Comments on: NYT reveals its paywall hopes http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/03/21/nyt-reveals-its-paywall-hopes/ 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: Greenfelder http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/03/21/nyt-reveals-its-paywall-hopes/comment-page-1/#comment-25291 Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:43:43 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=7686#comment-25291 Now that the “Gucci Set” has solidified it’s grip on the American media and geopolitical landscape, and the middle class has joined the bread lines, it is inevitable the war-justifications and spin offered by the NY Times will appeal only to a vanishing cross-section of society. They have completely lost all journalistic credibility to those who have been victimized by the Times’s whitewashing of 9/11, pandering to every proposed military intervention and generally elitist editorial stance. Soon only Hedge fund managers and Billionaires will read it so they don’t have to admit the Emperors wear no clothes.

]]>
By: AbeB http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/03/21/nyt-reveals-its-paywall-hopes/comment-page-1/#comment-25286 Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:29:57 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=7686#comment-25286 I still think the critical metric for the paywall is how well it props up the print subscription base.

The paywall is deliberately porous to keep up the online pageviews they are well aware that long term their future lies in being able to generate more online revenue. But it’s seems pretty clear that online revenues aren’t large enough to prop up an infrastructure built in another era.

The prices of the paywall are deliberately competitive to subscription prices so that subscribers who are thinking of going online only hesitate and instead renew the print subscription. If the Times can stem the loss of their circulation base or even grow it, while maintaining most of their online page views then they win for the short term. At that point the issue becomes one of how does the pricing discrepancy between print and online level out. If online prices rise to meet print prices then the NYT is golden, but if print sinks to current online prices they’re stuck with the same problem they have today, an infrastructure too expensive to maintain on their revenue.

No matter how it slices though the revenue from the paywall itself is mainly bonus money, the core revenue to prop up the Times is expensive ad rates. They have it in print but not in web yet. The strategy seems to be a short term shoring up of the print side, and likely a longer term bet that web rates rise for what the Times sees as premium content…

]]>
By: Woltmann http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/03/21/nyt-reveals-its-paywall-hopes/comment-page-1/#comment-25277 Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:40:10 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=7686#comment-25277 Marketing strangulation leads to sensationalism leads to loss of journalistic relevance. For a crummy $60M a year. The news they peddle is available elsewhere just for the searching. They’re in it for the long term? Settle in and watch the long, slow tortured demise of what was once a good rag ..

]]>
By: pat30068 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/03/21/nyt-reveals-its-paywall-hopes/comment-page-1/#comment-25266 Mon, 21 Mar 2011 22:04:44 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=7686#comment-25266 The NYTs had a shot at being one of the first truly world papers but has instead chosen to address a very small, well off audience, people who click on Gucci ads rather than Gap ads. They have told most Americans such as myself (retired, fixed income) to F off. I wonder how influential the paper will be with such a small audience, even one as well off as its target. And how the journalists will feel about reaching such a small and insular group.

I rarely pay for anything digital but I would pay $48 per year for a Times subscription. At $24 a year they could have had a worldwide audience. Now I will have to content myself with the BBC and NPR and watching Slashdot and Reddit for word on how to breach the paywall.

]]>
By: andiman1 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/03/21/nyt-reveals-its-paywall-hopes/comment-page-1/#comment-25263 Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:57:03 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=7686#comment-25263 NYT is a top-notch paper despite the routine bashing they receive from the Right. I am a fan and I want NYT to thrive. Charge me a reasonably price and I will gladly pay.

]]>
By: JimInMissoula http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/03/21/nyt-reveals-its-paywall-hopes/comment-page-1/#comment-25256 Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:12:36 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=7686#comment-25256 I’m surprised at the price. I’m not one who thinks everything should be free on the web, but I think they could do a lot better with a ~$5/mo. and then ratchet it up a little over time. Making people jump over that high pay wall right off the bat seems like bad strategy.

]]>
By: RZ0 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/03/21/nyt-reveals-its-paywall-hopes/comment-page-1/#comment-25255 Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:10:53 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=7686#comment-25255 Times should be charging $10 per year. Based on 30 million viewers per month, it would have to retain 20% of its current traffic to generate the same revenue as the new subscription plan.
And it would be easier to ratchet up that $10 per year charge than the new scheme. Charge $10.50 next year and you’ll gain 5% on revenues, and the customer won’t notice the difference (his cost went up 50 cents a YEAR – big whoop)
Another thing the Times doesn’t understand is why its information is valuable. The Times writing about Japan quake isn’t inherently, automatically more valuable than what, say, the BBC says. So why would I pay more for it?
The Times’ value is its function setting the agenda for discussion. An article on say, education, will spark debate that a similar article in the Chicago Tribune won’t – because it’s in the Times.
It used to be that an article would appear in the Times, then the newsmagazines would pick it up, then the TV networks. And it would work its way down through the regional dailies, to the small-town papers.
But think for a second – how will a Times story start a discussion in the internet era? A bunch of bloggers will link to it – precisely what the Times WON’T be charging for.

]]>
By: msobel http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/03/21/nyt-reveals-its-paywall-hopes/comment-page-1/#comment-25252 Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:22:25 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=7686#comment-25252 I (or my family) have had a subscription to the NYT almost continually since 1954. What bothers me is that when I read an article about something I know, it is biased, short sighted, incomplete, and untrustworthy. I have learned to read all articles with a jaundiced eye. Two games I play when I read an NYT article is qui bono and where’s the lede.

This is more of an issue to me than paywalls.

]]>