4 ms·

There was a real cost to printing single newspaper to me. I've no idea what it was, or is now, but it's about a million times more than the cost of me reading e

There was a real cost to printing single newspaper to me. I've no idea what it was, or is now, but it's about a million times more than the cost of me reading every new story on the NY Times website today. Maybe not a million times, but it's certainly much higher. So while I do agree newspapers have always been ads with some news thrown in there to get people to look at the paper, there were some much higher costs there in the paper part of the newspaper (and printers and delivery people and so on). In theory the cost of how I read "the paper" now should be much lower, so if I pay to subscribe to the website maybe there shouldn't be ANY ads? Or far fewer? I guess my thinking is nytimes.com isn't the same thing as The NY Times I get delivered to my house, so maybe things like ads should be treated in a different way? Sure the people that make it and reporters and news and all that are the same, but how I consume the actual thing is significantly different and has a different cost model. Plus those print ads were/are WAY different in so many ways.

untog 6y ago
> There was a real cost to printing single newspaper to me. There is also a higher cost to the subscriber to receive a newspaper compared to digital delivery, IIRC. So it is still proportional.
windthrown 6y ago
It still costs a lot of money to send reporters all over the world and do lengthy investigative journalism, regardless of if it is delivered to you in print or digital format. And NYT does charge more for physical paper delivery than they do for online-only subscriptions.
Wowfunhappy 6y ago
> So while I do agree newspapers have always been ads with some news thrown in there to get people to look at the paper, there were some much higher costs there in the paper part of the newspaper Distribution costs went down, but so did ad revenue. It used to be that a subscription primarily paid for the cost of printing/distribution, and the real profit came from advertising. Unfortunately, print ads use to pay significantly more than web ads do today. So while the distribution costs are lower, most newspapers now need both revenue sources.
bb611 6y ago
Home delivery NY Times is more than 2x the cost of digital (dependent on location), you're already getting the "no paper" discount by buying digital.

untog 6y ago

> There was a real cost to printing single newspaper to me. There is also a higher cost to the subscriber to receive a newspaper compared to digital delivery, IIRC. So it is still proportional.

windthrown 6y ago

It still costs a lot of money to send reporters all over the world and do lengthy investigative journalism, regardless of if it is delivered to you in print or digital format. And NYT does charge more for physical paper delivery than they do for online-only subscriptions.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago

> So while I do agree newspapers have always been ads with some news thrown in there to get people to look at the paper, there were some much higher costs there in the paper part of the newspaper Distribution costs went down, but so did ad revenue. It used to be that a subscription primarily paid for the cost of printing/distribution, and the real profit came from advertising. Unfortunately, print ads use to pay significantly more than web ads do today. So while the distribution costs are lower, most newspapers now need both revenue sources.

bb611 6y ago

Home delivery NY Times is more than 2x the cost of digital (dependent on location), you're already getting the "no paper" discount by buying digital.