×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NYTimes.com Reports 100k Subscribers

timothy posted about 3 years ago | from the what's-the-baseline? dept.

The Almighty Buck 117

An anonymous reader writes "Despite Slashdot (and much of the internet) ridiculing the New York Time for its archaic and overpriced paywall, the newspaper has reported an excess of one hundred thousand subscribers so far. Even as loopholes are offered, the New York Times has some support which they will need as print revenues dwindle (falling a staggering 57.6 percent during the year's first quarter)." Whether 100 thousand is a high number or a low one I guess depends on the NYT's business plan. Have they lost advertising revenue, and if so, how much? Have they turned many readers to alternative news sources?

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

117 comments

probably niggers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35900192)

only niggers and republicans read the NYT. white folks stick to the huffington post.

Re:probably niggers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35900248)

But niggers don't subscribe, they steal. Duh

don't hate me just because I'm batshit crazy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35900494)

Since NYT put up the paywall, I get all my news from World Net Daily [wnd.com]!

Pure subscriptions? (5, Interesting)

NitroWolf (72977) | about 3 years ago | (#35900260)

Are these pure subscriptions, paying full price? Or are these subscriptions that come with something else or are heavily discounted? Most times, companies like this seem to include people who have print subscriptions that have accessed the website, essentially for free, or other methods of obtaining a subscription as a "subscriber." This is blatantly misleading when counting figures of how many people are actually willing to PAY in excess of what they have already paid (if anything) to obtain a subscription.

If it's a pure subscriber number, as in, 100k people have plunked down the full price of the subscription, I'd say that fairly decent. If it's including other "subscribers" who didn't have to pay or paid a fraction of the cost, I'd say they are dishonest and are trying to bolster their numbers to look good.

Re:Pure subscriptions? (2)

paugq (443696) | about 3 years ago | (#35900420)

You read my mind.

Paper subscribers do receive a complimentary all-included digital subscription [nytimes.com].

Now, digital advertising agencies are certainly interested in how many of those 100,000 subscribers are paid and how many came for free with paper. People who received the digital subscription for free are most likely to keep reading on paper (there's a reason why they are paying more for home delivery, after all).

Business-wise, it doesn't really matter whether subscriptions are pure digital subscriptions or paper subscriptions with a digital subscription for free: it's money coming in. With the digital subscriptions strategy they are cutting the bleed of people who gave up on paper and moved to reading the paper on-line for free.

Re:Pure subscriptions? (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | about 3 years ago | (#35900728)

Considering that the all-digital subscriptions (at least at list price) cost more than print+digital, I can't imagine that 100,000 people in their right minds would purchase the former. That was the bit that struck me as strangest of all - I would've understood them using Apple-style upselling, setting the price points so one is only just higher than the next to make the 'premium' plans seem like particularly good value, but going as far as to make it cheaper to dump a paper copy in the recycling every day seems very odd.

Also, as I mentioned on the Spotify thread last week, I can't stand this habit that companies are getting into of charging an increased recurring fee on a subscription for something that presents them with a one-off cost. In this case, it's the fact that smartphone+tablet costs more than just one or the other. Charge a small fee for the app if you must (although honestly I'd be surprised if the dev costs are more than negligible), but don't charge me extra every damn month for something you only needed to pay for once.

Re:Pure subscriptions? (1)

Hultis (1969080) | about 3 years ago | (#35900890)

I dislike the recent development of Spotify Free as much as the next guy, but as I've understood it Spotify actually pays every time you play a song, so it's not a one-off cost at all. If you're talking about Spotify taking more money for phone access (premium), then that's not a one-off cost either since their phone app doesn't use P2P to alleviate pressure on their servers, meaning more server upkeep for them (not to mention the doubled bitrate premium gives), but the added customer cost is definitely much more than their added cost.

In this case, however, it seems like a pretty clear case of a one-off cost.

