6 ms·

Not a fan of the shaming... If news orgs value their journalists and the future of the profession, they should experiment with more daring models, rather than

by patcon 11y ago

Not a fan of the shaming... If news orgs value their journalists and the future of the profession, they should experiment with more daring models, rather than ones that simply maximally enrich the org under the same old model EDIT: imho a model that falls apart legally under a browser extension that fits in a 40-line gist is nothing on which to base the livelihoods of a bunch of people

donohoe 11y ago
I agree - but to be fair you're assuming they haven't experimented. Micro-payments, dumb 'capthcha' based models, memberships, events, "premier access". All have been tried in various flavors. Some with limited success. I'm not asking for you to dream up an alternative solution, but don't assume this is a problem that has not been given a lot of thought by many organizations. This is partly why we are stuck with things like "native advertising" and pretty shit IAB ad units.
- mapgrep 11y ago
  Even people inside the NYT know the pricing for digital subscriptions is excessive. They're high because circ department won an internal war and inflated digital prices in a misguided attempt to protect print subs. The NYT has experimented but is still clinging to the past. Which is why the "All Digital Access" subscription costs more than Netflix, Hulu, and HBO Now combined. Give me a break.
  - binxbolling 11y ago
    Almost thought you were joking, but wow... nearly $38/mo to read NYT's webpages.
  - OrwellianChild 11y ago
    This raised an interesting question for me - how much money is saved on a per-subscriber basis by sending the digital version vs. print (for the NYT)? Their pricing certainly doesn't reflect it: Web + Smartphone: $3.75/wk $16.25/mo $195/yr Web + Tablet: $5.00/wk $21.67/mo $260/yr All Digital Access: $8.75/wk $37.92/mo $455/yr 7-Day Home Delivery: $8.90/wk $38.57/mo $463/yr There are multiple levels of insanity here: Web + Smartphone & Web + Tablet are identical except for device type but Tablet is 33% more. Web + Smartphone plus Web + Tablet cost as much *together* as All Digital Access (and are feature equivalent). 7-Day Home Delivery *includes* All Digital Access and costs about the same. Paper is free? None of these pricing strategies appear to be designed to maximize readership, broaden subscription basis, or grow brand penetration. They are structured to capture the most value possible from customers with high switching costs or price indifference. This is what a conservator in a dying market looks like.
    - donohoe 11y ago
      Actually, thats not true. A broad amount of research wen tin to this (originally at least). There is a method to this madness :)
      - kaybe 11y ago
        Please tell us more!
    - untog 11y ago
      The reason that print+web packages don't cost significantly more than web-only is because print advertising is still a lucrative business. NYT can a a absolutely justify giving away the paper to subscribers on that basis.
      - OrwellianChild 11y ago
        Except, if that were true, why not just make it a free paper? Presumably ad targeting... I understand the limitations of their existing revenue model. It just results in some pretty consumer-unfriendly offerings, at the expense of readership and penetration... --- EDIT: Went back to look at the numbers... They have tons of online eyeballs - those eyeballs just don't make much money. They manage to double their digital revenue with the paywall. Even so, it's dwarfed by the print revenue. This may shift as advertisers see the value of targeted online user groups... I could totally imagine the NYT of the future being a collection of blogs dealing in Tech, Biz, World News, Local News, etc. Ads on the Biz site would be targeted differently than on the World News site. This might give advertisers what they want in terms of a differentiated audience. --- From the 2014 Annual Report: Average Paper Circulation in U.S. (Int'l) 648,900 (219,500) for weekday (Monday to Friday) 1,185,400 (220,500) for Sunday Paid Digital Subscribers 910,000 as of December 28, 2014 Monthly (Annual) Digital Readership 31MM (372MM) unique desktop/laptop visitors (U.S.) 42MM (504MM) unique desktop/laptop visitors (WW) 28MM (336MM) unique mobile device visitors (U.S.) Off these eyeballs, they made: $667.5MM from print subscribers $169.3MM from digital subscribers $483.5MM from print advertising $178.8MM from digital advertising
    - 11y ago
  - donohoe 11y ago
    The NYT has experimented but is still clinging to the past. Yes and No. Print advertising is significantly worth more than web. Thats not "in the past' that is alive and well (but declining). Still high.
    - mapgrep 11y ago
