Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1.    #1  
    Hi all,

    It's too early to tell how the NY Times pay wall is working out, (please read the inclosed article with a (major) grain of salt)!

    However you have to read between the lines to find the truth in this article. Just prior to instituting the pay wall the NY Times claimed 25 MILLION members visiting the NY Times site monthly.

    Of course it is very soon after they instituted the pay wall....HOWEVER ONLY 100,000 PEOPLE SIGNED UP, THAT'S RIGHT ONLY ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE SIGNED UP.

    That is less than 1/2 of one percent.....News is available all over the place for free. Plus I visit at least 2 to 3 dozen news sites a day...do they expect me to join all of them????

    They should have asked for an anti-trust waiver from the US Government and had a fee that allowed you access to dozens of news sites. $15 a month for dozens of news sites is much more agreeable than $15 EACH for dozens of news sites.

    After almost 2 decades of getting news for free online it is almost impossible to get a large number of people signing up.

    The NY Times has pointed to the Wall St Journal, which has always been by subscription thinking the pay wall will be a very profitable situation ... however they only have just over 1 million members, which is a drop in the bucket ( 1/25th of what the NY Times had in month readers, prior to instituting the pay wall).

    Take care,

    Jay

    Times Company Profit Falls on Weak Ad Revenue

    By JEREMY W. PETERS,April 21, 2011

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/bu...gewanted=print

    The New York Times Company reported a sharp drop in net income in the first quarter as the print advertising market remained stubbornly depressed for newspapers.

    The company said net income fell 57.6 percent to $5.4 million, compared with $12.8 million in the quarter a year ago.

    The weakness in print advertising, coupled with an unexpected drop in revenue at About.com, led to earnings of 4 cents a share before special items are excluded, compared with 8 cents a share in the period a year ago.

    Revenue for the quarter dropped 3.6 percent to $566.5 million. Total advertising revenue declined 4.4 percent, but the performance by advertising sector varied widely. At The New York Times Media Group, which includes the namesake paper, NYTimes.com and The International Herald Tribune, the decline was 1.9 percent.

    Digital advertising across the company grew 4.5 percent. As a percentage of the company’s total advertising revenue, digital was 28 percent, up from 25.6 percent a year earlier.

    At the New England Media Group, which includes The Boston Globe, advertising revenue fell 5.1 percent. At the Regional Media Group, which includes local newspapers from Florida to California, the decline was 9.7 percent.

    About.com, which experienced a loss in visitors after Google refined its search algorithms, saw a 10.2 percent drop in revenue.

    The results did not reflect any revenue from the start of an online subscription model for NYTimes.com, which began after the end of the first quarter.

    For the first time, the Times Company provided information on how digital subscriptions were faring. The company said that since it started limiting the number of articles readers could read on NYTimes.com for free, it has signed up more than 100,000 subscribers. While it said the program was still too young to judge a success, “early indicators are encouraging.” Subscriptions start at $15 every four weeks, but many subscribers have so far paid discounted introductory rates.

    The company said it was optimistic that digital subscriptions would help improve the bottom line in the second quarter.

    “While the challenges for our company and for the larger economy are not yet behind us, the recent launch of the Times digital subscription packages on NYTimes.com and across other digital platforms brings our plan for a new revenue stream to life, offering us another reason for optimism about the future,” the chief executive, Janet L. Robinson, said.

    Operating costs at the Times Company were essentially flat at $535.4 million. Rising newsprint costs continued to weigh on the company. They rose 12.7 percent, offset partially by other factors, including a drop in circulation. Circulation revenue fell 3.7 percent, to $228 million.

    The company ended the quarter with $352 million in cash and short-term investments, a lower amount than at the end of 2010 because of $54 million in pension contributions.
    Please Support Research into Fibromyalgia, Chronic Pain and Spinal Injuries. If You Suffer from These, Consider Joining or Better Yet Forming a Support Group. No One Should Suffer from the Burden of Chronic Pain, Jay M. S. Founder, Leesburg Fibromyalgia/Resources Group
  2. #2  
    I think it's a dud too, because they charge too much for digital distribution. Had they not overpriced it, they might have done better. It's true, news is free on the net. But if you really want to read the NYT on your digital device, the least they could do is make it a reasonable fee since they have no paper issues to worry about.

