The NYT’s subscription strategy

By Felix Salmon
November 11, 2010

If a gaffe is when somebody accidentally tells the truth, then Gerry Marzorati’s latest comments probably count:

During a panel discussion at the Digital Hollywood New York conference, Gerald Marzorati, the Times’s assistant managing editor for new media and strategic initiatives, explained why the paper’s print business is still robust. “We have north of 800,000 subscribers paying north of $700 a year for home delivery,” Marzorati said. “Of course, they don’t seem to know that.”

Marzorati went on to become positively disingenuous:

“I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that they’re literally not understanding what they’re paying,” he said. “That’s the beauty of the credit card.”

Well, no. When I pay for most things by credit card, I know exactly what I’m paying. But the NYT deliberately makes it impossible to work out what the cost of a subscription is — and even if you look at your monthly credit card bill for a clue you’re likely to underestimate the true cost, since the charges come not every month but rather every four weeks.

Nothing has changed since I first wrote about this four years ago: even when you’re a subscriber, there’s nowhere on the website telling you what your subscription rate is*. There’s a FAQ, but the most obvious question of all — “how much does home delivery cost?” — isn’t on it.

Once upon a time, the NYT would actually publish its home delivery rates: in 1989 they rose from $4.25 a week to $4.50 a week, for instance, and in 2001 they rose from $7.20 to $8 for subscribers in New York, with rates as high as $10.25 elsewhere.

Today, I can tell you — but the NYT nowhere reports — that home delivery costs $11.70 per week in New York, and $14.80 per week nationally.

In other words, the price of home delivery has been rising faster than inflation for at least 20 years, and for most of that time the NYT has done its darnedest to make sure that as many subscribers are possible are ignorant of how much they’re paying. After all, it stands to reason that many subscribers would be shocked and upset to learn that they are paying $769.60 per year for their subscription. And the NYT doesn’t want to shock or upset its subscribers.

Still, the fact is that they’re not shocked or upset. Jeff Bercovici writes:

Stealthily hiking rates on the assumption that customers are too dim to catch on and/or too lazy to do anything about it is the kind of thing that gives banks, credit card companies and cell phone providers such a bad reputation.

That’s true — but the NYT has been stealthily hiking rates for decades now, and has signally failed to get a bad reputation for doing so. Clearly, it’s going to continue doing this: it’s one of the few successful business strategies in the newspaper publishing industry, so it’s obvious that the NYT should adopt it.

The downside to the strategy, insofar as there is one, is that the higher the delivery price, the harder it becomes to attract new subscribers under the age of, say, 30. But it’s always going to be hard to persuade those people to read the newspaper in print, no matter how low the price. It makes sense, in that situation, to take advantage instead of the price inelasticity of the present subscriber base.

I suspect that the NYT might attempt a similar strategy with its online paywall. If I was charged with maximizing paywall revenue, I’d start with a very low fee indeed — maybe just a buck or two a month, to attract as many subscribers as possible and to get them used to the idea of paying for content online. Once the subscriber base hit a critical mass, then I’d start raising the rate, as quietly as possible. (Much as they’ve started doing with the Kindle subscription.) It would take a few years, but the end result would be many more people paying for their online subcription than if you started off with a rate remotely comparable to the price of the print subscription.

*Update: Thanks to john_456 in the comments, there is actually somewhere on the site showing your own personal weekly delivery rate: it’s on the “My Account” page which you may or may not be able to find here.

More From Felix Salmon
Post Felix
The Piketty pessimist
The most expensive lottery ticket in the world
The problems of HFT, Joe Stiglitz edition
Private equity math, Nuveen edition
Five explanations for Greece’s bond yield
Comments
6 comments so far

We cut back our print newspaper subscription when we started noticing that we were recycling copies of the print edition that we had never opened. I suspect that this is what drives people more than anything else to cut or cancel their print subscriptions.

Posted by alkali | Report as abusive

I imagine a few will stop now. Maybe a lot. That strikes me as quite a bit of money.

I know when I looked at my cable bill and multiplied by 12 I was taken aback (which was stupid of me). Mostly I Netflix, so why am I buying all this cable I am not using? I wonder how many subscribers of NYT actually read even 10% of the articles?

Posted by fresnodan | Report as abusive

That’s as much as my mobile calling plus unlimited data plan. I wonder which is more valuable?

Posted by Curmudgeon | Report as abusive

what are you talking about? Go to “my account” and your weekly rate is right there. And if you click on “change”, it shows all of the various options and the weekly rates.

Posted by john_456 | Report as abusive

The NYT Kindle 1-year delivery rate is $239.88, with the first 60-days free on top. So you can save 530 (!) bucks a year by subscribing to the NYT on the Kindle.

Posted by dsplittgerber | Report as abusive

Since the essence of your assertion — that the Times is somehow failing to disclose its price — is completely wrong, why are we having this conversation? You want the paper to give itself away free on the Web and now you complain that it charges for the print edition. What, exactly, is your business model? Don’t tell me you still believe in the fantasy about online advertising.

Posted by Citoyen | Report as abusive
Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/