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

'The New York Times' Announces Digital Access With In App Subscriptions

They just don't get it. These are still old newspaper guys trying to apply the same subscription model to electronic versions. It doesn't work. It never will.

The answer to making revenue isn't 'well just charge a subscription like we do for the newspaper.' It's about making your content unique and usable, then getting advertisers to pay for those eyeballs.

Stupid is as stupid does.
 
Ieo said:
Support it through ads....No way in hell am I paying for a subscription at that rate. There are too many free sources of news out there for me to pay $260 a year (iPad + online only rate) for NYT.
Click to expand...

FearlessFreep said:
They just don't get it. These are still old newspaper guys trying to apply the same subscription model to electronic versions. It doesn't work. It never will.

The answer to making revenue isn't 'well just charge a subscription like we do for the newspaper.' It's about making your content unique and usable, then getting advertisers to pay for those eyeballs.

Stupid is as stupid does.
Click to expand...

The thing is, the ad supported model has not worked. Paper subscriptions have been subsidizing the website for years, but at this point those print subscriptions have declined to the point where the free website can no longer be supported.

the NYT tried the ad supported model and it didn't work. What would you do?
 
So let me see, subscribe to the paper addition of NYTimes in NYC and it is $5.85 a week or $305 a year. That gets me full access to website, ipad and iphone. But if subscribe to full digital access, it is $35 per four weeks or $455 a year. Boy that makes a lot of sense.
Can I subscribe to the paper and tell them just not to deliver the paper?
 
I think how much they're charging is absurd. Yes, they have to make money, but they would have been better giving it away for free with adverts and making their revenue from that. They readership is sure to drop from this move. Charging that much is counter-productive, because there's many other places that will give the same information for free.
 
That's a good one!

I would be amazed if they'll be able to find a four digit number of people willing to subscribe to this rip-off.

Some people just don't learn...
 
MacBoucher said:
I will not pay for this...

Google Reader, Yahoo News, CNN, and my favorite app, pulse for iPhone.

Good luck, NYTimes, I just cancelled my subscription.
Click to expand...

What subscription will you be canceling?

TallManNY said:
So let me see, subscribe to the paper addition of NYTimes in NYC and it is $5.85 a week or $305 a year. That gets me full access to website, ipad and iphone. But if subscribe to full digital access, it is $35 per four weeks or $455 a year. Boy that makes a lot of sense.
Can I subscribe to the paper and tell them just not to deliver the paper?
Click to expand...

It's 5.85 a week for the first 12 weeks, and after that full price. So $538.20 a year for the first year, more after that. And where did $455 come from?

The electronic subscription is $15 every four weeks *or* $20 every four weeks for iPad. That comes out to either $195 *or* $260 a year. Not both.
 
Last edited:
30% going to apple is nuts...

Apple's rolling in the cash, but the writers, photographers, editors, some of whom risk there lives in Lybia, etc. sure arn't living the high life...
 
I guess we're paying for Apples 30% cut in the price of the subscription. That price is crazy. I wouldn't pay that much to read the newspaper. If you use a computer at all most of the information is old news by the time they get around to writing anything about it. Rip off.
 
Pass

I don't have an issue with them needing to charge for the service.

My issue is that it is too high IMHO.

$10 s month I'd do. But this is crazy.
 
Give me Subscriptions or give me Ads

If I pay for content, the ads must be removed. So far, they are trying to do both. Although that has been common practice for a long time, it's greedy and unfair.

Vote with your wallet people.
 
If you subscribe to ANY NYT home delivery option (even the $3.10/wk option for weekdays only) you get full access on any device.

So... that's actually not that bad a deal. I'm not sure why they would offer a digital-only option for so much more, but whatever...
 
Whoops. Didn't realize that $5.85 is actually the "introductory price". It goes up to $11.70 per week which is more expensive than the full digital subscription.

I will end up subscribing, probably, to the iPad form. But partially as an act of charity to an institution that I like. The Daily is just a buck a week and the WSJ is $19 per month (and has unique information that I need for my job).

I'm glad the NY Times is going to get back into the business of making money. But I think these prices are just a touch too high.
 
NorCalLights said:
If you subscribe to ANY NYT home delivery option (even the $3.10/wk option for weekdays only) you get full access on any device.

So... that's actually not that bad a deal. I'm not sure why they would offer a digital-only option for so much more, but whatever...
Click to expand...

