6 ms·

Amazon doesn't want you to have a subscription to the New York Times. Amazon wants you to have a subscription to Amazon Unlimited, which would include access to

Amazon doesn't want you to have a subscription to the New York Times. Amazon wants you to have a subscription to Amazon Unlimited, which would include access to the New York Times. Amazon would then pay the New York Times and all other periodicals an amount that Amazon thinks is fair based on how many people are reading their articles, like Amazon Unlimited books. This is very bad for big periodicals with many subscribers. Under the current model, they get a predictable amount of income and are motivated by keeping the bar high for their content, lest they lose subscribers. Under the new model, their income is entirely based on how many people pick up that issue and read it, which makes it very hard to budget. It also likely means an inevitable slide into "politician SLAMMED other politican, and you'll NEVER BELIEVE what happened next" headlines, since extra clicks are very directly your periodical's source of income. This is very good news for Amazon because it gives them far more bargaining power against publishers. Right now, if The New York Times decides that Amazon's terms favor Amazon too strongly, the Times walks, and Amazon doesn't get any more money from Times subscribers. Under this system, if the Times walks because Amazon terms favor Amazon too strongly, Amazon keeps the subscribers. This is moderately good news for customers who read a bunch of stuff on Amazon Unlimited. You now get to read whatever you like for probably around the same cost, and the stuff you naturally choose to read will end up getting a bit of money from it. Yay. This is probably moderately good news for niche, popcorn periodicals. If you have a "Werewolf Romance Weekly Short Fiction" magazine or "DIY Productivity Tip Of the Week" newsletter, you'll quite possibly make way more money by attracting idly browsing Amazon Unlimited customers than you would have been able to if you had needed to convince people to subscribe to your service.

