4 ms·

I suppose "super cheap" is relative: WSJ: $100-$150/year WP: $187/year NYT: $195/year All of these seem to be promotional rates of some sort, or I lucked ou

by ac29 8y ago

I suppose "super cheap" is relative: WSJ: $100-$150/year WP: $187/year NYT: $195/year All of these seem to be promotional rates of some sort, or I lucked out and they're all on sale (unlikely). So, that puts them at or above the cost of a TV or Music streaming subscription. If you're subscribing to "a bunch", that's pretty expensive. edit: I should add, I believe all of these prices are a "with ads" price, which arguably makes them a worse value than an ad-free streaming subscription of equal price.

StevePerkins 8y ago
It's worth noting that the Washington Post (owned by Jeff Bezos) only costs $100/year for Amazon Prime members, who also get the first six months free. Having said that, I tried it out and canceled before the six month trial expired. Personally, I just didn't find the quality to be THAT much higher than CNN. Just non-stop Trump ranting, more or less op-ed content on the front page section, etc. I've settled into a habit of using the junk cable news sites for "breaking" stories, and getting more in-depth content from The Atlantic (left-leaning perspective) and The Economist (right-leaning perspective). Both of which I can read digitally for free via my local public library. (I actually started paying for The Atlantic, because it's only $20/yr and I feel good about supporting them. The Economist is ten times that amount, so I don't feel THAT good!)
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  I can't speak for The Atlantic because I don't read it, but I wouldn't categorize The Economist as right-leaning. Its positions on various issues are too nuanced; I think it would be more accurate to decompose its views into economic and social issues. Then you end up with something that looks economically conservative and socially progressive. But even that sort of leaves out a lot of details that tend to get smoothed over in more mainstream political discourse. Take a look at the Wikipedia page covering The Economist's editorial stance[1]. In particular, note their presidential endorsements and their respective positions on climate change, drug decriminalization/legalization and American military action in Afghanistan and Iraq. To drill into a specific example, consider that they've historically endorsed Democratic presidential candidates more often than not; on the other hand they endorsed George W. Bush in 2000 because they agreed with his, "small government, pro-market philosophy". While they haven't done it in recent memory, they have in the past abstained from making any specific endorsement for a presidential candidate. More recently they haven't shied away from criticizing both candidates.[2] ____________________ 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance 2. Here's a fun one: in 2004 The Economist very weakly (and sardonically) endorsed Kerry by saying, "The incompetent George W. Bush or the incoherent John Kerry." In contrast they gave two ringing endorsements for Obama.
  - hedora 8y ago
    I guess I’m getting old, but not quite old enough to understand wtf is wrong with people that still vote republican. None of the right wingers I grew up with in fly-over country have voted republican in a long, long time. Granted, there’s sample bias (only counting the ones I am in touch with), but that still means I can count the number of intelligent republicans I know on one finger, and that one person is an oddball to put it politely. This is down from the ratio being close to 50% of the educated peole I knew a few decades ago. I guess this is a long-winded way of saying that republicans that are actually fiscally conservative, for small government, pro civil liberties, or simply like the constitution have been thoroughly disenfranchised by the GOP. The ones that are left are what, Neo-Nazis? (Honest question; I have no idea any more... I mean, the party stands for unfettered police power, and Trump is openly racist, so what other draw is there? Who else is left?) Anyway, since we don’t have a fiscally conservative party in the US any more, Obama was the closest to being a conservative choice. It’s not surprising to me that he was endorsed by traditionally right leaning publications.