    P.S. I just looked and their fee schedule is also too complicated. But now they have .99 cent introductory sale going on, that's more like it! Even if they went a bit higher for regular pricing, it's OK IMO. But $35 a month for no paper issues is a joke IMO!

    http://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions...mpaignid=37XQH
    Last edited by The Phone Diva; 04/21/2011 at 04:49 PM.
    HP has officially ruined it's own platform and kicked webOS loyalists and early TouchPad adopters to the curb. You think after you drop it like a hot potato and mention it made no money and is costing you money, anyone else wants it??? Way to go HP!!

    And some people are fools to keep believing their hype. HP has shown they will throw webOS under the bus and people are still having faith in them??? News flash: if it's own company won't stand behind it, it's finished!
  3. #3  
    Nothing is free. Ad-supported is not the same as free. As I've said before, when you cut-and-paste entire articles, you are essentially driving more nails in the NYTimes' coffin, since people can now read the article without visiting the Times' site and viewing their ads. If you really want the Times to recover, encourage people to view their ads instead of subverting them.
    Touchscreens are a fad.
  4. #4  
    The Times should keep it's .99 cent introductory rate as permanent, and maybe charge $1.99 for both smartphone and tablet access. Problem solved. People have shown they will pay a dollar or two. But $35? Uh uh, not when you can still access news for free. Even if ad supported, I haven't paid anything out of my pocket to view news in a long while. Except for the internet and data access of course.

    I could also turn the TV back on and get news.
    HP has officially ruined it's own platform and kicked webOS loyalists and early TouchPad adopters to the curb. You think after you drop it like a hot potato and mention it made no money and is costing you money, anyone else wants it??? Way to go HP!!

    And some people are fools to keep believing their hype. HP has shown they will throw webOS under the bus and people are still having faith in them??? News flash: if it's own company won't stand behind it, it's finished!
  5.    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by The Phone Diva View Post
    . But $35 a month for no paper issues is a joke IMO!

    The New York Times[/COLOR]
    Dear Ms Diva,

    The cost of the the actual NY Times in print is less than the $35 fee they want for being able to read it on an Ipad! The entire price structure they selected is totally out of control! Take care,

    Jay
    Please Support Research into Fibromyalgia, Chronic Pain and Spinal Injuries. If You Suffer from These, Consider Joining or Better Yet Forming a Support Group. No One Should Suffer from the Burden of Chronic Pain, Jay M. S. Founder, Leesburg Fibromyalgia/Resources Group
  6. #6  
    I did see that somewhere and this is a huge mistake. Digital should always be less. They do not have to worry about unsold papers, paying people to drop papers off, put in the boxes, etc.

    Their main problem is pricing themselves out of the digital market. I think even WSJ digital is less per year. Plus they managed to exclude Kindle/eReader users with an isolated pricing format. I don't understand what they're doing unless it's to try to drive up paper subscriptions. but lets face it, those will go the way of the dodo within the next 10 years, if not sooner. The sooner publishing gets this, the better.
    HP has officially ruined it's own platform and kicked webOS loyalists and early TouchPad adopters to the curb. You think after you drop it like a hot potato and mention it made no money and is costing you money, anyone else wants it??? Way to go HP!!

    And some people are fools to keep believing their hype. HP has shown they will throw webOS under the bus and people are still having faith in them??? News flash: if it's own company won't stand behind it, it's finished!
  7.    #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by The Phone Diva View Post
    I did see that somewhere and this is a huge mistake. Digital should always be less. They do not have to worry about unsold papers, paying people to drop papers off, put in the boxes, etc.

    Their main problem is pricing themselves out of the digital market. I think even WSJ digital is less per year. Plus they managed to exclude Kindle/eReader users with an isolated pricing format. I don't understand what they're doing unless it's to try to drive up paper subscriptions. but lets face it, those will go the way of the dodo within the next 10 years, if not sooner. The sooner publishing gets this, the better.
    Dear Ms. Diva & all,

    Yet, the NYT has repeatedly stated while speaking of this new pay wall, they want to to be the number one stop for all news and streaming videos on news issues as well as lifestyle issues, siighting readership they expect in the future in the tens of millions of PAID readers.

