Comments on: The NYT’s Geffen Put http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/26/the-nyts-geffen-put/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Ryan Chittum http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/26/the-nyts-geffen-put/comment-page-1/#comment-2013 Wed, 27 May 2009 03:44:46 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/26/the-nyts-geffen-put/#comment-2013 Sorry, nytimes.com demographic is available. I missed it earlier.

Median income=$85,000.
http://www.nytimes.whsites.net/mediakit/ online/audience/audience_profile.php

]]>
By: Ryan Chittum http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/26/the-nyts-geffen-put/comment-page-1/#comment-2011 Wed, 27 May 2009 03:15:45 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/26/the-nyts-geffen-put/#comment-2011 The discrepancy on my subscription price is for three of reasons.

One, I live in DC. I’d presume this is one of the top three subscription bases for the Times, so it’s kind of strange that that subscriptions cost 26% more here than in NYC.

Two, the earlier commenters are looking at the initial trial-period price of an NYT subscription. That’s 50% off and lasts just eight weeks.

Three, the NYT subscription site still has the old prices lised, perhaps because the new ones don’t go into effect until June 1.

As an aside: Felix’s point about the NYT sub-to-NYC-median-income ratio is revealing.

It would be interesting to see the median income of a Times print subscriber, who pays big bucks, and a nytimes.com unique visitor, who doesn’t pay anything. I’m wondering how much the print subscriber and print advertiser subsidies democratize the paper’s journalism.

On one hand, Web users skew higher demographically. On the other hand, the NYT’s print demographics are already sky-high, at about $110,000 median. http://www.nytimes.whsites.net/mediakit/ quick_links/audience.php

]]>
By: bucky dent http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/26/the-nyts-geffen-put/comment-page-1/#comment-1999 Tue, 26 May 2009 21:15:47 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/26/the-nyts-geffen-put/#comment-1999 “…death spiral where the newspaper is owned by a for-profit owner who has no idea what he’s doing nor any respect for sacred trusts and the like….? You mean, like the current NYT situation?

]]>
By: KenG http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/26/the-nyts-geffen-put/comment-page-1/#comment-1998 Tue, 26 May 2009 21:13:28 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/26/the-nyts-geffen-put/#comment-1998 If that $5.30/wk rate is just for new subscribers, when it’s over, let the subscription run out, and then start a new one. I did that with my FT subscription, they offer it for about $100 for new subscribers and about 2x that for existing ones. I said I wanted the new subscriber price or I would switch to a kindle subscription, so they gave me the dead tree version for ~$100.

It’s a buyers’ market out there, especially for newspapers. After the newspaper genius Sam Zell bought the Tribune, I got a call from the LA times. I was paying about $25/month for it at the time, and they said they wanted to cancel my subscription and offer me a year for $89 or something like that. OK with me. I guess their monthly invoices were costing them a lot, but then what do I know about newspaper accounting practices?

]]>
By: Felix Salmon http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/26/the-nyts-geffen-put/comment-page-1/#comment-1975 Tue, 26 May 2009 17:37:03 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/26/the-nyts-geffen-put/#comment-1975 I think the advertised rates are discounted rates for first-time subscribers. But I’m not sure on where the $811 comes from. That’s $62.38 every four weeks; I’m currently paying $42.40. They wouldn’t serve up a 47% increase, would they?

]]>
By: Curmudgeon http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/26/the-nyts-geffen-put/comment-page-1/#comment-1971 Tue, 26 May 2009 16:41:07 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/26/the-nyts-geffen-put/#comment-1971 Hmmm. It’s unclear whether we should be basing whether or not a newspaper should stay in business on its status as a “sacred trust,” especially a webophobic one.

]]>
By: dWj http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/26/the-nyts-geffen-put/comment-page-1/#comment-1970 Tue, 26 May 2009 16:41:03 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/26/the-nyts-geffen-put/#comment-1970 I’m curious about the discrepancy between the commenter’s numbers and Chuttum’s. I also wonder whether New York’s income disparity works in the NYT’s favor vis-a-vis the metric you ask about; NYT could get by on primarily the upper third of New Yorkers. So I wonder what the median income of New York household who subscribe to NYT is.

]]>
By: infirm http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/26/the-nyts-geffen-put/comment-page-1/#comment-1968 Tue, 26 May 2009 16:16:13 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/26/the-nyts-geffen-put/#comment-1968 OK, I entered a bunch of different zip codes into the NYT subscription site. Seems like for most of the country outside of the NYC area, a daily subscription costs $350/yr. You can’t get it at all in Juneau, Honolulu or San Juan, but you can get Sunday only in Anchorage for $3.40/week.

]]>
By: infirm http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/26/the-nyts-geffen-put/comment-page-1/#comment-1966 Tue, 26 May 2009 16:07:12 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/26/the-nyts-geffen-put/#comment-1966 Don’t believe everything you tweet. Per the site, a daily subscription will set you back $275 bucks. Or does Ryan Chittum live somewhere very remote? The rate I quoted is for NYC delivery.

]]>