpage, where the articles are placed, etc. etc. It ends-up being essentially a wash... no significant difference in paper versus website costs. Actually it's not just you. I've noticed a lot of slashdotters mistakenly believe websites/servers/et cetera cost no money to operate.

    How perplexing?

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  8. more for less? by erwin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Watch that price, NYT by Aqualung812 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Glenn Beck and Rachel Maddow, and you're calling that unique investigative journalism? I'm not taking sides, but both of those people are in the entertainment business, not investigative journalism. The closest thing I've found for true journalism (on TV) anymore is "Dan Rather Reports" on HD Net.

    --
    Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
  10. Re:Watch that price, NYT by abigor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You think The Economist is alarmist, irrational, and content-free, whereas the blogs of your "favorite analysts" are a better source? I'm not sure if you understand what reporting actually is, as opposed to opinion.

  11. Re:Watch that price, NYT by Dragonslicer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Go here: http://www.glennbeckclips.com/02-18-10.htm [glennbeckclips.com] (or simply glennbeckclips.com if that link is broke) and watch Segments 3 and 4, and tell me they are not insightful, or at least educational, in regards to our debt situation.

    Did he manage to make it through two entire segments without crying?