Comments on: The Biggest Flaw in NYT Pay Plan: It’s Backward-Looking

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:43:25 +0000

Many of you miss the point. You won’t be able to get the news elsewhere for free, because the NYT will shut down the aggregators.

OF COURSE Huff Post can make it work, they get stuff for free. If I could take stereos out of the store for free, then sell them even for $10, I’d look smart and rich. The pay model will work fine when more and more reputable papers move to it, along with professional reporters. Then Yahoo (which does a good job with original sports content), HuffPo, Google News, etc., will be dried up wells and folks will get what they value — independent news — at a fair price.

By: Guy

Guy — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:16:32 +0000

The rates are not per month, they are for 4 weeks!

By: Yacko

Yacko — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:02:26 +0000

But free or not, what’s the point? Why should I have to worry, I click on a link – will I see it or get a subscription appeal? The NYT is toxic. Any information that comes from them is not worth the trouble. I’ve watched a page load halt for a good long while for meter.nyt or whatever, for stories, editorial and NYT blogs. It isn’t worth it, they are off my radar as links to follow. I suggest everybody just ignore them as if they never have existed. Problem solved.

By: N. Paper

N. Paper — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:58:05 +0000

Basically they are saying we are going to give up and ride out our paper subscribers until they die off. And then fade away into obscurity.

My assumption is the paper subscribers are older and aren’t being replaced with new younger subscribers at the same rate in which the older ones die off.

It is ridiculous because I think many of the older subscriber will continue to get the paper no matter what. It is what they are used to. Not everyone mind you, but quite a few.

Also ridiculous because they could be cementing their future with the younger crowd. High pricepoints don’t do that. You can always raise the price in the future. For now get them used to paying something however small.

And be transparent with your cost structure. I would publish my cost structure right on the front of the webpage somewhere.

Also why not let subscribers access and pay only for the parts of the newspaper they want. If they have absolutely no interest in sports then they don’t pay for sports. NO interest in editorials? They don’t pay for them. No interest in theatre? Don’t have to pay.

Just want local news? Ditto.

Digital distribution allows this. And again my theory is charge a bit to get consumers used to paying and put your cost structure on the front of the page somewhere.

Last improve the webpage. IT’s a mess. There are so many stories and links that it is overwhelming. And there is little differentiation between the NYT site and other sites. I would think a less is more strategy would fare better.

Especially if the less is unique content. YOu can read headlines anywhere.

By: Baz

Baz — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:23:46 +0000

The Paywall is an effort to give the ‘appearance’ of value to subscribers of the NY Times hard copy. As it stands, it is cheaper for their paper’s subscriber to take their paper and toss it into their recycling bin, only in order to access the paper on their portable device of choice than to subscribe only to the Paywall. Their Paywall is meant to keep / get subscribers to the paper edition, which is where they need the eyeballs to justify their its existence and for their bottom line.
Sure, there are work-arounds for savvy, determined readers of the online NY Times – but the NY Times likely see those additional steps as not attractive to their regular reader. These folks just want to open an app and read the paper – and again, its easier to do so if you’ve already got the paper subscription.

By: Nanker Phelge

Nanker Phelge — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:55:29 +0000

Comrade, many companies charge for things in capitalist system. Calling this a money grab makes it obvious you are not familiar with capitalist thinking. Report back to Moscow immediately.

By: Greg Satell

Greg Satell — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 05:03:20 +0000

Jeff,

Well, I’ve run some very profitable and highly respected news businesses online, so all I can do is speak from my own experience.

As for designing services and features, there’s no problem as long as there’s a clear demarcation between journalism and promotion (i.e. a mobile phone sponsorship for citizen journalism).

- Greg

By: Bess

Bess — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 02:32:42 +0000

Another interesting point is that apparently no one at The NY Times has thought about business customers. I am a librarian at a law firm. When I called to inquire about enterprise licensing I was informed that nothing is offered except the individual subscription and no decision has been made for any other type of subscription.
Most of the 100 plus electronic subscriptions that we maintain have a scale for number of users such as 1-5,6-10 and up. You reach some economy of scale and many have firm wide access with IP authentication so we, the librarians do not have to manage over 700 individual accounts with individual user names and passwords.
How can they have overlooked the corporate customer?

By: Jeff Nadler

Jeff Nadler — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 22:26:54 +0000

Good points here but fixing “Flaws in how they develop online” isn’t going to generate significant revenue even if adopted wholesale.

The only thing in here where I strongly agree on revenue generation is the creation of satellite brands. For example a NYT spinoff politics site with some unique content and all the politics-related content cloned from NYT would be an obvious net revenue win, even considering that it will take a few views away from the main NYT site.

On the other hand “Custom designing features and services that will help companies market their products” sounds like dangerous territory for an enterprise based on journalism. I have a hard time seeing how you draw a bright line to prevent this from devolving onto a full on sell-out.

By: Greg Satell

Greg Satell — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 22:06:54 +0000

It’s over a year old, but here you go: http://www.digitaltonto.com/2010/how-to-fix-the-new-york-times/