PDA

View Full Version : New York Times Announces Digital Subcriptions



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

soxxy
03-17-2011, 11:49 PM
Agreed about the cost. I watch the Apprentice and at least one task deals with "price point." ;) This one is too high.

And it's a little cheesy that the $15 doesn't cover one month, but "four weeks." It's like they had to sneak that extra pay period in there.

Satellitegirl
03-18-2011, 12:38 AM
Why would I pay that much when I can go to 20 other news sites and get the same info? They r not very smrt.

emason
03-18-2011, 01:58 AM
The Sunday edition alone is about $8.50 in Canada, bought at the newstand.

Here in NYC, the home of the paper, they get $5.00 for the Sunday edition at the news stand. Utterly ridiculous considering that the paper has been declining steadily in quality for years. It's not the paper it used to be by a long shot.

In any case, the digital subscription is not news to anyone here in NY. It's been talked about for quite some time and all NYers knew it was coming.

BittyBug
03-18-2011, 02:07 AM
Why would I pay that much when I can go to 20 other news sites and get the same info? They r not very smrt.Because the NY Times contains more than news. There is a lot of coverage of the arts, theater, fashion, etc. I'm sure you could find free sources for all any topic, but there is a convenience to aggregation.

dbny
03-18-2011, 02:11 AM
I live in NYC and have subscribed to daily home delivery for many years. I'm an addict. My morning routine is to put the coffee on and get the paper to read while having breakfast. Of course there are morning I don't have time for that, but it is something I really enjoy. Reading online is not at all the same, but it's nice to be able to send links to stories I know friends would like. I also prefer to do the crossword puzzles at my kitchen table, and printing them myself is not the same.

Louis
03-18-2011, 03:00 AM
Agreed about the cost. I watch the Apprentice and at least one task deals with "price point." ;) This one is too high.

And it's a little cheesy that the $15 doesn't cover one month, but "four weeks." It's like they had to sneak that extra pay period in there.

In a past life, I was an expert in pricing research. (So glad I no longer do it -- the output is sexy, but the input is most tedious thing you can imagine.) This wasn't tested, or if it was tested, it was not tested correctly. Disastrous pricing structure, all-around. Amateur, even.

Eh, probably only a matter of time 'til the Times is boarded up and shuttered anyway.

agalisgv
03-18-2011, 04:14 AM
In a past life, I was an expert in pricing research. (So glad I no longer do it -- the output is sexy, but the input is most tedious thing you can imagine.) This wasn't tested, or if it was tested, it was not tested correctly. Disastrous pricing structure, all-around. Amateur, even.
This is even better---there is no charge for links to articles from other sites, and no limits to allowable views if the links come from facebook or twitter.

So guess what? A new twitter site started that posts every NY Times article so the entire paper can be read for free.

Gotta love it

So based on your previous work, Louis, what pricing would you find appropriate?

Jenny
03-18-2011, 01:00 PM
I live in NYC and have subscribed to daily home delivery for many years. I'm an addict. My morning routine is to put the coffee on and get the paper to read while having breakfast. Of course there are morning I don't have time for that, but it is something I really enjoy. Reading online is not at all the same, but it's nice to be able to send links to stories I know friends would like. I also prefer to do the crossword puzzles at my kitchen table, and printing them myself is not the same.

For us, it's a Sunday afternoon with the paper and cats spread around us, reading all the lengthy articles we don't have time for during the week and that are tedious to go through online.

Plus, I like to do my crossword with a pen :)

Aceon6
03-18-2011, 02:32 PM
In a past life, I was an expert in pricing research. (So glad I no longer do it -- the output is sexy, but the input is most tedious thing you can imagine.) This wasn't tested, or if it was tested, it was not tested correctly. Disastrous pricing structure, all-around. Amateur, even.

Eh, probably only a matter of time 'til the Times is boarded up and shuttered anyway.

Methinks the test in Canada may give them all the info they need to know. Some people are addicted and will pay whatever, others aren't and will just say no. I'm guessing a 50%+ decline in page views arising from .ca domains, which will eat into online revenue. Not a good thing.

barbk
03-22-2011, 06:08 PM
Well, huh. Just went to the NY Times website, and a splash page came up offering me free access for the rest of the year, courtesy of Lincoln. (The car folks.) All I had to do was log in to my NY Times account. Got the confirmation message saying that it is good for the rest of 2011. (The offer said it was for "select" visitors -- don't know what that means. I do forward NY Times articles on fairly frequently.)

Those who like the NY Times might visit today and see if the offer pops up.

Good luck!

soxxy
03-22-2011, 06:14 PM
Well, huh. Just went to the NY Times website, and a splash page came up offering me free access for the rest of the year, courtesy of Lincoln. (The car folks.) All I had to do was log in to my NY Times account. Got the confirmation message saying that it is good for the rest of 2011. (The offer said it was for "select" visitors -- don't know what that means. I do forward NY Times articles on fairly frequently.)

Those who like the NY Times might visit today and see if the offer pops up.

Good luck!

Darn, didn't happen for me. I'll check out the Lincoln website, too.

Prancer
03-22-2011, 07:07 PM
Why would I pay that much when I can go to 20 other news sites and get the same info? They r not very smrt.

From everything I have ever read about digital news subs, this is the biggest problem the NYT and other newspapers face. They cannot afford to not charge for online content, as advertising and print subs don't pay the bills, but because so many news sites have been free for so long, people are conditioned to expect free news content.

The only way digital subs will work is if the price is low AND other news sites follow suit in quick succession. Other news sites have good reason to do that, certainly; newspapers are in big trouble financially and about the only way they will survive will be to profit on digital subs. But the ones that hold out long enough will see many newspapers fold, thus clearing the field, which will allow the survivors to step in and set prices as they will, or so they think.

Nasty little chess game, this.

One of my friends is a professor who specializes in newspapers and he believes that it's all for naught. He predicts that that there will be some small news services that cover current events and everything else will go to personalized subs where people subscribe to specific content or specific columnists through services, where you pay to read certain content. I've read that in other sources as well.

In a somewhat related item about paying for content, I sent my husband an article about consumption-based billing in Canada, and he replied that we will inevitably see this here as well, and that the more digital things gets, the more we will have to pay for all the stuff we now take for granted.

emason
03-22-2011, 07:21 PM
Well, huh. Just went to the NY Times website, and a splash page came up offering me free access for the rest of the year, courtesy of Lincoln. (The car folks.) All I had to do was log in to my NY Times account. Got the confirmation message saying that it is good for the rest of 2011. (The offer said it was for "select" visitors -- don't know what that means. I do forward NY Times articles on fairly frequently.)

Those who like the NY Times might visit today and see if the offer pops up.

Good luck!

I got an e-mail from them this morning. I may need to check this out.

millyskate
03-22-2011, 07:23 PM
Why would I pay that much when I can go to 20 other news sites and get the same info? They r not very smrt.

They are also highly skilled journalists who work their butts off and deserve to be paid. People always expect non scientific or business related services for free, and the way journalists are treated has completely gone down the drain. They're pretty much fighting for survival.

Hannahclear
03-22-2011, 07:56 PM
I predict that this will not last.