Comments on: Why the NYT-Flipboard deal is a smart move

By: mark sherwood

mark sherwood — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:29:27 +0000

I must be missing something. The underlying premise of this article (opinion piece?) seems to be that NYT daring to charge for their content is a bad thing. I thought that kind of view had been firmly dealt with some time ago. As much as the “everything should be free” crowd would like it to be true and obviously believe it will come true if they keep saying it, it is simply not the case that quality content can be supported by advertising. The numbers don’t add up.
Subscription is a big part of the future and NYT is leading the way.

By: Ranjan Roy

Ranjan Roy — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:25:27 +0000

Possibly a bit out there, but in the complete opposite direction, could Flipboard follow a Spotify model? Spotify’s immense value is in it’s platform. I could download each song illegally but it’s easily worth $9.99 a month to discover music, use the apps, use collaborative playlists, and even use the amazing iPhone app.

Could Flipboard license a bunch of premium content and get users to subscribe at one monthly rate? They take care of the content licensing and the user would rather consume through their beautiful platform.

By: Al Cox

Al Cox — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:59:13 +0000

Flipboards advertising model is very reminiscent of how newspaper ads and circulation selling points have been sold in the past so getting advertising dollars should be easy transition.
I will definitely be a NYT reader now thanks to Flipboard.

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:31:25 +0000

I’m not sure whether Flipboard is thinking along those lines or not, but it’s an interesting idea. Thanks for the comment Wayne.

By: Wayne Schulz

Wayne Schulz — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:29:45 +0000

At what point does it make sense to create a “pay” Flipboard where payment is collected through iTunes and distributed to partners providing content.

30% to iTunes
20% to Flipboard
50 % to Content providers