Home delivery isn't that great if you live in an apartment, which most New Yorkers do. You have to go downstairs anyway and pick up the paper, and often it's stolen. Any why are you saying it's more for the digital option? It's less. The $3.10 a week is only the first 12 weeks. After that it is $6.20 a week.
 
hitekalex said:
So it's between x20 and x35 times more expensive than "The Daily" access? Good luck with that, NYT. You will need it.
Click to expand...

Come on now, even the most fervent NYTimes basher has to see the difference between The Daily and the NYTimes. The Daily is a glorified gossip rag with a bit of right leaning opinion pieces from right wing think tank members. They had more content about the Super Bowl than Egypt and the information about Egypt was days old. There is also the issue with The Daily removing content as it is replaced with the new content so you have to read it every day or you just payed for content you will never read because you can't (unless they fixed this).

So yeah, the price for the NYTimes is high (I don't plan on paying for it because I don't think they're actually that good of a news source). But that doesn't mean I'm going to go compare it to the National Enquirer.
 
damage00 said:
If I pay for content, the ads must be removed. So far, they are trying to do both. Although that has been common practice for a long time, it's greedy and unfair.

Vote with your wallet people.
Click to expand...

i suggest you buy the print version which has no ads
 
nastebu said:
And where did $455 come from? The electronic subscription is $15 every four weeks or $20 every four weeks for iPad. That comes out to either $195 or $260 a year. Not both.
Click to expand...

The full digital (iphone and iPad) is $35 every four weeks. But I guess most people will just subscribe for one device (in my case, it would be iPad).

Hmm, the Weekender actually might make the most sense for me because I like to share the paper with my girlfriend over brunch on the weekend. We typically buy the paper from the Newstand one the way to brunch. I could save some money this way, especially if it still gives access to the digital content. Though that does seem to be a loophole.
 
We all knew this was coming, and the idea that NYT can make enough money just by being ad-supported is absurd.

That said, the pricing is too high. The price should either be lower (I'd seriously considering subscribing at $10/month or below) or they should have a tiered model for readers like me who enjoy NYT but don't get around to reading it every day, where (as stated) the first 20 articles are free and you can pay $x for an access to an additional x articles on a daily/weekly/monthly basis.
 
nastebu said:
The thing is, the ad supported model has not worked. Paper subscriptions have been subsidizing the website for years, but at this point those print subscriptions have declined to the point where the free website can no longer be supported.

the NYT tried the ad supported model and it didn't work. What would you do?
Click to expand...

only reason it hasn't worked is because the newspapers screwed up and allowed the internet to take away their business. used to be if you wanted to buy and sell real estate in NYC you had to go through the NYT or NY Newsday. now there is the internet. craigslist, ebay and monster.com took away the classifieds.

the print guys were snobby and elite and allowed this
 
NAG said:
There is also the issue with The Daily removing content as it is replaced with the new content so you have to read it every day or you just payed for content you will never read because you can't (unless they fixed this).
Click to expand...

They are going to fix this at the Daily soon.

Yes, it is a completely different level of paper than NYTimes but it is interesting that they are so much cheaper.
 
nastebu said:
The first 12 weeks of a full print subscription with home delivery are 50% off and cost $70.20. The rest of the year is $11.70 for each week.

So:

12 weeks = $70.20
40 weeks = $468.00
total = $538.20

So no, it's not cheaper. And the next year is at full price so the cost is $608.40.
Click to expand...

Where I live, just the Sunday edition is all that's available for home subscription and that is $195 for the year.

The digital version is cheaper than home delivery, but, it does seem expensive.... however, it is the NYTimes and it has a lot of clout with some readers.

The price will find it's level. I think once they see that they are missing out on more subscribers they will lower the price. Plus competition from papers like USA Today and the WSJ will help bring it down.
 
Well, everyone seems to be very annoyed at this. I, for one, think it was inevitable and also somewhat welcome. The only reason that online content like this was ever free was that the companies could afford to do so because their revenue came from print. Now that print is in serious decline, and digital is becoming the main source of reading, they logically need to move their subscriptions to this outlet instead. It's only fair for them to be compensated in some manner. You can argue the price, fine, but nothing is ever "free."

Everyone says "well, I'll just go somewhere else," but you know all the major newspapers will go this route in time. You can still go to other sites for "free" news, but that's just the same thing as the free periodicals you find in bins on the street...you don't see them killing the subscription papers. There is room for both.
 
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