4 ms·

It is more expensive than Netflix or an Amazon prime account. They're different things, of course, but it seems too expensive to me. I'd probably subscribe at a

It is more expensive than Netflix or an Amazon prime account. They're different things, of course, but it seems too expensive to me. I'd probably subscribe at about half the price, but at $180/year, I'll just clear my cookies and/or read the Washington Post. I work in the news media (public broadcasting), and right now the public still sees reporting as an inexpensive commodity, especially online. Ironically, I think public broadcasting is set up much better to garner supporting revenue from the public than for-profit media, since we have a history of doing so, and people inherently understand and relate to our support model. We still give away our content for free, too, even if you don't pay. The NYTimes is never going to be able to guilt me into paying the way NPR or PBS will.

kj12345 16y ago
And it's $180/year for an experience that is going to be diluted by their continuing need to please advertisers. It would be a stronger strategy if they said that serving the needs of their $180/year customers is going to be the sole driver of the design and direction of their site. EDIT: It actually appears to be $15 "every four weeks" so $195/year http://nytimes.com/access http://nytimes.com/access
jayzee 16y ago
You cannot compare it to Amazon/Netflix. They are not creating any of the content. NY Times is. The price includes the cost of content creation and delivery.
- bioh42_2 16y ago
  What content does the NY Times create? They cover the news, with some help form the AP and Bloomberg, does that count? Would anyone pay $195 for a year's worth of editorials?
- justinph 16y ago
  I agree they're have different relationships to content creation. But I don't think most people see much of a distinction between news and entertainment (which is problematic in it's own right). Nor do many people care who is an actual creator vs. who is merely a distributor. At the end of the day, we write the check to Netflix, not to MGM studios. What people do care about is the value that the content provides them, and is that content worth the price. I think the NYTimes does a great job, but I don't know they provide so much more value than their competitor who gives their stuff away for free.
- ericd 16y ago
  Cost of delivery has gone to near 0 when amortized, but this is more expensive than some of their dead tree subscriptions. I know paper isn't as expensive as some might think, but most people see that as real value. By stripping that away and keeping the price the same, I think many people are going to feel ripped off by comparison.
  - donohoe 16y ago
    Cost of delivery has gone to near 0 when amortized You're kidding? Feed services, hosting content is free? Lets also add in the developer salaries for this amazing electric free delivery system. I assure you it is not near 0.
    - ericd 16y ago
      Heh I'm aware that devs aren't free, being one myself, but a few devs can create a content distribution system that rivals the reach of a many, many million dollar printing and delivery infrastructure. Reasonably priced servers can serve up a shocking amount of content when caching is used properly. So, much closer to 0, and the marginal cost of a reader is effectively 0.
      - donohoe 16y ago
        Okay - as a dev you should know that hosting is not cheap. Does it cost Twitter nothing to 'delivery' its content? As someone who can peak behind the curtain, I assure you that its not free. Maybe cheaper than physical home-delivery of thew newspaper, but its not cheap.
        ericd 16y ago
        It should be surprisingly cheap in relative terms, not necessarily in absolute terms. I would imagine that the NYT is much more cacheable than Twitter, given the nature of the site.
    - mturmon 16y ago
      Here's a pic of part of the Los Angeles Times publishing plant: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_djhOGl10yrQ/S9iTs3OOI5I/AAAAAAAAAEQ/ZeCiSQFyJic/s1600/orange.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_djhOGl10yrQ/S9iTs3OOI5I/AAAAAAAAAE... (The post is here: http://edpadgett.blogspot.com/2010/04/end-is-near-for-lat-orange-county.html http://edpadgett.blogspot.com/2010/04/end-is-near-for-lat-or...) This does not include the paper mills and the delivery trucks. The point trying to be raised is that the infrastructure needed for print distribution is much, much heavier than that for electronic distribution. And much harder to scale. Because of this, it seems like the online subscriptions are overpriced relative to print.
- fletchowns 16y ago
  Amazon and Netflix aren't creating the content, but they are paying the people that do create it.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  And Netflix is buying the film and video content from the distributors and publishers, so the customer is still paying for content creation and delivery.

kj12345 16y ago

And it's $180/year for an experience that is going to be diluted by their continuing need to please advertisers. It would be a stronger strategy if they said that serving the needs of their $180/year customers is going to be the sole driver of the design and direction of their site. EDIT: It actually appears to be $15 "every four weeks" so $195/year http://nytimes.com/access http://nytimes.com/access

jayzee 16y ago

You cannot compare it to Amazon/Netflix. They are not creating any of the content. NY Times is. The price includes the cost of content creation and delivery.

bioh42_2 16y ago
What content does the NY Times create? They cover the news, with some help form the AP and Bloomberg, does that count? Would anyone pay $195 for a year's worth of editorials?
justinph 16y ago
I agree they're have different relationships to content creation. But I don't think most people see much of a distinction between news and entertainment (which is problematic in it's own right). Nor do many people care who is an actual creator vs. who is merely a distributor. At the end of the day, we write the check to Netflix, not to MGM studios. What people do care about is the value that the content provides them, and is that content worth the price. I think the NYTimes does a great job, but I don't know they provide so much more value than their competitor who gives their stuff away for free.
ericd 16y ago
Cost of delivery has gone to near 0 when amortized, but this is more expensive than some of their dead tree subscriptions. I know paper isn't as expensive as some might think, but most people see that as real value. By stripping that away and keeping the price the same, I think many people are going to feel ripped off by comparison.
- donohoe 16y ago
  Cost of delivery has gone to near 0 when amortized You're kidding? Feed services, hosting content is free? Lets also add in the developer salaries for this amazing electric free delivery system. I assure you it is not near 0.
  - ericd 16y ago
    Heh I'm aware that devs aren't free, being one myself, but a few devs can create a content distribution system that rivals the reach of a many, many million dollar printing and delivery infrastructure. Reasonably priced servers can serve up a shocking amount of content when caching is used properly. So, much closer to 0, and the marginal cost of a reader is effectively 0.
    - donohoe 16y ago
      Okay - as a dev you should know that hosting is not cheap. Does it cost Twitter nothing to 'delivery' its content? As someone who can peak behind the curtain, I assure you that its not free. Maybe cheaper than physical home-delivery of thew newspaper, but its not cheap.
      - ericd 16y ago
        It should be surprisingly cheap in relative terms, not necessarily in absolute terms. I would imagine that the NYT is much more cacheable than Twitter, given the nature of the site.
  - mturmon 16y ago
    Here's a pic of part of the Los Angeles Times publishing plant: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_djhOGl10yrQ/S9iTs3OOI5I/AAAAAAAAAEQ/ZeCiSQFyJic/s1600/orange.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_djhOGl10yrQ/S9iTs3OOI5I/AAAAAAAAAE... (The post is here: http://edpadgett.blogspot.com/2010/04/end-is-near-for-lat-orange-county.html http://edpadgett.blogspot.com/2010/04/end-is-near-for-lat-or...) This does not include the paper mills and the delivery trucks. The point trying to be raised is that the infrastructure needed for print distribution is much, much heavier than that for electronic distribution. And much harder to scale. Because of this, it seems like the online subscriptions are overpriced relative to print.
fletchowns 16y ago
Amazon and Netflix aren't creating the content, but they are paying the people that do create it.
anigbrowl 16y ago
And Netflix is buying the film and video content from the distributors and publishers, so the customer is still paying for content creation and delivery.