4 ms·

> I want a reasonable rate and unlimited access to all of what the publication has to offer but I'm not going to pay $455/year for it. Would it help if you tho

by yid 12y ago

> I want a reasonable rate and unlimited access to all of what the publication has to offer but I'm not going to pay $455/year for it. Would it help if you thought of the New York Times not as that disposable paper publication available for roughly $3 at every airport and newsstand, but as a hip new digital news service that sources original journalism from trained professionals, and curates that content by an (ideally) independent cadre of other professionals? How much would you pay for that hot new subscription service, to fund the level of baseline quality you get from the NYT? I don't know about you, but even $5/week doesn't sound completely unreasonable, to have something a little more sober than Buzzfeed and Vice.

chime 12y ago
> How much would you pay for that hot new subscription service, to fund the level of baseline quality you get from the NYT? I don't know about you, but even $5/week doesn't sound completely unreasonable. I don't know. But I pay $8.95 a month for Netflix, another $9 for Hulu Plus, another $9 for Spotify. I also get Amazon Prime for about $8/month and HN/reddit are free. It's not whether NYT is worth $35+/mo, it's whether I can derive $35/mo of utility from it.
- cwyers 12y ago
  Netflix, Hulu Plus, Spotify etc. are all benefiting from the old model of media. Albums, TV shows and movies make back their production costs (in the whole, if not individually) through theaters/DVD/album sales, and then Netflix/Hulu/Spotify buy the streaming rights, which are all gravy at that point. They're not sustainable models. The New York Times is further along a curve where digital eats the old media model, and is having to adapt sooner.
Implicated 12y ago
I was with you until you put Vice in bed with Buzzfeed. I agree that given the content is what you're looking for, the price really isn't that obscene. But the nickle and dime/piecemeal aspect of it is.

by yid 12y ago

chime 12y ago

> How much would you pay for that hot new subscription service, to fund the level of baseline quality you get from the NYT? I don't know about you, but even $5/week doesn't sound completely unreasonable. I don't know. But I pay $8.95 a month for Netflix, another $9 for Hulu Plus, another $9 for Spotify. I also get Amazon Prime for about $8/month and HN/reddit are free. It's not whether NYT is worth $35+/mo, it's whether I can derive $35/mo of utility from it.

cwyers 12y ago
Netflix, Hulu Plus, Spotify etc. are all benefiting from the old model of media. Albums, TV shows and movies make back their production costs (in the whole, if not individually) through theaters/DVD/album sales, and then Netflix/Hulu/Spotify buy the streaming rights, which are all gravy at that point. They're not sustainable models. The New York Times is further along a curve where digital eats the old media model, and is having to adapt sooner.

Implicated 12y ago

I was with you until you put Vice in bed with Buzzfeed. I agree that given the content is what you're looking for, the price really isn't that obscene. But the nickle and dime/piecemeal aspect of it is.