Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NY Times Goes for Broke

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    NY Times Goes for Broke

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/bu...8times.html?hp

    The New York Times introduced a plan on Thursday to begin charging the most frequent users of its Web site $15 for a four-week subscription in a bet that readers will pay for news they are accustomed to getting free.

    Beginning March 28, visitors to NYTimes.com will be able to read 20 articles a month without paying, a limit that company executives said was intended to draw in subscription revenue from the most loyal readers while not driving away the casual visitors who make up the vast majority of the site’s traffic.

    Once readers click on their 21st article, they will have the option of buying one of three digital news packages — $15 every four weeks for access to the Web site and a mobile phone app (or $195 for a full year), $20 for Web access and an iPad app ($260 a year) or $35 for an all-access plan ($455 a year). All subscribers who take home delivery of the paper will have free and unlimited access across all Times digital platforms except, for now, e-readers like the Amazon Kindle and the Barnes & Noble Nook. Subscribers to The International Herald Tribune, which is The Times’s global edition, will also have free digital access.
    "Wuap's "problem" is that he is smart & principled & committed to a moral course of action. His actions are supposed to reflect his ethical code.
    The rest of us rarely bother to think about our actions." --Solon
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Originally posted by wuapinmon View Post
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/bu...8times.html?hp
    My gut feeling is that the plan will fail miserably. Nobody is going to pay for online news, that's like taking a giant step back into the 90's.

    Comment

    • #3
      I wonder how they will track the number of articles any one person reads. Will they use cookies?
      "Seriously, is there a bigger high on the whole face of the earth than eating a salad?"--SeattleUte
      "The only Ute to cause even half the nationwide hysteria of Jimmermania was Ted Bundy."--TripletDaddy
      This is a tough, NYC broad, a doctor who deals with bleeding organs, dying people and testicles on a regular basis without crying."--oxcoug
      "I'm not impressed (and I'm even into choreography . . .)"--Donuthole
      "I too was fortunate to leave with my same balls."--byu71

      Comment

      • #4
        Typical NYT hubris.

        Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
        "It's true that everything happens for a reason. Just remember that sometimes that reason is that you did something really, really, stupid."

        Comment

        • #5
          Didn't the Times of London recently set up a pay wall? I wonder how that is working out for them.

          Comment

          • #6
            Originally posted by Lost_Student View Post
            I wonder how they will track the number of articles any one person reads. Will they use cookies?
            don't you have to have a free account to read anything at nyt.com as it stands now?
            Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

            Comment

            • #7
              Originally posted by SCcoug View Post
              Didn't the Times of London recently set up a pay wall? I wonder how that is working out for them.
              IIRC, the WSJ is doing fairly well with their pay wall. It will be interesting to see who will fork over the cash for this. 195/yr on the low end and 455/yr on the high end. The tiered pricing is genius. No real marginal costs in delivery and probably negligible increase in use, just a pure money grab from those who can afford to pay more. The Sulzbergers and Carlos Slim gotta get theirs!

              Obviously, they are looking to make bundles of dough off of people who can't help but show others that they have bundles of dough (i.e., iPad owners). It will be another irresistible way to flash the cash without actually flashing cash.

              I predict a raging success (although they may tinker w/the price and article limits a bit). They won't be turning back.

              Comment

              • #8
                Originally posted by Lost_Student View Post
                I wonder how they will track the number of articles any one person reads. Will they use cookies?
                They will probably use a combo of cookies and ip tracking. This is doomed to fail to keep people out.

                Now, they could take advantage of user accounts, but this defeats the purpose of their 20 article access. Nobody wants to sign up for a user account they don't plan on using, or more accurately, nobody that click's through to the times from a blog will want to sign up when they were only marginally interested anyway.
                "Don't expect I'll see you 'till after the race"

                "So where does the power come from to see the race to its end...from within"

                Comment

                • #9
                  More information afoot allows more businesses to become price discriminating monopolists.

                  One of the assumptions of a free market is the presence of anonymous demand.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Is the NYT any better than CNN? I really don't know because to me they all seem the same. Why pay for something I can get for free elsewhere?
                    "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Eddie Jones View Post
                      Is the NYT any better than CNN? I really don't know because to me they all seem the same. Why pay for something I can get for free elsewhere?
                      LOL
                      Visca Catalunya Lliure

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Eddie Jones View Post
                        Is the NYT any better than CNN? I really don't know because to me they all seem the same. Why pay for something I can get for free elsewhere?
                        While I share Tim's snort, I'll say that if you spend some time making a habit of reading both sites, you will notice the striking difference in quality between the two entities.
                        "Wuap's "problem" is that he is smart & principled & committed to a moral course of action. His actions are supposed to reflect his ethical code.
                        The rest of us rarely bother to think about our actions." --Solon

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Originally posted by I.J. Reilly View Post
                          IIRC, the WSJ is doing fairly well with their pay wall. It will be interesting to see who will fork over the cash for this. 195/yr on the low end and 455/yr on the high end. The tiered pricing is genius. No real marginal costs in delivery and probably negligible increase in use, just a pure money grab from those who can afford to pay more. The Sulzbergers and Carlos Slim gotta get theirs!

                          Obviously, they are looking to make bundles of dough off of people who can't help but show others that they have bundles of dough (i.e., iPad owners). It will be another irresistible way to flash the cash without actually flashing cash.

                          I predict a raging success (although they may tinker w/the price and article limits a bit). They won't be turning back.
                          I think the success of such a pay plan is dependent upon both your content and your clientele. It works for the WSJ because for so many in the business world, it's a must-read (Even as one who isn't immersed in that world, the WSJ offers a lot for average Joes like myself, and I regret not reading it more often). I think it can work for the NYT simply because so many depend on the NYT for research purposes -- they're not going to make a mint off the casual reader -- but for those who have the NYT as a work tool, there's something to be made here. And let's face it -- NYT readership is generally affluent enough to afford such a service.

                          On a side note (and because sports talk helps fuel this board), it was refreshing to see that coacheshotseat.com's model of a subscription service failed miserably, and that they found the financial backers to once again make it a free site.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Originally posted by wuapinmon View Post
                            While I share Tim's snort, I'll say that if you spend some time making a habit of reading both sites, you will notice the striking difference in quality between the two entities.
                            I'm guessing that both of you missed the point of my post.
                            "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Originally posted by SteelBlue View Post
                              My gut feeling is that the plan will fail miserably. Nobody is going to pay for online news, that's like taking a giant step back into the 90's.
                              Very short sighted.

                              For one thing, any lover of liberty should want to help make sure the Times doesn't fail. The Times is about the only remainging U.S. news organ with overseas bureaus, that writes the majority of its own storeis, etc. It doesn invaluable work promoting obscure or new writers.

                              Also, why should it be free?

                              But the main thing is that Times readers are devoted, and the Times has kind of a monopoly there is nothing else quite like it.
                              When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

                              --Jonathan Swift

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X