    Only 100,000 paid users and a pricing structure that is foolish & isn't going to get them to number one.

    A few days before the NYT formally announced the pay wall rates, I read an article, (I don't know if it was on the NYT but I doubt it), saying that the pay wall issue was discussed for over a years period of time and it greatly divided upper management let alone the rest of the NYT's employees).

    The last pay wall that the NYT closed down years ago, was so hated by the columnists b/c that was what the pay wall was blocking access to. They got so tired of very low readership of the columns that they leaned on the NYT to drop it.

    NY Newsday, which is a Long Island NY newspaper, (for those of you who don't know, two of NY's boroughs, (the 5 counties that make up NYC are called Boroughs or Boros of NYC), Queens County & King's County (AKA Brooklyn), are situated starting on the western end of Long Island, (Brooklyn is first then Queens is second from the western tip of "The Island") with two more counties Nassau & Suffolk Counties making up the balance of Long Island, (Nassau & Suffolk Counties AREN'T part of NYC).

    Nassau county which adjoins Queens county on it's eastern edge along with Suffolk county have their own newspaper which is name is NY Newsday.

    Newsday recently went to a pay wall, they aren't charging any fees to those who subscribe to the print edition or those who subscribe to Cablevision Cable TV, the new owner of Newsday, (the former owner I believe was The Tribune Corporation, (based in Chicago))

    The first quarter saw less than 1,000 (one thousand) paying members using the pay wall. Newsday expected to pick up a lot of paid members from Florida since thee are so many transplanted Long Islanders live here in Sunny Florida. However it is more than likely over one year since they put in the pay wall and I understand the total number of paid members is so low, that is well below what Newsday's projections would be.

    Much less than 10% of the former total number of readers...I'm sure their advertisers aren't happy. Newsday can't be either, b/c if they don't get a promised number of hits per month to Newsday's website, Newsday has to REFUND money to the advertisers.

    As I stated above, The Times of London lost over 90% of it's readership due to the pay wall.

    The newspaper industry created the financial mess it's in now, by giving away news for free for so long.

    Even if the NYT keeps 10% of it's readership which is 2.5 million readers, (which is a generous amount when looking at the membership totals from the Times of London & Newsday) that will make it about twice the number of paid members than the Wall St Journal, yet it is 22,500,000 readers less per month!

    Given these tough economic times I wonder how many of those that have signed up will keep it... everyone that I know that has a pad type device is appalled at the rate structure to use your Ipad to read the NYT.

    Take care,

    Jay
    Please Support Research into Fibromyalgia, Chronic Pain and Spinal Injuries. If You Suffer from These, Consider Joining or Better Yet Forming a Support Group. No One Should Suffer from the Burden of Chronic Pain, Jay M. S. Founder, Leesburg Fibromyalgia/Resources Group
  8. #8  
    Is the Newsday subscription as overpriced as NYT? And was the Times of London? I still think loyal readers will pay, just not as much as they're asking. People know digital should cost less.
    HP has officially ruined it's own platform and kicked webOS loyalists and early TouchPad adopters to the curb. You think after you drop it like a hot potato and mention it made no money and is costing you money, anyone else wants it??? Way to go HP!!

    And some people are fools to keep believing their hype. HP has shown they will throw webOS under the bus and people are still having faith in them??? News flash: if it's own company won't stand behind it, it's finished!
  9.    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by The Phone Diva View Post
    Is the Newsday subscription as overpriced as NYT? And was the Times of London? I still think loyal readers will pay, just not as much as they're asking. People know digital should cost less.
    Dear Diva,

    Since I am quoting extensively in this posting, I will put my name in parenthesis in order for all you to keep track of my comments within this posting:

    (Jay) Here is some rate info and and a rather funny article from The NY Observer about L.I. Newsday's rates:


    $5 a week, or $260 a year, to get unfettered access to newsday.com

    Which turns out to be HIGHER than the plain vanilla subscription to the NY Times, (unlimited digital access to the NY Times costs between $15 and $35 a month).

