4 ms·

1896 to March 27, 2011: "All the News That's Fit to Print" After March 27, 2011: "All the News thats Fit to Find Somewhere Else for Free"

by edw519 16y ago

ihodes 16y ago
Do you have an alternative idea? It seems to me that the only way to maintain quality and at least a little bit of objectivity is to charge a flat fee. Charging for use (including advertising) drives individual writers and sections to via for the most eyeballs and clicks. Charging a flat fee requires the entire newspaper to improve. Also, it won't be long before all the news fit to read is behind some sort of paywall (or something similar), unless drastic change takes place.
- MatthewPhillips 16y ago
  They need to get into other businesses. For example, why is NYT not the definitive place to get New York City real estate information?
  - ericd 16y ago
    Because they can't compete with Craigslist, which is free.
Gaussian 16y ago
Don't be so sure. The Times is one of the few outfits where this approach may actually work. Look at the WSJ, another such outlet -- 1 million people pay $100/year for online access (no paper). That's $100M/year, which makes a big difference at a newspaper. That's a lot of extra reporters.
- OstiaAntica 16y ago
  There is a demonstrated market that will pay for financial news. Perhaps not so much for general news.
  - huhtenberg 16y ago
    Good point. Makes one wonder how many of that 1 million subscribers are doing it at their company's expense.
    - anigbrowl 16y ago
      Lots, but it's tax-deductible.
- ojbyrne 16y ago
  That's roughly 50% of what the nyt wants to charge, and for, arguably, more valuable information. While I understand and mostly accept the idea of a paywall, the price is too high. They want to support a cost structure that's archaic, and centered around their print product. They need to charge 50-60% less, and cut costs accordingly. That's probably what will happen in the long run.

1896 to March 27, 2011: "All the News That's Fit to Print" After March 27, 2011: "All the News thats Fit to Find Somewhere Else for Free"

by edw519 16y ago

1896 to March 27, 2011: "All the News That's Fit to Print" After March 27, 2011: "All the News thats Fit to Find Somewhere Else for Free"

ihodes 16y ago

Do you have an alternative idea? It seems to me that the only way to maintain quality and at least a little bit of objectivity is to charge a flat fee. Charging for use (including advertising) drives individual writers and sections to via for the most eyeballs and clicks. Charging a flat fee requires the entire newspaper to improve. Also, it won't be long before all the news fit to read is behind some sort of paywall (or something similar), unless drastic change takes place.

MatthewPhillips 16y ago
They need to get into other businesses. For example, why is NYT not the definitive place to get New York City real estate information?
- ericd 16y ago
  Because they can't compete with Craigslist, which is free.

Gaussian 16y ago

Don't be so sure. The Times is one of the few outfits where this approach may actually work. Look at the WSJ, another such outlet -- 1 million people pay $100/year for online access (no paper). That's $100M/year, which makes a big difference at a newspaper. That's a lot of extra reporters.

OstiaAntica 16y ago
There is a demonstrated market that will pay for financial news. Perhaps not so much for general news.
- huhtenberg 16y ago
  Good point. Makes one wonder how many of that 1 million subscribers are doing it at their company's expense.
  - anigbrowl 16y ago
    Lots, but it's tax-deductible.
ojbyrne 16y ago
That's roughly 50% of what the nyt wants to charge, and for, arguably, more valuable information. While I understand and mostly accept the idea of a paywall, the price is too high. They want to support a cost structure that's archaic, and centered around their print product. They need to charge 50-60% less, and cut costs accordingly. That's probably what will happen in the long run.