4 ms·

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.

by jayzee 16y ago

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.

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.

by 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.