    The funny part of the LI Newsday is that only 35 people signed up for the LI Newsday's service:

    After Three Months, Only 35 Subscriptions for Newsday's Web Site | The New York Observer

    (Jay) The NY Times says:

    Times managers continue to insist that they're none too concerned with the initial metrics.

    ... the first evidence of that dropoff came today via Experian Hitwise, an analytics firm that logged traffic on nytimes.com in the 12 days before and after the March 28 pay meter launch.

    "For the majority of the days, there was a decrease in the overall visits between 5 percent and 15 percent," according to Experian. "The one exception was Saturday, April 9th, 2011 where there was a 7percent increase, likely due to visitors seeking news around the potential government shutdown and ongoing budget discussions." Additionally: "The effect of the pay wall has been somewhat stronger upon the total page views for the NYTimes.com, with the same comparison of a 12 day period before the launch of the pay wall to the 12 days following the launch. For all 12 days, there was a decline in total page views which ranged between 11 percent and 30 percent."

    Stating the obvious: NYTimes.com losing traffic since paid model kicked in - Yahoo! News

    (Jay) MAKE SURE YOU SEE THE CHART TRACKING THE DROP IN TRAFFIC FOR THE NY TIMES, AT THE LINK JUST ABOVE.

    The 100,000 members may be a skewed number since the NY Times says:

    Some of those 100,000 subscribers signed up as part of a four-week $.99 trial offer.

    New York Times has more than 100K paid digital subscribers; Q1 profits plummet - Yahoo! News

    (Jay) The NY Times has quickly learned what my wonderful late Dad had said all of my life, People lie with statistics.

    New York Times Shares Fall as Ad Sales, Circulation Decline - Businessweek

    “My break-even number for subscriptions for 12 months is 200,000, and the Times is already at 100,000 after three weeks,” said Douglas Arthur, an analyst at Evercore Partners in New York who has an “overweight” rating on shares and doesn’t own any. “That’s a pretty good number.”

    (Jay) The figure is break even for the subscripition, it HOWEVER DOESN'T INLCLUDE THE LOSS OF AD RATES! Less hits tot the website, means less revenue as ad rates are clculated by number of hits...The NY Times guarantees a certain minium number of hits to it's site within a month...if it falls below that amount they have to REFUND money to the advertisers, (just as they do with TV ads rates)....

    (Jay) As I pointed out earlier they also fail to mention some of the paying members:

    (Jay) Some of those 100,000 subscribers signed up as part of a four-week $.99 trial offer.

    (Jay) Notice that they FORGOT to mention in the the last link provided, the total number who have signed up for the four week $.99 trail offer... obviously not all of them are going to be willing to go from $.99 to for ONE month to $15 to paying $15 to $35 A MONTH!

    (Jay) Even the publisher of the NY Times is speaking out of at least two sides of his mouth at the same time:

    Stating the obvious: NYTimes.com losing traffic since paid model kicked in - Yahoo! News

    "This is not about what's happening over the next month, or the next quarter, or even the next year," said Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. during a talk at Columbia's journalism school last week. "This is a longer-term bet on where we think the digital world is going. We don't want to get into this day by day mentality."

    And it could be a lot worse: Had the Times opted for an unconditional pay model, as News Corp's Times of London did, the paper would have been looking at a much steeper decline. The U.K. Times was said to have lost 90 percent of its web traffic in the months after putting up its paywall last May.

    (Jay) IMO people are going to be very picky how they "spend" their 20 FREE articles a month, but the vast majority WON'T PAY FOR ARTICLES FROMM THE NY TIMES OR ANYWHERE ELSE.