bArray 8y ago
Those prices are ridiculous, especially in a time where we should be consuming news from a greater number of different resources, not a select few. I understand that journalists need to be paid, but this is well above and beyond - this is to feed the investors. I remember hearing that the majority/average person in the US doesn't have $400 spare for an emergency, how on earth are they expected to be able to consume "better" media on this business model? And of course this would encourage those papers to produce material that supports the views of the people who are able to consume it, only further adding to social divides.
- Despegar 8y ago
  The NYT is a public company. Its gross margin is 59%. Its operating margin is 11.5%. Its profit margin is 7%. And this is after the NYT grew massively after Trump got elected and isn't guaranteed to last. Give me a break. The only true thing you said was that journalists need to be paid, and they're a massive expense.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  > Those prices are ridiculous, especially in a time where we should be consuming news from a greater number of different resources, not a select few. Leaving aside the comment about pricing, how do you consume more varied news than those "select few"? I read The Economist, NYT and WSJ every morning. Reading several articles (often on the same topic) across all three takes me about an hour. For a while I was trying to read Foreign Policy too but there's just not enough time. I can only do this because I commute into the city on a relatively quiet train ride. I can't imagine adding another news source to this routine, let alone a bunch of them. What would you do, have a Monday set of sources, a Tuesday set and so on?
- tzs 8y ago
  Many people who cannot afford a $400 due now emergency can afford $33 billed monthly for a year, even though it is very nearly the same total. In fact, they can often afford a monthly bill where the total yearly cost is considerably more than they could afford up front. Credit card companies make a lot of money off this difference.
int_19h 8y ago
Blendle is a better option IMO. It's pay-per-article (and you can refund after reading if you believe it to be low quality), so it doesn't lock you into any kind of subscription from a single provider. And they have WaPo, NYT, Time, WSJ... Articles usually show up there a few days later than in the originating newspaper, but for quality journalism that's usually not an issue, since it takes a lot more to write it to begin with. https://blendle.com/ https://blendle.com/
- rb666 8y ago
  Yes! Love Blendle. It's very convenient and the app is high quality.
pvg 8y ago
I'm not sure where you are getting these prices, NYT's promotional pricing is $52 a year ($1/wk), WaPo is under $10/mo, less if you happen to have Amazon Prime.
- jurassic 8y ago
  For the most part, the promotional price is irrelevant to my decision to subscribe. What matters to me is the full freight pricing that I will be charged for my lifetime as a customer. If I would be willing to subscribe at the promotional price but not at the regular price, they have a sales process that is designed to capture and retain my subscription dollars by obfuscating the true price at the time of opt-in and making it hard to unsubscribe after I realize how much it actually costs. Neither of these seem great from the reader's perspective.
fossuser 8y ago
Yeah the “with ads” is what led me to cancel mine - those prices are already high relative to other subscription services and they include ads? Canceling the nytimes was also about as difficult as canceling Sirius XM radio (forcing a phone call). One level up from canceling a gym membership. Maybe apple can force them to be better.

