PDA

View Full Version : New York Times Announces Digital Subcriptions



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

barbk
03-22-2011, 08:05 PM
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.

I don't disagree -- but the pricing has got to be rational. As asalisgv pointed out, they are trying to charge more for an electronic subscription (with no cost for paper, ink, or physical distribution) than they are charging in many areas (mine included) for some of the home delivery options. (This is the same reason why I haven't yet been entranced by the Kindle/Nook -- why would I pay more for an e-copy of a paperback than I would for a physical copy?)

At $39 or $49 a year, I would have said, "Great -- I'm in." At their proposed pricing? No -- though as I just posted earlier today, I won't have to pay this year anyway.

I notice that I can now turn in about 3500 Delta miles to get the physical WSJ -- which I don't particularly want -- I wish some of these options would provide electronic access instead -- I'd willingly trade miles for electronic access to the WSJ. Maybe that's a good option for the NY Times, too?

soxxy
03-22-2011, 08:07 PM
The Times needs to find that "sweet spot" between what to charge its readers and the advertising revenue they bring in. IMO, $15/mo. is too much for the reader.

Jenny
03-22-2011, 08:14 PM
The Times needs to find that "sweet spot" between what to charge its readers and the advertising revenue they bring in. IMO, $15/mo. is too much for the reader.

Or, they need to focus on content that you can't get anywhere else - straight news is easy to find, but smart, in-depth analysis, investigation, context and opinion is a lot harder.

Provide a product that people value, and they'll be willing to pay for it.

Former Lurve Goddess
03-22-2011, 08:15 PM
The Technology columnist for CBC Toronto indicated on the radio the other day that he thinks NYT knows exactly what they are doing. In essence, their new on-line pricing will encourage readers to subscribe to the paper edition in order to be able to access its digital content. This will allow them to keep the paper edition alive. It's an interesting concept...

barbk
03-22-2011, 08:30 PM
The Technology columnist for CBC Toronto indicated on the radio the other day that he thinks NYT knows exactly what they are doing. In essence, their new on-line pricing will encourage readers to subscribe to the paper edition in order to be able to access its digital content. This will allow them to keep the paper edition alive. It's an interesting concept...


That may be true. But I guess I've had enough of the "green" rub off on me after living in eco-central for the past 25 years that I would be hard-pressed to sign up for a daily newspaper that I know I would not have time to routinely read. The Economist used to stack up around here to the point where I'd feel guilty. If it is much bigger than Science News, and comes in every week -- or, shudder-- every day -- it is going to just end up going out unread. And that would make me feel even more guilty.

Marlowe
03-23-2011, 05:38 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!

The sent me an email with the same offer. It went into my spam folder and I am sure that I would have missed it completely if I hadn't read your post. So, thank you, barbk, for helping me to see! :)

barbk
03-23-2011, 09:31 PM
The sent me an email with the same offer. It went into my spam folder and I am sure that I would have missed it completely if I hadn't read your post. So, thank you, barbk, for helping me to see! :)

Yeah! Glad you got it too.

Prancer
03-25-2011, 12:31 AM
The NYT sub price relative to other subscription rates:

http://centeredlibrarian.blogspot.com/2011/03/visual-evidence-that-nyts-pricing.html

barbk
03-25-2011, 01:47 AM
The NYT sub price relative to other subscription rates:

http://centeredlibrarian.blogspot.com/2011/03/visual-evidence-that-nyts-pricing.html

That's a great chart -- thanks for posting the link. It surely does look out-of-whack.

soxxy
03-25-2011, 02:12 AM
The NYT sub price relative to other subscription rates:

http://centeredlibrarian.blogspot.com/2011/03/visual-evidence-that-nyts-pricing.html

Thanks, Prancer. I didn't know the differences in prices would be so extreme.

Yet, the Times is not at all shying away from the plan. The vice president for "paid products" at the paper is fielding endless question in several series they name "rounds." Currently they're on Round 3.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/23/business/media/23talk-to-the-times.html?src=busln

It's getting so annoying I'll l just break down and buy it or more likely :scream:

manleywoman
03-25-2011, 03:49 AM
Is all this why my NYT iPhone app is not working? It's been out for days.

stanhope
03-29-2011, 12:22 AM
Today my Android NY Times app made me upgrade to a "new" version. This just means that I no longer have access to anything other than "Top News." I have to purchase a subscription to view the regular sections on my phone. Needless to say, I bid farewell to the NY Times and downloaded CNN's free app instead.

The Village Idiot
04-07-2011, 08:17 PM
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. FYI, I just got charged for clicking a link through fb as a pop up in the lower left told me I had used (or had left) x number of articles. Since I thought I wouldn't get "charged," I clicked the perty pic. Wasn't even worth it.

agalisgv
04-07-2011, 11:53 PM
I guess they changed it for FB. Wonder if it's changed for twitter too.

Here's an article discussing the change:
If you were looking for evidence that the New York Times’ subscription/paywall plan, rolled out last week, is very much a work in progress, here you go: A couple days after debuting a plan that limited referring links from Google but not any other site on the Web, the Times has changed its mind.

Now, the Times says, it will place a limit on links from all “major” search engineshttp://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20110321/the-new-york-times-paywall-gets-a-little-firmer-bings-all-you-can-eat-exemption-goes-away/

soxxy
04-08-2011, 12:00 AM
There's also a new offer, your first four weeks for 99 cents:

http://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp5558.html?adxc=158763&adxa=262123&page=homepage.nytimes.com/index.html&pos=HPBottom1&campaignId=37WYY