    (Jay) Look what they mention about the Times of London:

    (Jay) For all of Rupert Murdock's fanfare the numbers of the Times of London are having a more chilling effect not just in how may people actually sign up for the pay wall, or how much advertisers are willing to pay the rates of the Times of London...to be honest, this issue is one I hadn't thought of:

    Has Rupert Murdoch's paywall gamble paid off? - Online, Media - The Independent

    ...publicists have told me that clients are increasingly reluctant to give interviews or stories to The Times, on the grounds that they would not be made freely available via search engines. Dan Sabbagh, a former media editor at The Times who now runs the media website Beehive City, says News International journalists are frustrated by the decline in their audience.

    (Jay) Advertiser aren't happy either:

    Faced with a collapse in traffic to thetimes.co.uk, some advertisers have simply abandoned the site. Rob Lynam, head of press trading at the media agency MEC, whose clients include Lloyds Banking Group, Orange, Morrisons and Chanel, says, "We are just not advertising on it. If there's no traffic on there, there's no point in advertising on there." Lynam says he has been told by News International insiders that traffic to The Times site has fallen by 90 per cent since the introduction of charges. "That was the same forecast they were giving us prior to registration and the paywall going up, so whether it's a reflection on reality or not, I don't know."

    (Jay) Although I don't expect Murdock will admit defeat quickly:

    Sabbagh produced figures at the outset of the paywall experiment showing that 15,000 people had subscribed to the new website, with 12,500 signing up for a Times iPad application. He was surprised by the reaction. "I didn't think the figures were too bad, but the way they were taken up was that they were catastrophic."

    He believes that the project will be made to work. "It's a long slog, but I don't detect any signs of [News International] being massively ruffled by the progress," he says. "News is a long-term business, and they are going to stick at this."

    (Jay) This just goes to show that some INSIDERS in the Newspaper business seem to be more optimistic about people willing to pay than they public is actually willing to pay.

    (Jay) Losing 90% of your online readers is appalling, losing money not just b/c you have to refund ad revenue or charge less to begin with due to lower traffic, but for advertiser just wash their hands of your site altogether is horrendous from a business point of view.

    (Underlined is Jay's) Then there is the wildcard that I pointed out above, "publicists have told me that clients are increasingly reluctant to give interviews or stories to The Times".

    (*Jay)Unless the industry adopts a rate structure for ONE pay wall to cover a HUGE SELECTION of newspapers, people will go elsewhere!

    (Jay) After all news is still free almost everywhere else online!

    (Jay) Also don't forget that the NY Times has been down a similar road before. They instituted a pay wall around just the columns written by their rotating team of columnists that have written for the NY Times print edition for years...as well as editorial content from not just the columnists but those reflecting the views of the publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr. & his family which have published the NY Times for over a century.

    (Jay) That pay wall was a disaster, traffic for the columnists and editorial content of the Times itself dropped off so much that columnists were so upset they threated to walk away from the newspaper. I seem to remember the last pay wall lasted about a year.

    (Jay) BTW the rate structure for the Times of London is as follows:

    The Times - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    (Jay), I know Wikipedia is not always accurate, however since this is taking the rate structure directly from the Times of London's own website, i am listing it here, (besides I couldn't locate the online rate structure on Times of London's own site)

    Rupert Murdoch argued that readers should pay for online content, and since July 2010, News International requires readers that do not already subscribe to the print edition to pay £1 per day or £2 per week to access Times and Sunday Times content.

    According to figures released in November 2010 by The Times, 100,000 people had paid to use the service in its first four months of operation, as well as another 100,000 people who receive free access due to subscribing to the printed version of the newspaper. Visits to the websites have decreased by 87% since the paywall was introduced, from 21 million unique users per month to 2.7 million

    (Jay, at today's conversion rate of the $US to the British Pound Sterling (04/23/2011 1:45 AM EST, US$1.65 PER DAY TO READ THE ONLINE EDITION OF THE TIMES OF LONDON, MONDAY THRU SATURDAY, HOWEVER SUNDAY IS AN ADDITIONAL US$3.30, ( A STAGGERING US$42.80 FOR 4 WEEKS, (28 DAYS), (so sorry th shout, put dropping a hammer on my foot would have startled me less than over US$40 a month for the Times of London, (I now know how Rupert became a billionaire, (a greedy one at that))).

