Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New York Times' Print and Digital Units Reportedly Disagreeing Over iPad Content Pricing

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
68,862
39,825


Silicon Alley Insider reports that a "turf war" has erupted at The New York Times, with both print and digital units within the company vying for control over iPad content distribution and pricing. According to the report, the Times' print unit sees an iPad offering as an extension of the newspaper's print distribution and is seeking subscription fees of $20-$30 per month for iPad content, while the newspaper's digital operations unit sees such pricing as unrealistic and is pushing for a lower $10 per month pricing.
The dispute has apparently escalated all the way to the top of the Times Building, and top executives -- presumably the same ones who secretly dined with Apple CEO Steve Jobs -- are now debating which way to go. Among those supporting the $20-30 per month print circulation side is, we're told, New York Times Media Group president Scott Heekin-Canedy.
Click to expand...
The report notes that The New York Times is currently offering free access to its Web edition into 2011, making subscription costs for iPad-specific content of $20-$30 appear rather uncompetitive.

Article Link: New York Times' Print and Digital Units Reportedly Disagreeing Over iPad Content Pricing
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2010/02/16/new-york-times-print-and-digital-units-reportedly-disagreeing-over-ipad-content-pricing/
No wonder why the Gray Lady has no subscribers and is on the verge of collapsing.
 
Did i read that right 20-30 dollars a month!!!!!

For news i could get for free.

Thats the cost of the 3g service to use the ipad in the first place then you want to me to pay 20-30 a month just for the times!!!

good luck with that!!!
 
Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3GS (JB3.1, unlocked): Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)

They're deluding themselves if they honestly expect people to pay even $10/month for day-old news.
 
That's reasonable.... WHAT!!?!?

Charge $30/month and give yourself time to watch paint dry.

WTF are they crazy??? My freaking internet service is only $30/month. Why on this earth would I pay that kind of money for a news paper where approximately 50% of the content is available for free?
Yes the NYT editorials and investigative journalism is top notch but $360/year??? You're out of your mind crazy.

If this is the revenue plan, they are going to be sorely disappointed.

Newspaper and magazine people need to wake up. You are taking your production and distribution costs down to ZERO in this medium. You can cut prices like crazy and you *should*.
$10/month is the *highest* you should be thinking.

I'd put it closer to $5/month. That's a price that would make people subscribe in droves. Remember you've got to understand that people will only buy so many subscriptions.

Example: if your average customer buys the WSJ, sports Illustrated or Wired, plus NYT and lets say .. Scientific American, do you seriously think he will be dropping $40/month on this? Are you so high in your ivory tower that you might actually believe that he might drop $120/month for his four magazines/news sources?? ridiculous!
 
Hahaa!

Is anyone really so terribly surprised that these ancient dinosaurs who run the failing newspaper business want to gouge consumers? They've run their companies into the ground by being slow to adopt changes in technology and trends and when a hail mary opportunity is presented to them what do they do? They bicker about prices that range from a bit too much to insanely over priced!

I'm not a bit surprised that these people are trying to rape our wallets.... Never mind the near-complete lack of additional overhead a digital media release adds to their costs....

I only wish i could say that corporate greed like this is shocking... But I live in a world where Blue Cross Blue Shield can jack up their rates from 25% - 100% for people this year so this just feels like more of the status quo..

Hey fellas,
Let us know when to bend over and take it some more for ya, k?

effers
 
Jobs should be focused on two things

1- digital textbooks for students
This is huge, there is a need for this. Students would rather carry around an ipad then a ton of heavy textbooks, not to mention looking up information would be a breeze. Possibilities are endless.

2- Gaming
iPhone proved that apple can provide excellent video game content on a small device. They would do better on a 10 inch device.

Paying for news you could google for free = epic fail.
There is no need for this.
 
Are they on crack? or am I on crack? Who would even consider paying a monthly fee for this? Didn't one of the other papers try charging an online subscription and ended up with four subscribers.

I cannot believe they are going down this road.
 
Still seems kinda steep…hope they have a sunday only option. Probably not bad for regular readers. I would imHinr that they will ultimately make more from ads on the ipad.
 
