Posts: 12,489
Threads: 371
Joined: Mar 2010
I don't know much.
You knew that.
My story: In the summer I subscribe to the NY Times. It comes from the south of us and in the winter it gets stopped by weather a lot. So, in September I cancel and read it online.
Online I get to read twenty articles a month free. Then, I am blocked until the 1st of the following month.
The online price is 20 bucks a month.
I wonder about their business model. (Remember, I'm the guy who does not know much). At 20 bucks they price me out considering the value. (It is, after all, not like reading the real paper. For me at least).
So, I wonder about "Economy of Scale". At say, 5 bucks a month I'd bet they would attract a lot of subscribers. It is many feel, the "National Newspaper".
So I looked here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale
and found that it's more complicated than I thought. It always it. (Only cow tipping is simple).
But I don't care about the damn facts. I still think they are missing the boat with pricing and not understanding the potential of the Internet.
Am I wrong? Well of course. I guess what I'm asking, is where.
Posts: 27,872
Threads: 1,668
Joined: Sep 2009
10-30-2011, 03:16 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-30-2011, 03:18 PM by PonderThis. Edited 1 time in total.)
I don't think most people would pay $5 a month for news most of us expect to get free. I suspect what their bean counters have decided is that there are actually so very few people willing to pay anything whatsoever for news, but that very tiny segment that will pay for whatever reason will pay a huge amount for online news because they really really want it, and there you have it - they're milking this for the best this cow is going to give.
Yes, it does seem extreme to me, but I don't pay anyone a penny for my news - I expect them to make up for it on advertising or some other way instead, just like any other newspaper would with a press that basically costs them nothing and indeed the people pay to receive already.
Posts: 3,015
Threads: 216
Joined: Sep 2010
I wouldn't pay for it neither. I think people should be informed for free too. Unfortunately, there is the elite that think they have access to something special when in actuality they don't.
Posts: 7,465
Threads: 392
Joined: Feb 2009
The enormous Sunday paper in hard copy is $5 a pop, I believe. Or something like that. I guess they figure you are getting the weekly papers for 'free' by reading them online. It does seem like a lot to pay. But. I gladly pay it because:
A) I can't live without it.
B) It was Rupert Murdoch's stated ambition to one day obliterate the NYT. I can't sit back and let him take over the world's media, so it's my 'little bit'.
I can get every section I want from the Times without having to have one separate garbage can for all the hard copies we don't get anymore. 
Posts: 12,489
Threads: 371
Joined: Mar 2010
(10-30-2011, 03:51 PM)TennisMom Wrote: The enormous Sunday paper in hard copy is $5 a pop, I believe. Or something like that. I guess they figure you are getting the weekly papers for 'free' by reading them online. It does seem like a lot to pay. But. I gladly pay it because:
A) I can't live without it.
B) It was Rupert Murdoch's stated ambition to one day obliterate the NYT. I can't sit back and let him take over the world's media, so it's my 'little bit'.
I can get every section I want from the Times without having to have one separate garbage can for all the hard copies we don't get anymore.
Yea but you are limited to 20 reads a month.
Posts: 12,489
Threads: 371
Joined: Mar 2010
(10-30-2011, 03:16 PM)PonderThis Wrote: I don't think most people would pay $5 a month for news most of us expect to get free. I suspect what their bean counters have decided is that there are actually so very few people willing to pay anything whatsoever for news, but that very tiny segment that will pay for whatever reason will pay a huge amount for online news because they really really want it, and there you have it - they're milking this for the best this cow is going to give.
Yes, it does seem extreme to me, but I don't pay anyone a penny for my news - I expect them to make up for it on advertising or some other way instead, just like any other newspaper would with a press that basically costs them nothing and indeed the people pay to receive already.
Ponder, I sometimes think you would have an argument against free ice cream.
What entities you to free news? It's a commodity, not a public service.
I simply want it a fair price, and perhaps I'm learning that the price is fair. I consider the money spent on newspapers and periodicals some of the best money I have spent.
That and Cherry Garcia ice cream.
Posts: 4,752
Threads: 666
Joined: Feb 2011
I pay $12.50 a month for the Grants Pass Daily Courier.
If I lived out of county, it would be $18.50
But, I understand your angst, the NYTimes used to be free online, I used to read it quite a bit when I lived in New York...