    (Jay) Conversion rates of $US to the British Pound Sterling, calculated using the following website:

    Calculator for Pound Sterling (GBP) Currency Exchange Rate Conversion
    Take care,

    Jay

    (Jay) PS. The NY Times HAD 4 million more hits per month than the Times of London used to have and yet they are down to the same 100,000 paid subscribers, keep in mind the 100,000 figure for the NY Times, includes some who are getting their online subscription for $.99 for the first 4 weeks. We & they have no idea how many people who signed up for the $.99 rate and how many of them will stay on with the subscription when it rises next month from $.99 to $15 to $35 a month!

    (Jay) (The Times of London has 100,000 who actually get home delivery and get FREE membership. The NY Times has the same deal, however they haven't disclosed how many home delivery customers are online subscribers as well).

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/op...%20wall&st=cse

    Take care all,

    Jay
    Last edited by ilovedessert; 04/23/2011 at 01:19 AM.
    Please Support Research into Fibromyalgia, Chronic Pain and Spinal Injuries. If You Suffer from These, Consider Joining or Better Yet Forming a Support Group. No One Should Suffer from the Burden of Chronic Pain, Jay M. S. Founder, Leesburg Fibromyalgia/Resources Group
  10.    #10  
    Hi all,

    In doing research for my last posting, I came across the following article. It contends that the pay wall of the NY Times isn't actually a pay wall but a " It’s more like a pretend pay wall".

    Please click on the supplied link to read the entire article. However the NY Times seems to have deliberately created a way to circumvent the pay wall and from the content of the article.

    ...The Times’s pay wall won’t drive away readers, because it’s not really a pay wall. It’s more like a pretend pay wall. Here’s how it works: non-subscribers can view up to 20 articles a month for free. They can also — free of charge — view up to 25 articles a day that they find through search engines and an unlimited number of articles that they find via blogs and social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. In addition, non-subscribers can access The Times’s home page and the landing pages for all of the paper’s different sections — Sports, Politics, Business, etc. — an unlimited number of times.

    The New York Times pay wall fails | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

    I'm going to book mark this article and keep in on hand.....I have to agree the NY Times couldn't have been so careless & stupid FOR THIS TO BE AN ACCIDENT, (to have left these swiss cheese holes in their system)....This way they can say, we still have a lot of hits to our site to the ad people but they can also claim extra fees from members who either don't know that these loopholes exist or don't know how to exploit them.

    Take care,

    Jay
    Please Support Research into Fibromyalgia, Chronic Pain and Spinal Injuries. If You Suffer from These, Consider Joining or Better Yet Forming a Support Group. No One Should Suffer from the Burden of Chronic Pain, Jay M. S. Founder, Leesburg Fibromyalgia/Resources Group
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by ilovedessert View Post
    have to agree the NY Times couldn't have been so careless & stupid FOR THIS TO BE AN ACCIDENT, (to have left these swiss cheese holes in their system)....
    I definitely would not put it passed them judging by their previous epic failures at content protection. Being able to link directly to the "print page" URL of an article? That's no loophole. That's sheer stupidity.
    Touchscreens are a fad.
  12. vreihen's Avatar
    Posts
    495 Posts
    Global Posts
    506 Global Posts
    #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by Syndil View Post
    Being able to link directly to the "print page" URL of an article? That's no loophole. That's sheer stupidity.
    My local newspaper (owned by Dow Jones) recently put up a pay wall that lets you read X many articles per week for free. Guess where they store the count of the articles you've read? In a browser cookie on your computer! If their technology staff are this ignorant about basic 21st century technology, I can only imagine how bad the management and editorial staff are.....
    Sent from my Etch-a-Sketch.

    #staycoolmybabies
  13. #13  
    IMO, if you're a local NY resident, you should pay the sub rates. If you're nonlocal, make it cheaper. I don't consider the NYtimes that vital to me since I live in KY. But i do consider it a good news source to read. But obviously the value to me is diminished compared to a local NY reader. Pricing should reflect this. But there's other national news for free i can read and i don't care about NY local news.
  14. #14  
    Why should anyone overpay for digital, local or not? The only people who get a decent deal are dead paper subscribers and I still suspect that's really what these publications want.

