Frankly, how different is that than what we have now? Atleast then you know they are little daft, vs now where everything in these old dinosaur rags is still slanted one way or another but most people aren't bright enough to figure it out.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Frankly, how different is that than what we have now? Atleast then you know they are little daft, vs now where everything in these old dinosaur rags is still slanted one way or another but most people aren't bright enough to figure it out.
Home delivery of the NYT in NYC is about $45/mo (M-Su deliv). Single daily copy is $2. Sunday is $6.
So NYT isn't surcharging for the e-edition. It is, in fact, discounted. However, being in NYC, much of the cost of the paper edition is not beared by the e-edition, so the $20/30 price does look too expensive to actually grow circulation rather than just cause paper subscribers to switch to electronic, which would, of course, result in lower cash flow, possibly profit.
The only thing I have come up with that you might need "multitasking" would be streaming audio. This is the one thing that I would like to see multitask. Its not a requirement for me to purchase a device, but a nice to have.
I do agree however tradtional multitasking is not needed with this type of instant on, and instant access device.
Are you joking? I haven't purchased a newspaper in somewhat near a decade. I simply read all the latest news online at the NYT site in the morning while I eat breakfast...akin to getting the paper at the door in the morning, only it's a lot more updated. When I am home with my parents, my mother, for example, will always say something like "Look, did you know that..." when she gets the paper in the morning. I always interrupt her with "yeah, read about it last night already." It is also far more convenient than watching the news on TV. It's always "and we will talk about that big story in 15 minutes..." Why bother when you can read about it right then and there and not have to wait through the rest of the nonsense? You seriously need to re-evaluate that people don't want to read news online.
I would pay for a subscription to the times, but certainly not $30 a month...be it iPad/iPod/Macintosh based anything.
Love the Paper hate the Price
I love the Gray Lady and have done for many years. I am one who expects to pay for my papers. I subscribe to the Economist and Harpers and purchase the newsstand version of the Saturday Gray Lady. However, I will not pay 20 - 30 per month for one publication. I would pay 20 - 30 per month for a selection of my favourites. I read so much news from so many sources that I would feel that I have been tied down to just one source - that's not going to happen.
I love the Gray Lady and have done for many years. I am one who expects to pay for my papers. I subscribe to the Economist and Harpers and purchase the newsstand version of the Saturday Gray Lady. However, I will not pay 20 - 30 per month for one publication. I would pay 20 - 30 per month for a selection of my favourites. I read so much news from so many sources that I would feel that I have been tied down to just one source - that's not going to happen.
It also would be nice to be able to access the web while reading a book or newspaper. Quite often I'll come across a set of facts or an event I want deeper background on and like to do quick research on it before I continue reading again.
What I'd pay!
I like magazines like Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, Discover, etc .... I can pay approx $5 a month for each one in print form .. OR .. subscribe and pay approx $18 a YEAR!!!! to have it delivered ...
There is a big difference, but they will try and screw me over when the ipad comes out and they ramp up there web based service.....would I pay $5/month ...... no ... try $20 a year .. then I would pay ... the Times will die, and it should!
I like magazines like Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, Discover, etc .... I can pay approx $5 a month for each one in print form .. OR .. subscribe and pay approx $18 a YEAR!!!! to have it delivered ...
There is a big difference, but they will try and screw me over when the ipad comes out and they ramp up there web based service.....would I pay $5/month ...... no ... try $20 a year .. then I would pay ... the Times will die, and it should!
Newsday ...
I forget where, and wont google it .. but Newsday, the Long Island 3rd rated newspaper charges people to go online ( they give it free to cable customers too ) and when they reported the number of people who signed up and actually paid, they said 35 ... "Thousand???" no .. just 35 ..
Millions of dollars on a really bad website .. and 35 people pay for it!
I think I actually peed myself laughing!
I forget where, and wont google it .. but Newsday, the Long Island 3rd rated newspaper charges people to go online ( they give it free to cable customers too ) and when they reported the number of people who signed up and actually paid, they said 35 ... "Thousand???" no .. just 35 ..
Millions of dollars on a really bad website .. and 35 people pay for it!
I think I actually peed myself laughing!
True.