The Grants Pass paper doesn't even have a Sunday paper, they have the 'weekend edition' on Saturday.
Posts: 27,872
Threads: 1,668
Joined: Sep 2009
10-31-2011, 09:55 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-31-2011, 09:56 PM by PonderThis. Edited 1 time in total.)
(10-31-2011, 07:38 PM)Wonky Wrote: (10-30-2011, 03:16 PM)PonderThis Wrote: I don't think most people would pay $5 a month for news most of us expect to get free. I suspect what their bean counters have decided is that there are actually so very few people willing to pay anything whatsoever for news, but that very tiny segment that will pay for whatever reason will pay a huge amount for online news because they really really want it, and there you have it - they're milking this for the best this cow is going to give.
Yes, it does seem extreme to me, but I don't pay anyone a penny for my news - I expect them to make up for it on advertising or some other way instead, just like any other newspaper would with a press that basically costs them nothing and indeed the people pay to receive already.
Ponder, I sometimes think you would have an argument against free ice cream.
What entities you to free news? It's a commodity, not a public service.
I simply want it a fair price, and perhaps I'm learning that the price is fair. I consider the money spent on newspapers and periodicals some of the best money I have spent.
That and Cherry Garcia ice cream.
No, I'm in favor of free ice cream too if advertisers are willing to pay for it. I suspect they are.
p.s. Of course, I come from parents that would sit through an entire time share promotion for a free set of steak knives too.
Posts: 14,339
Threads: 709
Joined: Jan 2011
(10-31-2011, 09:55 PM)PonderThis Wrote: p.s. Of course, I come from parents that would sit through an entire time share promotion for a free set of steak knives too.
They have time-shares in Orygon?
Posts: 27,872
Threads: 1,668
Joined: Sep 2009
10-31-2011, 10:23 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-31-2011, 10:24 PM by PonderThis. Edited 1 time in total.)
I went to junior high and high school in southern California. God only knows where the time shares were at. Every time my parents went off somewhere together I prayed they would die in a car accident together. I know that's terrible.
Posts: 18,101
Threads: 859
Joined: Feb 2009
10-31-2011, 10:27 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-31-2011, 10:29 PM by cletus1. Edited 1 time in total.)
And you get to tell everybody you read the New York Times. For only $5 per month. How do really smart folks that dont read the New York Times let us know that they are intellectuals?
Posts: 1,987
Threads: 30
Joined: Oct 2011
10-31-2011, 10:54 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-31-2011, 11:00 PM by DUNNO. Edited 1 time in total.)
(10-31-2011, 10:27 PM)cletus1 Wrote: And you get to tell everybody you read the New York Times. For only $5 per month. How do really smart folks that dont read the New York Times let us know that they are intellectuals?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...BFOmUXR080
One thing I have to agree with Jay Rosen & NYT: Hillary was the best man in the election.
Posts: 14,423
Threads: 1,395
Joined: Mar 2009
(10-31-2011, 10:54 PM)DUNNO Wrote: (10-31-2011, 10:27 PM)cletus1 Wrote: And you get to tell everybody you read the New York Times. For only $5 per month. How do really smart folks that dont read the New York Times let us know that they are intellectuals?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...BFOmUXR080 Heh , I caught this one and watched . It's posted on one of the numerous Occupy threads. Some blogger made a connection between the Occupy strategy forming site and the Lucius trusts addy at the UN as well.
Posts: 7,465
Threads: 392
Joined: Feb 2009
(10-31-2011, 10:27 PM)cletus1 Wrote: And you get to tell everybody you read the New York Times. For only $5 per month. How do really smart folks that dont read the New York Times let us know that they are intellectuals?
I've been reading that paper since college. When they started to charge for the online version I decided to take the plunge because I'd rather do that than see them go out of business. It doesn't seem to me to be a particularly 'intellectual' newspaper. There are some news magazines out there which could claim that label, like The Economist.
Anyway, I LOVE the Real Estate Section. 
Posts: 27,872
Threads: 1,668
Joined: Sep 2009
As an odd coincidence to this topic, the NY Times released today their last 6 months of financial figures, since they started charging for their website. It's apparently paying off for them big time: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/NYTimes-ci...8.html?x=0
NYTimes circulation up as it restricts Web access
NYTimes circulation grows as it restricts Web access; Journal, USA Today remain top newspapers
Excerpt: "Circulation at The New York Times soared in the latest six-month reporting period because the Times now charges for access to its website and people who sign up are counted as subscribers.
