4 ms·
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
by 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 agoThere is a demonstrated market that will pay for financial news. Perhaps not so much for general news.
- huhtenberg 16y agoGood point. Makes one wonder how many of that 1 million subscribers are doing it at their company's expense.
- anigbrowl 16y agoLots, but it's tax-deductible.
- ojbyrne 16y agoThat'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.