I'm not a fan of the licence fee. Just meant there is content out there for "free".
Why would anyone pay for the NYT when there is so much free content around. Most newspapers stories repeat each other or are just advertorials.
Original and worthwhile content is very rare. Journalism/newspapers are outdated industries. We don't need journalists or newspapers.
Emphasis mine.
This is probably how the Times is looking at this -- which is exactly how most newspapers look at the web and other electronic products: as extensions of their print product.
And obviously I believe this is wrong. Publishers have to realize that while content can migrate between products, the products themselves are unique and will inevitably compete with each other.
Some examples: newspapers don't like to aggregate news because they want their "brand" to be dominate. Then they lose page views to news aggregators. Another: newspapers don't want to sell cheap ads to local merchants in order to sustain their high display advertising rates. Then lose the business to hyperlocal sites, shoppers, and Google.
I sympathize with the circulation department, the tablet will more closely resemble print -- more than the web does. The reason is the environment in which it will be used. Print is more a leisure time activity. You read the paper at breakfast, over coffee. The web is a quicker read. You can grab a look at the Times web site while at work -- but if you pull out the paper (or your tablet) and read it you'd be considered loafing.
The answer (at least this is what I think the answer is today) is to have product managers --one for print, one for mobile, one for readers/tablets. They would be responsible for pricing, marketing and overall design (content is still in the control of the editors). But the key to success is advertising sales. Ads in paper are different than on the iPhone, yet how many papers have mobile sales teams? As a result, the print people don't sell web or mobile because the price seems too low and they can't make their quotas selling this type of advertising. In the meantime, the classified department, where most of the telemarketing used to be done, has been downsized due to lack of sales. Newspapers are essentially getting rid of the one group of people they will need to sell mobile, web and geo-located advertising.
It is a sad state in America when we expect everything for free, it is no wonder that our economy is in the state that it is. So far the internet has been a source of news because it has been seen as a "Value Added" product so has not needed to turn a profit. At some point in time the news on the internet or eReader will find a way to make a profit or it will go away. After all you need to pay the reporters, editors and support staff something for the work they do, and advertising has never generated enough money to pay for producing a newspaper.
Honestly, unless our attitude changes and we support American workers our whole economy will be outsourced to China, Mexico, and India. There are worse times ahead, at least until so many people here are out of work that we can compete in the low cost labor market making $10 a day.
Honestly, unless our attitude changes and we support American workers our whole economy will be outsourced to China, Mexico, and India. There are worse times ahead, at least until so many people here are out of work that we can compete in the low cost labor market making $10 a day.
Although I agree that NYT is nuts for attempting to charge $20-$30 week for DIGITAL delivery, the fact remains that their normal paper delivery is about $25 a month for people who live on the East Coast and close to $30/month for other areas of the country.
My wife read the NYT for a little while during the 50% off promo and it was a really good newspaper...however, we just thought it was nuts to pay that much for news. Period. We both get our news from the web (boston.com or cnn.com for example) for free and we get dirt cheap magazines (Time, Newsweek, etc). We feel the writing at NYT is great, but again, just not worth that kinda money.
So now several years later NYT wants to convince me to read the news digitally for the SAME price. As many people have said, that doesn't fly with me because:
1)I don't get to keep the newspaper...can't keep it to hold onto anything important for memory's sake. And I certainly cannot print from the iPad if I find a good article, recipe, ad, etc.
2)As with everything that "goes digital", digital is cheaper to the consumer in order to entice new adoption.
3)My wife would read the paper front to back...over an hour of reading...highly doubt she would sit in front of the iPad for 60+ mins on a small 9.7" screen.
I feel that NYT, as a business, needs to get with the program...the world knows the benefits a company reaps when pushing content digitally...we're not stupid...we're not going to pay the same price for something to show up in my computer thingy instead paying people to load trucks, deliver to homes, etc.
I think NYT should aim at $10/month...even if it's a 1 year promo.
-Eric
My wife read the NYT for a little while during the 50% off promo and it was a really good newspaper...however, we just thought it was nuts to pay that much for news. Period. We both get our news from the web (boston.com or cnn.com for example) for free and we get dirt cheap magazines (Time, Newsweek, etc). We feel the writing at NYT is great, but again, just not worth that kinda money.
