3 ms·
$130 is a really compelling price point. The NY Times charges $20/month to access their Kindle edition ($240/year). What they should do is offer a 2-year contra
by keltex 16y ago
$130 is a really compelling price point. The NY Times charges $20/month to access their Kindle edition ($240/year). What they should do is offer a 2-year contract and throw a Kindle in for free.
I personally hate this model, but it's been proven effective (at least in the U.S.) for cell phones sales.
- jonknee 16y agoThey would now be a lot better off buying Kindle's for as many of their dead-tree customers as they can and switching them over to digital delivery. They have less than a million daily subscribers (so that's just $130m for the Kindles) and spend $240m a year in raw materials. Gobs more for the staff. Of course they would need to figure out advertising, but they would need to sell less of it with the lowered printing/delivery costs. Not an original idea, but now a lot more financially sound: http://www.businessinsider.com/2009/1/printing-the-nyt-costs-twice-as-much-as-sending-every-subscriber-a-free-kindle http://www.businessinsider.com/2009/1/printing-the-nyt-costs...
- philwelch 16y agoYou're not accounting for newsstand revenue. If they went all digital, newsstand revenue would disappear. If they didn't go all digital, they wouldn't spend all $240 million on paper subscribers. So either way it's not a fair comparison.
- there 16y agonyt also has a kindle subscription which is basically their rss feed in a nicer format. it's like $2/month. i liked that one better because i found it difficult to navigate their full subscription version and never read all of the articles anyway.