PradeetPatel 4y ago
Thank you for the thoughtful explanation. I never thought about it from that angle before, that is such a powerful move from Amazon that I believe most of us can learn something from.
- kqr 4y ago
  It's also known as "commoditise your complement": https://gwern.net/complement https://gwern.net/complement
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- brutusurp 4y ago
  Except customers will just leave Amazon. Like they are doing with Music, and Video, and Prime. This move disadvantages everyone except Amazon. It should be investigated by SEC.
  - DharmaPolice 4y ago
    If customers leave Amazon surely that disadvantages Amazon too?
- ohgodplsno 4y ago
  "I'm sure we could learn something from how Amazon contributes to the destruction of something already both so fragile and crucial, the press" isn't exactly a good look, but go ahead.
- andrepd 4y ago
  > that is such a powerful move from Amazon that I believe most of us can learn something from. I don't think that was the intended message here.
Espressosaurus 4y ago
I've seen how they've made it harder and harder to download your entire music collection, as well as how they're pushing their music streaming. At this point I'm just waiting for the same thing to happen to their ala cart music service, and it's very disappointing.
ako 4y ago
At the same time, having to subscribe to specific periodical keeps me from doing it all. I see the these subscribe pop-ups every time I visit a newspaper, at least 5 different newspapers per day. It is just not affordable to have 5 subscriptions, so I end up subscribing to none.
- Ma8ee 4y ago
  I pay something like €5 to The Guardian and $2 to NYT (which I read very occasionally) every months. And then another €15 to a Swedish newspaper. That is very cheap to support independent journalism.
  - bentlegen 4y ago
    Wow, $2 is a good deal. I feel I paid that little to start, but now NYT charges me $20 CAD a month. I regularly debate whether it’s worth it or not, and it definitely stops me from subscribing to other publications.
    - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
      Good luck canceling that subscription.
      - Ma8ee 4y ago
        They have made it easier. It used to be that you had to call, but now you can do it on the web.
        eitally 4y ago
        They have made it easier [by law] for subscribers [in California].
        torstenvl 4y ago
        I had nine months of chargebacks before I finally got NYT to stop charging me.
ikari_pl 4y ago
Amazon shuts down subscriptions for me while saying Kindle Unlimited is not available in my country.
greyman 4y ago
I remember, that in Slovakia we had something like an "Amazon Unlimited", it was called Piano, but it ultimately didn't work. The problem was, that for large publishers it was not profitable, and the system more or less favoured small publishers. But after a few largest publishers left the platform, the whole offering was weak and not worth it.
snickerbockers 4y ago
So basically they're transitioning to the "extinguish" phase of their business model?
concordDance 4y ago
The headline based selection process you describe has been going on for over a decade now. And yes, the damage has been bad.
andyjohnson0 4y ago
> Amazon would then pay the New York Times and all other periodicals an amount that Amazon thinks is fair based on how many people are reading their articles Presumably this would only happen after the NYT has first paid Amazon for access to the platform.
atchoo 4y ago
If that's the strategy, it's weird that not even WaPo (a Bezos property) is on Kindle Unlimited when announcing sun-setting newspaper subscriptions.
CatWChainsaw 4y ago
Is Amazon Unlimited a different product than Kindle Unlimited?
emsy 4y ago
In other words they’re begging to be regulated.
SentientAtom 4y ago
Horrific to see another business model get put on rails resulting in a lowering of quality. Reminds me of MSN firing their news team and having AI journalists write all the articles. Now you get large walls of text with no overall message that often times are devoid of any conclusions.
tootie 4y ago
Aside from the NY Times and maybe Conde Nast this will be Amazon squeezing blood from a stone. Most publishers are barely treading water right now and are getting killed by off-platform news consumption.
jrochkind1 4y ago
> Amazon wants you to have a subscription to Amazon Unlimited, which would include access to the New York Times. Amazon would then pay the New York Times and all other periodicals an amount that Amazon thinks is fair based on how many people are reading their articles, like Amazon Unlimited books. The "spotify model". It's pretty bad for content creators. It is great for the distribution platform in the middle position. I think it's arguably pretty good for consumers, at least initially -- but generally the point is locking in consumers to eventually squeeze them, and I don't think it's great for _society_, which of course effects "consumers". Giblin and Doctorow's _Chokepoint Capitalism_ is worth checking out. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/710957/chokepoint-capitalism-by-cory-doctorow-and-rebecca-giblin/ https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/710957/chokepoint-c...
ben7799 4y ago
The NYT has held their quality standards up pretty well, but most of the newspaper industry had already raced all the way to the bottom by the time Amazon ever launched the Kindle newsstand. That ship basically sailed away a long time ago. Newspapers gave everything away for free, raced the content to the bottom, and then after nearly 20 years of that finally realized it didn't work. The content in your online newspaper needs to be very, very good if you want $20-30/month to read it versus the aggregated news services wanting $9.99/month to read news from a wide swath of sources. NYT is good, but it's terrible at replacing your local news sources.

PradeetPatel 4y ago

Thank you for the thoughtful explanation. I never thought about it from that angle before, that is such a powerful move from Amazon that I believe most of us can learn something from.

kqr 4y ago
It's also known as "commoditise your complement": https://gwern.net/complement https://gwern.net/complement
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
brutusurp 4y ago
Except customers will just leave Amazon. Like they are doing with Music, and Video, and Prime. This move disadvantages everyone except Amazon. It should be investigated by SEC.
- DharmaPolice 4y ago
  If customers leave Amazon surely that disadvantages Amazon too?
ohgodplsno 4y ago
"I'm sure we could learn something from how Amazon contributes to the destruction of something already both so fragile and crucial, the press" isn't exactly a good look, but go ahead.
andrepd 4y ago
> that is such a powerful move from Amazon that I believe most of us can learn something from. I don't think that was the intended message here.

