| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Online fee plan for NY Times discussed |
| 2010-02-20 |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #6 NY Times, we'll miss you. Well, not really ... |
| Posted by: DMFD 2010-02-20 21:21 |
| #5 According to a recent AppleInsider article there is a debate at the NYT about having their paper on Apple's iPad: they want to do it but are trying to decide whether to charge $10 or $30 a month. I say charge $100 for all the difference it will make. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2010-02-20 10:10 |
| #4 Even going behind a pay wall, assuming traffic dips only slightly, will not be enough to prevent altering the newspaper's cost structure. There is not a whole lotta data out on its effectiveness over the long term. But what we do know is: 1) Online advertising is amazingly cheap. 2) Advertisers like the cost reduction from production and the like, but they do not like the lack of control they have once their message is out there. 3) Advertising in order to pay for the cost of the rest of the newspapers operations will not be enough without trimming large swaths of operations away totally. 4) You can't go back to the way things used to be and complaining that aggregators are the cause of decline are a waste of time, resources and facts. 5) Newsday in New York placed its content behind a pay wall and what it got for a $4 million redesign of its website was a whopping 35 subscribers, a .2 percent return on investment after three months. You can't make up those losses on volume, I promise you can't. But this is the New York Times, the nation's newspaper. That can't happen to the New York Times. They're different. I guess we get to see. |
| Posted by: badanov 2010-02-20 09:44 |
| #3 |
| Posted by: lotp 2010-02-20 09:42 |
| #2 It seems that they have been talking about this on a quarterly basis over the past couple of years. I guess its TIMES to take the plunge. Newspapers circulation have declined over the years. Article/graph link Right now, the WSJ has more than 400K online only subscribers. |
| Posted by: Tom-Pa 2010-02-20 09:29 |
| #1 Go for it. IT will choke off any relevancy the NYT has online, ensuring that is becomes a nearly irrelevantManhattan-only provincial liberal elitist rag, which is what it is at its core. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2010-02-20 09:04 |