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

[Ugg]

Say what you want about whether ad-supported content sites can work, but one thing is perfectly clear - subscription sites have failed miserably. Ad-supported sites do work - when the content is unique enough to generate traffic. It's all about content - the NYT offers nothing that can't be easily found somewhere else.

Local papers or digital rags will of course fail with subscription pricing, but it's rather ignorant of you to broadly claim that subscription pricing fails miserably.

The WSJ and the Financial Times have been roaring successes.

I'm going to subscribe to the Web version but I refuse to pay additional for the iPad version. My guess is they'll drop the pricing within 6 months.

In a world where journalistic standards are viewed as an impediment to making money, the NYT remains a breath of fresh air.

 

[Max Xinzou]

While I don't expect to get something for nothing . . . really, still with advertising, zero printing costs, subscription base multiplied by the power of the web? I guess it's official, the NYT is now smoking CRACK! Many of us recognize a good product, but more like at $1/week for unlimited, multi-platform, 1 household use. Wow! CRACK, seriously!!!

 

[Madmic23]

Apple's ridiculous in-app purchase system definitley takes some of the blame here. If you subscribe to the iPad + iPhone version of this, Apple makes$136.50, with the NY Times getting $318.50. $318.50 is $6.125 dollars a week, which is less than $1 a day for the paper.

If Apple would let content providers work subscriptions out on their own without taking such a big cut, this could be substantially cheaper.

Still, there's no way I would pay over $300 a year for any newspaper, let alone over $400.

 

[Gav Mack]

I guess you don't put any value at all on your own time or convenience.

Switching between four different browsers every day to read most of a newspaper is probably worth $15-$20 a month to me.. Maybe not to you.

I doubt I'd ever get close to maybe switching one browser. I'm not a daily visitor with only a few regular columnists and breaking stories I look for.

I'm in the UK whose titles apart from Murdoch have realised that $15-20 bucks a month is way too much for an iphone/ipad subscription - the two I have already mentioned have my money and the NYT like our Times simply won't. Too expensive.

 

[Swift]

$455 per year? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just subscribe to the newsprint version?

Can you multiply? 15 x 13 (4-week periods) = $195 a year.

 

[Swift]

So it's between x20 and x35 times more expensive than "The Daily" access? Good luck with that, NYT. You will need it.

Well, at least it's not Murdoch crap.

 

[lllll]

No thanks NYT, I can read your article freely online just by googling. plus your story are pretty much the same as CNN. And most important of all, NYT doesn't matter to me because I don't live in NY.

 

[ladeer]

Unbelievable. Charging this much for information in this day and age? I'll have to find other sources of news.

Good luck, NYTimes. Hope you enjoy seeing your readership plummet.

what do you mean "this day and age?" do you know especially this day and age, there is so much information available, we are really living in an information explosion where 99.99% of them is junk noise? it's more and more difficult and inefficient to distinguish quality content from rehashed articles, fake news site, auto-generated blog post all w/ the intention to drive service engine optimization and ad sales.

then there are those news outlet like local tv stations, CNN.com, BBC.com, huffington post, etc. Their content quality is several notch below the rank of WSJ and NYT. Just look at the kind of stuff getting coverage, their reporting angle, and vocabularies used on CNN.com, there is a reason their content is free.

Trust me just because you don't want to pay for quality content doesn't mean others won't. WSJ has successfully charge its content for years, and I personally pay $495/year for its Professional service. When the information I receive is helping me to make large sum of investment decision on daily basis, $495 is just chomp change like commissions and fees for cost of trading.

 

[iSee]

The distinction between browser access, smartphone app access and tablet access is baffling... I might do $4-5/week for the whole thing.

 

[ladeer]

While I don't expect to get something for nothing . . . really, still with advertising, zero printing costs, subscription base multiplied by the power of the web? I guess it's official, the NYT is now smoking CRACK! Many of us recognize a good product, but more like at $1/week for unlimited, multi-platform, 1 household use. Wow! CRACK, seriously!!!

NYT like any business doesn't price based on the cost of their product. If they do that, they might as well close shop. Your assertion on "print cost, ad revenue" are shallow and ignorant. Why don't you hire a staff of journalists in every country in the world, pay for their salary and per diem and airfares and IT infrascture on 24/7 basis, and insurance for their safety so when they get kidnapped like the four NYT reporters did in Libya yesterday, their families can get some money? Maybe you will realize selling newspaper is not just about "buying paper and ink."

Any business should charge their products based on how much their customers are willing to pay. The most their customers are willing to pay. Apparently you are too cheap for them and I doubt they priced their products based on self-entitled people like you. You can always go read Topeka Time or CNN.com or USA Today though, because junks will always be free.

 

[spydr]

Bad pricing model.
If they want 10-50 times more subscribers, this is what they should charge:
$1 a week for iPad+iPhone app.
$2 a week for full web access.

 

[dingamahoo]

$15 per month to read it on the browser, right. Add Instapaper and then read everything easily on ipad or iphone.

 

[bergert]

Basic math

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?

Paper is $4 weekend $1.5 per day
12 weeks newsstand = 4x 12 + 6x1.5x12 = $148 (4xSunday+12 weekdays)
12 weeks paper subscription = $70 (50% discount)
12 weeks electronic = 3 * 15 = $45 (again 35% discount)

This is the first reasonable priced on-line deal; I will be glad to pick it up.