Espressosaurus 4y ago

I've seen how they've made it harder and harder to download your entire music collection, as well as how they're pushing their music streaming. At this point I'm just waiting for the same thing to happen to their ala cart music service, and it's very disappointing.

ako 4y ago

At the same time, having to subscribe to specific periodical keeps me from doing it all. I see the these subscribe pop-ups every time I visit a newspaper, at least 5 different newspapers per day. It is just not affordable to have 5 subscriptions, so I end up subscribing to none.

Ma8ee 4y ago
I pay something like €5 to The Guardian and $2 to NYT (which I read very occasionally) every months. And then another €15 to a Swedish newspaper. That is very cheap to support independent journalism.
- bentlegen 4y ago
  Wow, $2 is a good deal. I feel I paid that little to start, but now NYT charges me $20 CAD a month. I regularly debate whether it’s worth it or not, and it definitely stops me from subscribing to other publications.
  - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
    Good luck canceling that subscription.
    - Ma8ee 4y ago
      They have made it easier. It used to be that you had to call, but now you can do it on the web.
      - eitally 4y ago
        They have made it easier [by law] for subscribers [in California].
      - torstenvl 4y ago
        I had nine months of chargebacks before I finally got NYT to stop charging me.

ikari_pl 4y ago

Amazon shuts down subscriptions for me while saying Kindle Unlimited is not available in my country.

greyman 4y ago

I remember, that in Slovakia we had something like an "Amazon Unlimited", it was called Piano, but it ultimately didn't work. The problem was, that for large publishers it was not profitable, and the system more or less favoured small publishers. But after a few largest publishers left the platform, the whole offering was weak and not worth it.

snickerbockers 4y ago

So basically they're transitioning to the "extinguish" phase of their business model?

concordDance 4y ago

The headline based selection process you describe has been going on for over a decade now. And yes, the damage has been bad.

andyjohnson0 4y ago

> Amazon would then pay the New York Times and all other periodicals an amount that Amazon thinks is fair based on how many people are reading their articles Presumably this would only happen after the NYT has first paid Amazon for access to the platform.

atchoo 4y ago

If that's the strategy, it's weird that not even WaPo (a Bezos property) is on Kindle Unlimited when announcing sun-setting newspaper subscriptions.

CatWChainsaw 4y ago

Is Amazon Unlimited a different product than Kindle Unlimited?

emsy 4y ago

In other words they’re begging to be regulated.

SentientAtom 4y ago

Horrific to see another business model get put on rails resulting in a lowering of quality. Reminds me of MSN firing their news team and having AI journalists write all the articles. Now you get large walls of text with no overall message that often times are devoid of any conclusions.

tootie 4y ago

Aside from the NY Times and maybe Conde Nast this will be Amazon squeezing blood from a stone. Most publishers are barely treading water right now and are getting killed by off-platform news consumption.

jrochkind1 4y ago

> Amazon wants you to have a subscription to Amazon Unlimited, which would include access to the New York Times. Amazon would then pay the New York Times and all other periodicals an amount that Amazon thinks is fair based on how many people are reading their articles, like Amazon Unlimited books. The "spotify model". It's pretty bad for content creators. It is great for the distribution platform in the middle position. I think it's arguably pretty good for consumers, at least initially -- but generally the point is locking in consumers to eventually squeeze them, and I don't think it's great for _society_, which of course effects "consumers". Giblin and Doctorow's _Chokepoint Capitalism_ is worth checking out. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/710957/chokepoint-capitalism-by-cory-doctorow-and-rebecca-giblin/ https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/710957/chokepoint-c...

ben7799 4y ago

The NYT has held their quality standards up pretty well, but most of the newspaper industry had already raced all the way to the bottom by the time Amazon ever launched the Kindle newsstand. That ship basically sailed away a long time ago. Newspapers gave everything away for free, raced the content to the bottom, and then after nearly 20 years of that finally realized it didn't work. The content in your online newspaper needs to be very, very good if you want $20-30/month to read it versus the aggregated news services wanting $9.99/month to read news from a wide swath of sources. NYT is good, but it's terrible at replacing your local news sources.