7 ms·

I pay for a NY Times digital subscription. Even though I don't always agree with their editorial slant, it's better quality news in on place than you can get fo

I pay for a NY Times digital subscription. Even though I don't always agree with their editorial slant, it's better quality news in on place than you can get for "free" around the web. People hate paying so much these days that they'll deal with poor quality information. We used to all pay for newspapers--why should they be "free" now just because there's no paper?

smacktoward 11y ago
I generally agree. My only hesitation is that I wish they would simplify the pricing structure -- everything's pitched around promotional rates and discounts that only apply for X weeks, so it's difficult to know at a glance exactly what a sub will end up costing you over, say, a year. I'm sure they have their reasons for doing it that way, but to me these kind of pricing structures are a huge turn-off. Just tell me what it costs and let me pay it, you know? If you want to capitalize on the moment when I'm reading an NYT story and think "you know, this is so good I really should be paying for it," putting math problems between me and the payment form is the wrong way to do it.
- lfowles 11y ago
  Recently I unsubscribed from the digital-only crossword and had to call in to get it done despite signing up entirely online. Their pricing structure isn't the only antiquated thing in the process.
  - culturestate 11y ago
    This drove me batty as well. When I eventually caved and re-subscribed, I did it through iTunes -- it's the same price (they eat the 30%) and a one-click cancellation.
- cairo140 11y ago
  I've found nytimes.com content to be great and exhibiting great technical, artistic, and journalistic merit[1]. As a result, I visit it daily and and it's the first time in my life I have a paid recurring news subscription. However, nytimes.com has a very regrettable pricing structure, as you say. They seem to aim to be Comcast-like. The pricing is: * Heavily promotional (special price 50%+ off sticker price) * Difficult to cancel (you are asked to call them, although they will ultimately run it through email) * Opaque in billing (no way to actually look at the terms of your current subscription/promotion; full payment history hidden away to obscure how much you're paying them) They do this no doubt because it works in the short term and bumps up numbers. But as a consumer I can't help but feel they are losing goodwill and face in this new age and hope they come around to more contemporary online billing practices. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/21/business/media/50-of-our-best-stories-from-nytimes.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/21/business/media... is the best example I can find. It's very nice to get stuff like this every week. Kudos to the web team.
bachmeier 11y ago
Is there any evidence that you get better quality content from a NY Times subscription than you get for free on the web? I personally don't view the NY Times as a credible source.
- saturdaysaint 11y ago
  Is there any evidence that a Beatles album is of any higher quality than a Vanilla Ice album?
  - a3n 11y ago
    Yes. Sunday mornings on my local AM oldies station is a Beatles program, featuring songs, old interviews and factoids. Probably lots of stations around the country carry it or similar. Do the thought experiment. Will there ever be a Sunday Vanilla Ice program forty years after Vanilla Ice was current? I really doubt it. (Ask a question, you risk responses. :)
    - ceejayoz 11y ago
      Thought experiments resulting in "I don't think something will happen in the future" aren't evidence.
    - lcswi 11y ago
      That's just a measure of popularity, not quality (however that could be defined).
      - a3n 11y ago
        Popular music is entertainment. People wouldn't listen to it if they weren't entertained. They're probably entertained.
    - dexterdog 11y ago
      How does that mean the quality is better?
  - 11y ago
saturdaysaint 11y ago
I agree. There's so much high quality content that it's almost like getting several first rate magazines (the weekly magazine, the NYT Book Review, the voluminous food section, etc.) along with a world-class newspaper.
herge 11y ago
> Even though I don't always agree with their editorial slant You're better off disagreeing with something well written than agreeing with crap.

smacktoward 11y ago

I generally agree. My only hesitation is that I wish they would simplify the pricing structure -- everything's pitched around promotional rates and discounts that only apply for X weeks, so it's difficult to know at a glance exactly what a sub will end up costing you over, say, a year. I'm sure they have their reasons for doing it that way, but to me these kind of pricing structures are a huge turn-off. Just tell me what it costs and let me pay it, you know? If you want to capitalize on the moment when I'm reading an NYT story and think "you know, this is so good I really should be paying for it," putting math problems between me and the payment form is the wrong way to do it.

lfowles 11y ago
Recently I unsubscribed from the digital-only crossword and had to call in to get it done despite signing up entirely online. Their pricing structure isn't the only antiquated thing in the process.
- culturestate 11y ago
  This drove me batty as well. When I eventually caved and re-subscribed, I did it through iTunes -- it's the same price (they eat the 30%) and a one-click cancellation.
cairo140 11y ago
I've found nytimes.com content to be great and exhibiting great technical, artistic, and journalistic merit[1]. As a result, I visit it daily and and it's the first time in my life I have a paid recurring news subscription. However, nytimes.com has a very regrettable pricing structure, as you say. They seem to aim to be Comcast-like. The pricing is: * Heavily promotional (special price 50%+ off sticker price) * Difficult to cancel (you are asked to call them, although they will ultimately run it through email) * Opaque in billing (no way to actually look at the terms of your current subscription/promotion; full payment history hidden away to obscure how much you're paying them) They do this no doubt because it works in the short term and bumps up numbers. But as a consumer I can't help but feel they are losing goodwill and face in this new age and hope they come around to more contemporary online billing practices. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/21/business/media/50-of-our-best-stories-from-nytimes.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/21/business/media... is the best example I can find. It's very nice to get stuff like this every week. Kudos to the web team.

bachmeier 11y ago

Is there any evidence that you get better quality content from a NY Times subscription than you get for free on the web? I personally don't view the NY Times as a credible source.

saturdaysaint 11y ago
Is there any evidence that a Beatles album is of any higher quality than a Vanilla Ice album?
- a3n 11y ago
  Yes. Sunday mornings on my local AM oldies station is a Beatles program, featuring songs, old interviews and factoids. Probably lots of stations around the country carry it or similar. Do the thought experiment. Will there ever be a Sunday Vanilla Ice program forty years after Vanilla Ice was current? I really doubt it. (Ask a question, you risk responses. :)
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    Thought experiments resulting in "I don't think something will happen in the future" aren't evidence.
  - lcswi 11y ago
    That's just a measure of popularity, not quality (however that could be defined).
    - a3n 11y ago
      Popular music is entertainment. People wouldn't listen to it if they weren't entertained. They're probably entertained.
  - dexterdog 11y ago
    How does that mean the quality is better?
- 11y ago

saturdaysaint 11y ago

I agree. There's so much high quality content that it's almost like getting several first rate magazines (the weekly magazine, the NYT Book Review, the voluminous food section, etc.) along with a world-class newspaper.

herge 11y ago

> Even though I don't always agree with their editorial slant You're better off disagreeing with something well written than agreeing with crap.