      Ya but then isn't it pretty logical that people use a browser extension to get around buying subscriptions that are priced artificially high to protect a soon-to-be-obsolete revenue stream?
- patcon 11y ago
  You're right. I was hoping to clear up my support of his extension with the edit, but it was still lacking. I realize I'm a peanut-gallerian, and both of you two are working harder than I on this. I support him because it shows me there's someone inside who's pragmatic and not letting themselves be deluded by group-think. (I am genuintely not implying you are. I don't know you.) Paywalls aren't going to work as-is, and I'm excited to see a clever wink to that sentiment internally -- it gives me confidence that something better might come from inside players > I'm not asking for you to dream up an alternative solution And not my idea, but just in case it's not on your radar: http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/Potential_DAC_Ideas#Associated_Press http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/Potential_DAC_Ideas#Asso...
- gambiter 11y ago
  When have micro-payments actually been used in any meaningful way? I've only seen companies complaining that they aren't viable. They were certainly quick to make the choice for me. Otherwise, if people saw truly unique content from you (and others), they would be paying in one or more of the options you mentioned. They obviously don't see the point, however, because very little on the web is truly unique. This seems like more evidence of the thing we all already know... large news/opinion organizations, especially those who started in print and are trying to maintain their business models, have become irrelevant.
  - donohoe 11y ago
    ...have become irrelevant Please read this article: "Cuomo Orders Emergency Measures to Protect Workers at Nail Salons" http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/11/nyregion/cuomo-orders-emergency-measures-to-protect-workers-at-nail-salons.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/11/nyregion/cuomo-orders-emer... That response by a state governor was in due to an article in The New York Times from a week ago. Also, do not underestimate the amount of original content that these orgs churn out that other sites repackage and repurpose. Irrelevant? Do some measure of homework.
    - gambiter 11y ago
      I think it's wonderful that the NYT made a difference, but that certainly doesn't prove your point. > original content that these orgs churn out that other sites repackage and repurpose. What percentage of their content are truly original, first-to-break stories? Really, be honest. Now how much of their content are fluff/opinion pieces, rehashes of the last month of stories, and info that has been 'repackaged and repurposed' from the internet? If you try to claim the larger percentage is the former, you're just being obtuse. You're quick to defend traditional media, but you totally glossed over the other points I raised. It's obvious (based on your comments here) that you have a bone to pick with anyone who doesn't believe your employer (and others like it) are worth what they think they are worth. Again, it's clear based on market force that the PUBLIC doesn't agree with you. If they did, you would have seen success in the methods you mentioned. > Micro-payments, dumb 'capthcha' based models, memberships, events, "premier access" Whether you personally agree with me or not, the public is speaking, and they are telling you that your business model isn't worth what you claim.
jameshart 11y ago
The model doesn't fall apart legally because it can be trivially circumvented. Any more than the model of renting bikes falls apart legally if people just don't bring the bikes back, or the model of selling software licenses falls apart legally because people can easily copy it. You can base the livelihoods of people on these things, provided the amount of circumvention remains low.
- patcon 11y ago
  I see what you're saying, but I wasn't intending to stretch my thought that far. I was just assuming that changing the referral header couldn't possibly be illegal.
manigandham 11y ago
More daring models? It's easy to just say "do something else" when actively circumventing a system. I really wish people would generally stop with comments like this unless they have an alternative to propose, otherwise its just criticism without purpose because the people involved in this industry are trying their best to make things work. What does the size of the "hack" have to do with anything? Simple execution doesn't make something ok by the fact of being simple to execute.
donohoe 11y ago
Also, not my intent to shame. And I'll apologize to Jeremy next time I see him if it came across that way. Actually, as I write and re-read it, it does come across that way. Sorry.