Does anybody know what the NYT charges for it big week-end print edition ?

I would probably pay that for THAT single edition but no way no how am I gonna pay a monthly subscription. Not even if it's $10.
 
$20-30/month? NFW! Like others have said, there's nothing in the Times worth that much. $10/month? Perhaps but I agree that the $5/month fee would make it a no-brainer.

I'll also comment on another MacRumors post: I understand why the magazine and newspaper publishers want access to the subscriber lists (which, apparently, Apple does not want to share). I agree that they should have access as long as any add'l media the publishers wish to provide are done so on an opt-in basis. This means any contact other than the eVersion of the paper or magazine. Apple doesn't spam me; I don't necessarily trust Conde Nast (et al).
 
It's not day old news - it's updated constantly throughout the day. And they will be charging for web content soon, so it won't be free online either.
 
Ha!

30 bucks! That is so typical of modern print media! The grey lady is the perfect example of an industry in deep, deep, deep denial. The web media has not only passed them by, but is laughing at them as they desperately try to cling to what once was.

This is also indicative of the NYT who has historically been a politically biased publication that has no chance of gaining at least 50 percent of the market who is turned off by their years of unbalanced news reporting. Just look at how well the Wall Street Journal is doing! Staying right down the center of political reporting and has a robust and growing web/mobile strategy.

I love that the web people are trying to keep the lady afloat while the old print stooges are ripping new holes in the side of the ship!
 
All I have to say is...screw you William Randolph Hurst!! Even though you may not be alive, your legacy has screwed with us, and still is even in the digital age!
 
mavis said:
They're deluding themselves if they honestly expect people to pay even $10/month for day-old news.
Click to expand...

$30 is an outrageous monthly fee for a digital newspaper. I agree with you, I wouldn't even pay $10 a month for it. I could visit nytimes.com or the thousands of other FREE news websites to get my news.
 
Riiiiiight. And when other outlets come on board for $5/month I'm sure people will still die to read the NYT for $20/month. :rolleyes:

Seriously, even $10 a month is a bit much. If they made it $49 a year or $5/month I might bite at the yearly subscription. It's easier (for me) to fork out a larger amount for an entire year than have the annoyance of a silly little charge each month.
 
mikeyiphone said:
Jobs should be focused on two things

1- digital textbooks for students
This is huge, there is a need for this. Students would rather carry around an ipad then a ton of heavy textbooks, not to mention looking up information would be a breeze. Possibilities are endless.

2- Gaming
iPhone proved that apple can provide excellent video game content on a small device. They would do better on a 10 inch device.

Paying for news you could google for free = epic fail.
There is no need for this.
Click to expand...

Apple is currently DEEP into Digital Textbooks for the class room. Look for big things to come somewhat soon. :apple:
 
they can get away with this cause all news on the internet is not being free anymore. idk anyway i get everything from the nyt free cause my dad worked there for 30+ years
 
Look, I can see the point of paying a few bucks a month for NYTimes content, especially if they end free access to the website, which they are planning to do. The reporting is top-notch, and it's not cheap to maintain a good journalistic and editorial staff. BUT, if they think people are going to pay 20-30 bucks a month, they are simply out of their minds. Up to 10 makes sense. $7 would be a sweet spot that they will sell lots of subscriptions for.
 
No Way!

30 Dollar's a Year is more likely. I could get 3 magazine subscriptions or I could get the new york time's :rolleyes: That's the dumbest thing I have heard. Apple should just ban them from the iPad for such stupid thinking. They must have been so high that Bob Marely looked SOBER.:D:D WTF!!!
 
Glideslope said:
Apple is currently DEEP into Digital Textbooks for the class room. Look for big things to come somewhat soon. :apple:
Click to expand...

If Apple really wants to be taken seriously in the world of academia, they are going to have to implement multi-tasking. Pages, Keynote, and iBooks need to run simultaneously.
 
Although it seems like a lot, whats $30 a month, really? A Gucci handbag can cost $5k or more. A pair of crocodile Ferregamos can cost $4k. And a simple bottle of champagne with your dinner can cost you over $500. And don't we all spend at least $300 a month gassing up our Maseratis?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back