So now several years later NYT wants to convince me to read the news digitally for the SAME price. As many people have said, that doesn't fly with me because:
1)I don't get to keep the newspaper...can't keep it to hold onto anything important for memory's sake. And I certainly cannot print from the iPad if I find a good article, recipe, ad, etc.
2)As with everything that "goes digital", digital is cheaper to the consumer in order to entice new adoption.
3)My wife would read the paper front to back...over an hour of reading...highly doubt she would sit in front of the iPad for 60+ mins on a small 9.7" screen.
I feel that NYT, as a business, needs to get with the program...the world knows the benefits a company reaps when pushing content digitally...we're not stupid...we're not going to pay the same price for something to show up in my computer thingy instead paying people to load trucks, deliver to homes, etc.
I think NYT should aim at $10/month...even if it's a 1 year promo.
-Eric
Crazy, crazy people!
Here in the UK a lot of newspapers are moving toward a free model. They hand them out for free on the street! The ones that aren't free are getting cheaper and cheaper. If they can do this with a 'real' newspaper with all the costs involved with printing and distribution, it shows how much the newspapers used to make. I hope they do charge $30/month so they can learn the hard way and either sink or adopt a new model. I think they have to be very cheap or free as they have virtually zero distribution overheads.
I still can't believe that music/movie download prices are comparable to CD/DVD sales and the industry is still wingeing!
Alice
Here in the UK a lot of newspapers are moving toward a free model. They hand them out for free on the street! The ones that aren't free are getting cheaper and cheaper. If they can do this with a 'real' newspaper with all the costs involved with printing and distribution, it shows how much the newspapers used to make. I hope they do charge $30/month so they can learn the hard way and either sink or adopt a new model. I think they have to be very cheap or free as they have virtually zero distribution overheads.
I still can't believe that music/movie download prices are comparable to CD/DVD sales and the industry is still wingeing!
Alice
I can't say that I have read all the comments on this one. so someone might have already pointed out the obvious.
If you buy the NYT every week day @ $2 a day it will cost you around $620 a year. If you pay a subscription of $30 a month you'll be saving ~$260 a year. If it's $20 a month you'll be saving ~$380 a year.
At the lower price that will nearly pay for a 16G iPad.
can't see what all the complaining is about
If you buy the NYT every week day @ $2 a day it will cost you around $620 a year. If you pay a subscription of $30 a month you'll be saving ~$260 a year. If it's $20 a month you'll be saving ~$380 a year.
At the lower price that will nearly pay for a 16G iPad.
can't see what all the complaining is about
People who subscribe to NYT spend about $40 a month. How $20-30 a month is not a good deal? It is not because reading on a screen is a poorer experience than reading on paper? If so, why bother with the digital edition? If not, what's the problem?
May I ask which 3 macs you have that all together cost only $3,600? And if you want, try adding the real cost of an iPhone and an iPad and redo the math.
There really is not point in getting all up in arms over this:
Let them charge whatever they want. $30/mon, why not? No one is going to pay for it, since it's absurd, so why care? Let them do it. After it fails miserably, the price will come down, and down, and down, and when it reaches $10, and still no one buys it, maybe then they'll realize that people do not expect to pay for free information.
Besides, who is reading the NYTimes besides Steve Jobs anyway? I can't read it, because every time I follow a link to an article, I'm sorry I did. It's the same useless, lying propaganda that you can find on 20 other supposed "news" websites. It's all a joke.
Google is the only tool you need to find truth. Google and common sense.
Let them charge whatever they want. $30/mon, why not? No one is going to pay for it, since it's absurd, so why care? Let them do it. After it fails miserably, the price will come down, and down, and down, and when it reaches $10, and still no one buys it, maybe then they'll realize that people do not expect to pay for free information.
Besides, who is reading the NYTimes besides Steve Jobs anyway? I can't read it, because every time I follow a link to an article, I'm sorry I did. It's the same useless, lying propaganda that you can find on 20 other supposed "news" websites. It's all a joke.
Google is the only tool you need to find truth. Google and common sense.