by patcon 11y ago

donohoe 11y ago

I agree - but to be fair you're assuming they haven't experimented. Micro-payments, dumb 'capthcha' based models, memberships, events, "premier access". All have been tried in various flavors. Some with limited success. I'm not asking for you to dream up an alternative solution, but don't assume this is a problem that has not been given a lot of thought by many organizations. This is partly why we are stuck with things like "native advertising" and pretty shit IAB ad units.

mapgrep 11y ago
Even people inside the NYT know the pricing for digital subscriptions is excessive. They're high because circ department won an internal war and inflated digital prices in a misguided attempt to protect print subs. The NYT has experimented but is still clinging to the past. Which is why the "All Digital Access" subscription costs more than Netflix, Hulu, and HBO Now combined. Give me a break.
- binxbolling 11y ago
  Almost thought you were joking, but wow... nearly $38/mo to read NYT's webpages.
- OrwellianChild 11y ago
  This raised an interesting question for me - how much money is saved on a per-subscriber basis by sending the digital version vs. print (for the NYT)? Their pricing certainly doesn't reflect it: Web + Smartphone: $3.75/wk $16.25/mo $195/yr Web + Tablet: $5.00/wk $21.67/mo $260/yr All Digital Access: $8.75/wk $37.92/mo $455/yr 7-Day Home Delivery: $8.90/wk $38.57/mo $463/yr There are multiple levels of insanity here: Web + Smartphone & Web + Tablet are identical except for device type but Tablet is 33% more. Web + Smartphone plus Web + Tablet cost as much *together* as All Digital Access (and are feature equivalent). 7-Day Home Delivery *includes* All Digital Access and costs about the same. Paper is free? None of these pricing strategies appear to be designed to maximize readership, broaden subscription basis, or grow brand penetration. They are structured to capture the most value possible from customers with high switching costs or price indifference. This is what a conservator in a dying market looks like.
  - donohoe 11y ago
    Actually, thats not true. A broad amount of research wen tin to this (originally at least). There is a method to this madness :)
    - kaybe 11y ago
      Please tell us more!
  - untog 11y ago
    The reason that print+web packages don't cost significantly more than web-only is because print advertising is still a lucrative business. NYT can a a absolutely justify giving away the paper to subscribers on that basis.
    - OrwellianChild 11y ago
      Except, if that were true, why not just make it a free paper? Presumably ad targeting... I understand the limitations of their existing revenue model. It just results in some pretty consumer-unfriendly offerings, at the expense of readership and penetration... --- EDIT: Went back to look at the numbers... They have tons of online eyeballs - those eyeballs just don't make much money. They manage to double their digital revenue with the paywall. Even so, it's dwarfed by the print revenue. This may shift as advertisers see the value of targeted online user groups... I could totally imagine the NYT of the future being a collection of blogs dealing in Tech, Biz, World News, Local News, etc. Ads on the Biz site would be targeted differently than on the World News site. This might give advertisers what they want in terms of a differentiated audience. --- From the 2014 Annual Report: Average Paper Circulation in U.S. (Int'l) 648,900 (219,500) for weekday (Monday to Friday) 1,185,400 (220,500) for Sunday Paid Digital Subscribers 910,000 as of December 28, 2014 Monthly (Annual) Digital Readership 31MM (372MM) unique desktop/laptop visitors (U.S.) 42MM (504MM) unique desktop/laptop visitors (WW) 28MM (336MM) unique mobile device visitors (U.S.) Off these eyeballs, they made: $667.5MM from print subscribers $169.3MM from digital subscribers $483.5MM from print advertising $178.8MM from digital advertising
  - 11y ago
- donohoe 11y ago
  The NYT has experimented but is still clinging to the past. Yes and No. Print advertising is significantly worth more than web. Thats not "in the past' that is alive and well (but declining). Still high.
  - mapgrep 11y ago
    Ya but then isn't it pretty logical that people use a browser extension to get around buying subscriptions that are priced artificially high to protect a soon-to-be-obsolete revenue stream?
patcon 11y ago