    And the Times of London is an out and out digital rip off of the worst kind!!
    HP has officially ruined it's own platform and kicked webOS loyalists and early TouchPad adopters to the curb. You think after you drop it like a hot potato and mention it made no money and is costing you money, anyone else wants it??? Way to go HP!!

    And some people are fools to keep believing their hype. HP has shown they will throw webOS under the bus and people are still having faith in them??? News flash: if it's own company won't stand behind it, it's finished!
  15.    #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by The Phone Diva View Post
    Why should anyone overpay for digital, local or not? The only people who get a decent deal are dead paper subscribers and I still suspect that's really what these publications want.

    And the Times of London is an out and out digital rip off of the worst kind!!
    HI all,

    Ms. Diva as usual you hit the nail on the head...


    The Times of London: I expect Rupert Murdock will NEVER knuckle under and see how foolish his price structure is, he's the kind that not just has never apologized and said, "I'm wrong", he also doesn't know the meaning of the term "I was wrong"....

    For decades after decade after decade the newspaper industry made fortunes, after all the same family has run the NY Times for almost all of it's 150 year history, making each generation richer than the one before...however times they are a changing.

    IE: ...the ship industry lost out to planes for people who want to go to abroad, the airline industry radically changed when it was deregulated...the robber barons of the newspaper industry can't understand that unless EVERY news site installs a pay wall, pay for news sites will fail.

    They need to band together to make a fair structure that allows people such as myself who routinely goes to 20 or 30 news sites a day. As I said earlier... Murdock & the NY Times may think that many people will join, however I certainly am not joining 30 newspaper pay plans!

    Even if they did band together to charge a unified price structure, it most certainly won't work...if the news industry charged from the beginning of the Internet we would all have paid it & never had a second thought. However, we all have been online for approx 2 decades...and NOW they are charging after we all are used to and expect news for free?

    I still feel that the NY Times plan will eventually fail, even though they left in huge loopholes so they can claim high numbers of hits & still wow those who don't know about the loopholes and make a few extra bucks...as word spreads on how to use the NY Times loopholes, one of 3 things will happen.

    1. The Times closes the loopholes and the number of hits per month drop like a stone and the NYT has to drop the plan due to angry advertisers.

    or

    2. They leave the loopholes open and more people exploit the loopholes and paid membership drops & then the NYT realizes it was a colossal waste.

    or

    3. The NYT sticks it's head in the ground and ends up like Murdock's mess with the Times of London: losing advertisers left and right, losing reporters who feel not enough people read their scoops, losing sources who won't spill the beans to a newspaper that has lost it's credibility, since it lost most of it's readership and is too dumb to drop or at least modify their insane price structure.

    Take care,

    Jay

    PS. to exploit the NYT's loopholes see this article:

    The New York Times pay wall fails | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
    Please Support Research into Fibromyalgia, Chronic Pain and Spinal Injuries. If You Suffer from These, Consider Joining or Better Yet Forming a Support Group. No One Should Suffer from the Burden of Chronic Pain, Jay M. S. Founder, Leesburg Fibromyalgia/Resources Group
  16. #16  
    I think you misunderstand how ad counters work, with your assumption that the loopholes are intentional. Ad sites, apparently unlike news sites, are not run by people who do not understand technology, and are able to track with absolute precision how many times their ads are displayed, how many times they are clicked, and how many times a person clicking said ad actually makes a purchase. They are not concerned with how many people actually visit the NYTimes site.
    Last edited by Syndil; 04/25/2011 at 03:37 AM.
  17. #17  
    Everybody always wants to charge you a ridiculous amount of money to read the same content on a different device. I mean, really....$15 for a smartphone app, $20 for a browser extension/tablet app, and $35 for both?

    The funny thing is that they say the $35 plan is the best value, but...that's only during the $0.99 introductory period! After that, it's a combined price of the smartphone and tablet option! There's not even a discount for the fact that you're reading the exact same article content...just on different devices.
    screwdestiny
    PSNTwitterLast.FM

Posting Permissions