by ac29 8y ago

StevePerkins 8y ago

It's worth noting that the Washington Post (owned by Jeff Bezos) only costs $100/year for Amazon Prime members, who also get the first six months free. Having said that, I tried it out and canceled before the six month trial expired. Personally, I just didn't find the quality to be THAT much higher than CNN. Just non-stop Trump ranting, more or less op-ed content on the front page section, etc. I've settled into a habit of using the junk cable news sites for "breaking" stories, and getting more in-depth content from The Atlantic (left-leaning perspective) and The Economist (right-leaning perspective). Both of which I can read digitally for free via my local public library. (I actually started paying for The Atlantic, because it's only $20/yr and I feel good about supporting them. The Economist is ten times that amount, so I don't feel THAT good!)

throwawaymath 8y ago
I can't speak for The Atlantic because I don't read it, but I wouldn't categorize The Economist as right-leaning. Its positions on various issues are too nuanced; I think it would be more accurate to decompose its views into economic and social issues. Then you end up with something that looks economically conservative and socially progressive. But even that sort of leaves out a lot of details that tend to get smoothed over in more mainstream political discourse. Take a look at the Wikipedia page covering The Economist's editorial stance[1]. In particular, note their presidential endorsements and their respective positions on climate change, drug decriminalization/legalization and American military action in Afghanistan and Iraq. To drill into a specific example, consider that they've historically endorsed Democratic presidential candidates more often than not; on the other hand they endorsed George W. Bush in 2000 because they agreed with his, "small government, pro-market philosophy". While they haven't done it in recent memory, they have in the past abstained from making any specific endorsement for a presidential candidate. More recently they haven't shied away from criticizing both candidates.[2] ____________________ 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance 2. Here's a fun one: in 2004 The Economist very weakly (and sardonically) endorsed Kerry by saying, "The incompetent George W. Bush or the incoherent John Kerry." In contrast they gave two ringing endorsements for Obama.
- hedora 8y ago
  I guess I’m getting old, but not quite old enough to understand wtf is wrong with people that still vote republican. None of the right wingers I grew up with in fly-over country have voted republican in a long, long time. Granted, there’s sample bias (only counting the ones I am in touch with), but that still means I can count the number of intelligent republicans I know on one finger, and that one person is an oddball to put it politely. This is down from the ratio being close to 50% of the educated peole I knew a few decades ago. I guess this is a long-winded way of saying that republicans that are actually fiscally conservative, for small government, pro civil liberties, or simply like the constitution have been thoroughly disenfranchised by the GOP. The ones that are left are what, Neo-Nazis? (Honest question; I have no idea any more... I mean, the party stands for unfettered police power, and Trump is openly racist, so what other draw is there? Who else is left?) Anyway, since we don’t have a fiscally conservative party in the US any more, Obama was the closest to being a conservative choice. It’s not surprising to me that he was endorsed by traditionally right leaning publications.

bArray 8y ago

Those prices are ridiculous, especially in a time where we should be consuming news from a greater number of different resources, not a select few. I understand that journalists need to be paid, but this is well above and beyond - this is to feed the investors. I remember hearing that the majority/average person in the US doesn't have $400 spare for an emergency, how on earth are they expected to be able to consume "better" media on this business model? And of course this would encourage those papers to produce material that supports the views of the people who are able to consume it, only further adding to social divides.

Despegar 8y ago
The NYT is a public company. Its gross margin is 59%. Its operating margin is 11.5%. Its profit margin is 7%. And this is after the NYT grew massively after Trump got elected and isn't guaranteed to last. Give me a break. The only true thing you said was that journalists need to be paid, and they're a massive expense.
throwawaymath 8y ago
> Those prices are ridiculous, especially in a time where we should be consuming news from a greater number of different resources, not a select few. Leaving aside the comment about pricing, how do you consume more varied news than those "select few"? I read The Economist, NYT and WSJ every morning. Reading several articles (often on the same topic) across all three takes me about an hour. For a while I was trying to read Foreign Policy too but there's just not enough time. I can only do this because I commute into the city on a relatively quiet train ride. I can't imagine adding another news source to this routine, let alone a bunch of them. What would you do, have a Monday set of sources, a Tuesday set and so on?
tzs 8y ago
Many people who cannot afford a $400 due now emergency can afford $33 billed monthly for a year, even though it is very nearly the same total. In fact, they can often afford a monthly bill where the total yearly cost is considerably more than they could afford up front. Credit card companies make a lot of money off this difference.

int_19h 8y ago

Blendle is a better option IMO. It's pay-per-article (and you can refund after reading if you believe it to be low quality), so it doesn't lock you into any kind of subscription from a single provider. And they have WaPo, NYT, Time, WSJ... Articles usually show up there a few days later than in the originating newspaper, but for quality journalism that's usually not an issue, since it takes a lot more to write it to begin with. https://blendle.com/ https://blendle.com/

rb666 8y ago
Yes! Love Blendle. It's very convenient and the app is high quality.

pvg 8y ago

I'm not sure where you are getting these prices, NYT's promotional pricing is $52 a year ($1/wk), WaPo is under $10/mo, less if you happen to have Amazon Prime.

jurassic 8y ago
For the most part, the promotional price is irrelevant to my decision to subscribe. What matters to me is the full freight pricing that I will be charged for my lifetime as a customer. If I would be willing to subscribe at the promotional price but not at the regular price, they have a sales process that is designed to capture and retain my subscription dollars by obfuscating the true price at the time of opt-in and making it hard to unsubscribe after I realize how much it actually costs. Neither of these seem great from the reader's perspective.

fossuser 8y ago

Yeah the “with ads” is what led me to cancel mine - those prices are already high relative to other subscription services and they include ads? Canceling the nytimes was also about as difficult as canceling Sirius XM radio (forcing a phone call). One level up from canceling a gym membership. Maybe apple can force them to be better.