The Times had print and digital circulation of 1.2 million on average from Monday through Friday. The figures released Tuesday by the Audit Bureau of Circulations cover the six months that ended Sept. 30.
The latest figures represent a gain of 25 percent from the October-March period, when average circulation was at about 917,000. However, the comparison does not factor in seasonal fluctuations.
Circulation figures affect advertising rates at newspapers, which count print ads as their main source of revenue. Print ad revenue has declined in recent years as readers and advertisers shift to the Internet. The economic downturn has worsened the decline. Some newspapers have seen growth in the digital ad revenue they derive from their websites and mobile apps, but it hasn't been enough to offset losses in print advertising. The New York Times' digital subscription model is being closely watched as a possible solution to the industry's revenue shortfalls.
The Times is the third-largest U.S. newspaper on weekdays. The Wall Street Journal is No. 1 with average weekday circulation of 2.1 million, and Gannett Co.'s USA Today ranks second with 1.8 million.
The Times had the highest Sunday circulation with 1.6 million. Neither the Journal nor USA Today publishes on Sunday.
The Times' circulation grew after it started charging fees to readers of its digital content. That began just before the start of the latest circulation reporting period. Digital subscriptions are included in the circulation totals. Newspapers aren't allowed to count visitors to free websites as circulation.
The Times' circulation might have fallen were it not for the digital subscriptions. The Times had about 771,000 print subscribers in the latest period, compared with about 816,000 in the October-March period. Still, the Times said Sunday home delivery subscriptions grew slightly from last year; many people bought or kept a print subscription because it comes with free digital access..."
Posts: 12,489
Threads: 371
Joined: Mar 2010
(10-31-2011, 10:27 PM)cletus1 Wrote: And you get to tell everybody you read the New York Times. For only $5 per month. How do really smart folks that dont read the New York Times let us know that they are intellectuals?
Beats me.
I read the NYT and you damn well know by now I'm not intellectual.
My question was how much should the paper (or online content) cost? They seem to be doing okay so I won't look for it to drop anytime soon. Proving, I don't understand "economy of scale". Hell, I don't understand why Jello turns all jiggly.
And I don't understand how anyone can read just one paper. I think the MT is a very good hometown paper. I don't expect it to be and end all for news. I lived in San Francisco and read two SF papers and the NYT. (Both SF papers were lousy...but necessary for local stuff).
I wonder too, how folks can get by without a national magazine. I'm down to 2 but if I could afford it I'd subscribe to The New Yorker, Atlantic, Harper's, Vanity Fair, The Economist, and Mad Magazine. Maybe The Smithsonian, National Geographic, and Popular Mechanics. Oh, and Big Jugs.
Still don't understand Economy of Scale. That Jello thing is beyond me too.
Posts: 7,465
Threads: 392
Joined: Feb 2009
Wonky, I know what you mean about reading just one paper. I read several; not cover to cover, but enough to have my regulars. I like the Washington Post, Reuters, Business Week, Market Watch, the LA Times, People Magazine (hiding head in paper bag), Boston Globe and Newsweek. Time wants a subscription too but I won't bite.
Ponder, thanks for that post. I'm glad to know that online subscribers helped the NYT afloat.
Big jugs? 
Posts: 12,489
Threads: 371
Joined: Mar 2010
(11-02-2011, 02:24 PM)TennisMom Wrote: Wonky, I know what you mean about reading just one paper. I read several; not cover to cover, but enough to have my regulars. I like the Washington Post, Reuters, Business Week, Market Watch, the LA Times, People Magazine (hiding head in paper bag), Boston Globe and Newsweek. Time wants a subscription too but I won't bite.
Ponder, thanks for that post. I'm glad to know that online subscribers helped the NYT afloat.
Big jugs?
Big Jugs. Yea. It's a monthly (slick, good paper) about large jugs one can buy to have around to admire. I prefer the "softer" ones, but not so soft they droop and sag. Some like smaller ones, kind of "apple" shaped. Personal preference I guess. In the "old days" they were used to keep milk, but not so sure now.
Posts: 22,606
Threads: 795
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 12,489
Threads: 371
Joined: Mar 2010
|