Now if we only has something similar for movies and books (as you may know book publishers do not sell e-Books under the hardcover price because it would "devalue" their assets.

 

[dingamahoo]

All---here's a much less expensive solution for everyone who still wants unlimited access. Don't laugh, I'm serious!

Order the large print edition of the NY Times. It comes once a week and costs $42.90 every 6 months. I believe that this is the very, very least expensive way to get a print subscription to the NY Times.

It comes with---FREE---the new all digital access, including the nytimes.com and the smartphone and tablet subscriptions, all with unlimited content.

I just called the NY Times directly (today!) because I was worried about how this would affect things..... and they said this method will continue to offer the completely unlimited electronic access too.

It's just that not many people know about this method.

I believe it's the very, very, very cheapest way to go. We've done this since 2006 and will continue to do it now, since it provides a solution to today's newly announced subscription troubles discussed here.

This also seems like a great solution. I'll probably opt for this. Or the Sunday method -- it is nice to get the Sunday print edition.

 

[VerdeVivir]

I've been a weekend subscriber for the last 7 years. It's roughly $20 per month for Saturday and Sunday hardcopies and full, complete access to the digital edition. That's about $240 per year for access on my computer and iphone. I also subscribe to the Economist and it's the same deal. The iphone app for that magazine is absolutely stunning and I can access complete issues on the go.

If you really appreciate the NYT, as I am (it's actually my home page), then you will have no problem justifying the expenditure of $240 a year for weekends and full online access. Let's face it, the NYT has probably done more to push their print content online with tons of extra features (blogs, slideshows, incredible multimedia presentations).

 

[iSee]

...They'll get a big fat zero star after I delete them...

Yeah, the nerve of them -- charging for content! Zero stars indeed.

 

[Frobozz]

Wildly overpriced.

Wow. This is wildly overpriced. The paper isn't worth the cost it demands, as is. Asking for MORE money to get it in a convenient manner that doesn't kill trees sounds almost like extortion.

NYTimes has good content, there's no doubt. But they need to adjust their expectations on how media is priced going forward. First it was the Music industry, then the Movie industry, and now it's books and magazines. Get with it, or be replaced by blogs *cough* Huffingtonpost *cough*

 

[Frobozz]

Bad pricing model.
If they want 10-50 times more subscribers, this is what they should charge:
$1 a week for iPad+iPhone app.
$2 a week for full web access.

Agreed. The only thing they're doing with this is converting traditional customers to digital. Just look at this message thread and you'll see that is at least anecdotally true. Maybe they pick up a scant few digital only subscribers in the process, but this is no game changer. It does next to nothing to bring new subscribers to the plate.

If they intend to stop killing trees, then they have a nice product on their hands. If they want new subscribers, they need to chop their current price in at least half.

 

[tigres]

to be fair, the BBC and news sources from other countries are usually supported by mandatory taxes of that countries citizens ... and that's also why the media libraries (almost all of BBC programming is available online) aren't available if your IP address is from outside the country

So, I think your use of "FREE" is a misnomer.

Well let me say it like this:
I have the BBC app on iPhone
I have the BBC app on iPad

they are both of NO charge, and the app is beautifully delivered with nice eye candy as well.

Is that OK now?

 

[mrzeigler]

$5 a month would have been reasonable. I hope NYtimes reporters have their resumes up to date...

Why? They weren't making all that much money off you coming to their website and getting their news for free.

As a journalist who has unwittingly helped enrich Google, I found it quite ironic when a few weeks ago Google was indignant after a sting operation showed that Bing was stealing its search results. How DARE that evil company take what Google's hard-working employees had produced and then try to profit off of it!

It's interesting that those who excoriate people who use pirated software often feel entitled to free news.

 

[takao]

analog prices for a digital world ? that simply won't work as much as i like reading NYT articles online
and what happens when there are less viewers/readers ? ad prices drop

i'm 27 and i have never bought a single daily newspaper. The last time i bought a monthly magazine with ads ? that was 2003 i think (i still buy magazines with no ads ... and i'm willing to pay for it)

 

[H. Flower]

Apple's ridiculous in-app purchase system definitley takes some of the blame here. If you subscribe to the iPad + iPhone version of this, Apple makes$136.50, with the NY Times getting $318.50. $318.50 is $6.125 dollars a week, which is less than $1 a day for the paper.

If Apple would let content providers work subscriptions out on their own without taking such a big cut, this could be substantially cheaper.

Still, there's no way I would pay over $300 a year for any newspaper, let alone over $400.

Apple is much to blame for the price.

Now would be a perfect time for them to back off of 30%.

 

[bocomo]

whomever decided on the price point should be fired. No one willingly should have to pay more for digital content. I can get all my news elsewhere for free or much less than what they're charging. I really don't see how i'd be missing out if i skip the nyt going forward.

+1

 

[joesaintlouis]

Way to much!

I don't think it would be worth it! $400.00 a year! Really?

 

[dba7dba]

There's one app on my iPhone 3GS that never opens in 1st try. I have to try to open it 2 - 3 times before it actuals opens successfully, if I'm lucky. You guessed it, its the NY Times app. I've lived with it so far but I guess no more.

BTW, haven't the people at NY Times heard of what Amazon is doing with Kindles? Like charging less for digital formats?