You're right. I was hoping to clear up my support of his extension with the edit, but it was still lacking. I realize I'm a peanut-gallerian, and both of you two are working harder than I on this. I support him because it shows me there's someone inside who's pragmatic and not letting themselves be deluded by group-think. (I am genuintely not implying you are. I don't know you.) Paywalls aren't going to work as-is, and I'm excited to see a clever wink to that sentiment internally -- it gives me confidence that something better might come from inside players > I'm not asking for you to dream up an alternative solution And not my idea, but just in case it's not on your radar: http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/Potential_DAC_Ideas#Associated_Press http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/Potential_DAC_Ideas#Asso...
gambiter 11y ago
When have micro-payments actually been used in any meaningful way? I've only seen companies complaining that they aren't viable. They were certainly quick to make the choice for me. Otherwise, if people saw truly unique content from you (and others), they would be paying in one or more of the options you mentioned. They obviously don't see the point, however, because very little on the web is truly unique. This seems like more evidence of the thing we all already know... large news/opinion organizations, especially those who started in print and are trying to maintain their business models, have become irrelevant.
- donohoe 11y ago
  ...have become irrelevant Please read this article: "Cuomo Orders Emergency Measures to Protect Workers at Nail Salons" http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/11/nyregion/cuomo-orders-emergency-measures-to-protect-workers-at-nail-salons.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/11/nyregion/cuomo-orders-emer... That response by a state governor was in due to an article in The New York Times from a week ago. Also, do not underestimate the amount of original content that these orgs churn out that other sites repackage and repurpose. Irrelevant? Do some measure of homework.
  - gambiter 11y ago
    I think it's wonderful that the NYT made a difference, but that certainly doesn't prove your point. > original content that these orgs churn out that other sites repackage and repurpose. What percentage of their content are truly original, first-to-break stories? Really, be honest. Now how much of their content are fluff/opinion pieces, rehashes of the last month of stories, and info that has been 'repackaged and repurposed' from the internet? If you try to claim the larger percentage is the former, you're just being obtuse. You're quick to defend traditional media, but you totally glossed over the other points I raised. It's obvious (based on your comments here) that you have a bone to pick with anyone who doesn't believe your employer (and others like it) are worth what they think they are worth. Again, it's clear based on market force that the PUBLIC doesn't agree with you. If they did, you would have seen success in the methods you mentioned. > Micro-payments, dumb 'capthcha' based models, memberships, events, "premier access" Whether you personally agree with me or not, the public is speaking, and they are telling you that your business model isn't worth what you claim.

jameshart 11y ago

The model doesn't fall apart legally because it can be trivially circumvented. Any more than the model of renting bikes falls apart legally if people just don't bring the bikes back, or the model of selling software licenses falls apart legally because people can easily copy it. You can base the livelihoods of people on these things, provided the amount of circumvention remains low.

patcon 11y ago
I see what you're saying, but I wasn't intending to stretch my thought that far. I was just assuming that changing the referral header couldn't possibly be illegal.

manigandham 11y ago

More daring models? It's easy to just say "do something else" when actively circumventing a system. I really wish people would generally stop with comments like this unless they have an alternative to propose, otherwise its just criticism without purpose because the people involved in this industry are trying their best to make things work. What does the size of the "hack" have to do with anything? Simple execution doesn't make something ok by the fact of being simple to execute.

donohoe 11y ago

Also, not my intent to shame. And I'll apologize to Jeremy next time I see him if it came across that way. Actually, as I write and re-read it, it does come across that way. Sorry.