> The NYT now has (for argument's sake) six times as many subscribers, all paying slightly more than six times as much. There have been many many efforts to ha

> The NYT now has (for argument's sake) six times as many subscribers, all paying slightly more than six times as much. There have been many many efforts to have sites that provide access to multiple news sources for a single price. Apple News, PressReader, Magzster, and more. Newspapers and their corporate owners have ample data on your claim that low single prices massively increase the audience. I'm guessing your claim is not supported by the real world data and that's why they haven't adopted the model. After all, only 16% of people have said they are willing to pay any amount of money to read the news. That's a total market of 40 million people. The NY Times has 6 million subscribers, so they've already captured 15% of the market. Your claim that they could capture 6x means this mythical service would capture 90% of the total available market. Which just seems...implausible on the surface. Netflix doesn't even have remotely that penetration -- only 51% -- and they've been around forever, have massive brand recognition, have tons of money, have unique properties to draw viewers, etc, etc.