Part of the problem lies within the consumer's perception of media delivery vehicles. There are advantages and disadvantages to both print and electronic.
I could see spending $30/month for a daily newspaper delivered before 5 a.m.
I could NOT see spending more than $10/month for that same newspaper delivered/updated instantaneously on my iPad.
Realize that there are almost zero variable costs for delivering the NYT to the iPad. Every new subscriber they get contributes to the break-even for putting out the app.
Like others have said, the staff there needs to realize the difference between print and online, and not try to save their old company ways by charging $30/month.
I could see spending $30/month for a daily newspaper delivered before 5 a.m.
I could NOT see spending more than $10/month for that same newspaper delivered/updated instantaneously on my iPad.
Realize that there are almost zero variable costs for delivering the NYT to the iPad. Every new subscriber they get contributes to the break-even for putting out the app.
Like others have said, the staff there needs to realize the difference between print and online, and not try to save their old company ways by charging $30/month.
I agree. But you have to realize that there are people who are on the payroll specifically to save the print product -- that's their job. And if they can handicap the electronic products enough they will get to keep their jobs for another year. I'm not saying that is right -- obviously -- but it is reality.
Places like the NYT are huge bureaucracies, with many different political agendas competing with each other. When I worked for McGraw-Hill the bureaucracy was called "Hightstown" because that was where all the accounting people were (Hightstown, NJ). Anything that got stuck in the system was blamed on "Hightstown". Sometimes it is hard for people who have never worked for a company like that to understand how hard it is to get things done. I imagine Microsoft being like that.
I disagree. Anything written by a person will always be slanted, and nearly everyone understands this intuitively. The people who scream about bias in the media are 90% dishonest charlatans and 10% idiots.
Right now, nobody except the Reverend Moon maintains a major media outlet in the US without being concerned about a profit. A few outlets make money while simultaneously being mouthpieces, but most have to tend towards a mealy-mouthed "center" to stay in the black. It certainly isn't an ideal journalism, but it's better than a world where there are few sources and they look something like the 700 Club with the production value of Fox News.
I have no illusions about the vaunted "fact checking" of places like the NYT. They're often sloppy, and sometimes dishonest. But they still are a hell of a lot more capable than Jimbo down the street with his magical internet. A sloppy reporter can still manage to stumble onto a lot of stuff that you and I never would. It doesn't matter if we have the internet at our fingers for distrubution... that is 100% orthogonal to the question of digging up whatever isn't in the officially approved press releases.
What are you paying $150/mo for? I'm in NYC and I don't pay anything near that and I have an iPhone, Macs, etc....
/* sarcasm on */
Are you kidding? I have no idea what I spend on gas. My staff keeps all of my vehicles fueled. My secretary takes care of all of my subscriptions too, so I have no idea what I spend.
You know, I think I might get the WSJ for free *because* I'm rich.
/* sarcasm off */
Maybe yes, maybe not. Just put together the real cost (not subsized) of your iPhone, macs and soon iPad. Than do the math.
At the same time if what people are willing to pay is not enough to cover the cost of doing business and turn a profit that the share-holders or parent company are satisfied with then they cannot stay in business. It seems that most people want it for free, or at most $10/month.
Given the current print subscription rate stated by others here at about $40/month, assuming a 60% savings in print and distribution that still only brings the product that would still price it at $16/month with an introductory rate of $8/month sounds reasonable for the product. Much less than that and they will have to find a way to make up for it in advertising revenue, which will most likely be low or packaged as part of the print ad starting out (ie basically free). This means that at $10/month they would probably be breaking even at best, and possibly loosing money.
At the same time I see a lot of people calling for more interactive content, which is going to cost more money to produce which will cut into any savings they have gained from the streamlined distribution model.
And finally look at all the people that will be out of jobs because of this. It won't happen overnight but the people who run and maintain the presses and manage the delivery will be looking for jobs soon enough, and most of those jobs that they have the skills for have already moved to China and Mexico. There will most likely be other jobs in IT and digital production (page layout) that they outsource to India to cut costs as well. While I think that progress is good, I can't help but think of what we are doing to our economy and wonder how soon we are going to fall into the next depression which we narrowly avoided last year.