Re:Pure subscriptions? (2)

MoonBuggy (611105) | about 3 years ago | (#35901072)

Regarding Spotify, I was referring to the fact that they charge £4.99/month for unlimited access on Windows/Linux/OSX devices (thus covering the recurring cost of the actual licensing, as well as bandwidth and server costs) but £9.99/month for 'Premium', with Android/iOS access, higher bitrates, and offline sync. I'd expect that the offline sync compensates for the increased bandwidth used by the higher bitrate, making the costs there no higher than the lower tier paid package, but maybe I'm wrong. Do the mobile apps forego P2P completely, or do they still take advantage of it for download without contributing to upload? If it's the latter, then the extra load on Spotify's servers should be negligible unless a very significant proportion of their users are on the mobile apps at a given time. Anyhow, I'll concede that it's less clear cut than I may have implied (and certainly less clear cut than the NYT, I agree).

Re:Pure subscriptions? (3, Informative)

MoonBuggy (611105) | about 3 years ago | (#35900922)

In case anyone was wondering: Monday-Friday paper subscription, including full digital access, is $7.40/week, totalling $384.80/year. Full digital access alone is $34.99/month, or $419.88/year. Five paper copies a week, including delivery, apparently come to -$35.08/year, so it looks like they should be paying you at least $0.13 per copy to take them off the news stands.

There are introductory discounts running ($0.99 for the first four weeks of digital subscription, half price for the first 12 weeks of paper) but I've ignored them on the basis that they're short term. That said, taking advantage of them would actually increase the discrepancy a little, making print+digital an even better option.

Sure, you can pay less in total to get either the smartphone subscription or the tablet one, and you have to pay a decent amount more if you want the weekend papers too (although not so much if you only want the weekend ones), but that doesn't change the fact that if you want the all-access digital package, they're charging extra for the privilege of not having a hard copy sent out every day.

Of course they discount the print edition (1)

brokeninside (34168) | about 3 years ago | (#35902084)

If it is the case that print ads are still more profitable than web ads, then subtley encouraging people to get the print edition because it's cheaper increases revenues. Now, whether the the increased costs (printing and distribution of the paper edition) are greater than or less than the increased revenues is another question entirely.

Re:Pure subscriptions? (0)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 3 years ago | (#35902146)

Monday-Friday paper subscription, including full digital access, is $7.40/week

Actually, it's $3.70/week. Seven days a week home delivery is $7.40/week, which means your analysis works; you made it sound like you were comparing Mon-Fri delivery to seven days a week digital.

Re:Pure subscriptions? (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | about 3 years ago | (#35902228)

That's the half price introductory offer I mentioned. And I was comparing Mon-Fri delivery to seven days a week digital, because the Mon-Fri delivery includes seven days a week of digital access - that was the point I was making.

Re:Pure subscriptions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35900958)

all-digital subscriptions (at least at list price) cost more than print+digital, ... That was the bit that struck me as strangest of all ... going as far as to make it cheaper to dump a paper copy in the recycling every day seems very odd.

My guess? Print advertising. You can charge a bunch more for a physically printed advert than you can for an online one. All of those printed adverts are netting the NYTimes a fair bit of money.

I'd even bet that NYTimes would welcome people interested in online-only content paying for a superfluous printed copy, as they can claim increased circulation numbers to their advertisers, which yield better ad rates.

Re:Pure subscriptions? (1)

dougmc (70836) | about 3 years ago | (#35900972)

I can't stand this habit that companies are getting into of charging an increased recurring fee on a subscription for something that presents them with a one-off cost. In this case

What exactly are you referring to, this one-off cost?

It cost them once to set up the paywall, yes. There will be some maintenance, but it should be small.

But they're trying to make money here. Running a paper is expensive, and if they run their business well, they should be able to make a profit, and they do that by charging their customers recurring fees, where their customers are readers and advertisers. Readers pay to keep reading, and advertisers pay to keep including their advertising.

Other companies are the same. In general, they'll charge whatever amount in whatever way they think will maximize their profit.

Re:Pure subscriptions? (3, Informative)

MoonBuggy (611105) | about 3 years ago | (#35901156)

What exactly are you referring to, this one-off cost?

I may have been unclear, but the remainder of that paragraph: "In this case, it's the fact that smartphone+tablet costs more than just one or the other. Charge a small fee for the app if you must (although honestly I'd be surprised if the dev costs are more than negligible), but don't charge me extra every damn month for something you only needed to pay for once." was referring to the one-off cost of developing the iOS and Android applications to view the content. Obviously collecting the news every day is a recurring cost, and that's what users pay a recurring subscription for; what I object to is that once you've paid $'x' per month for access to the content, they then charge you $'x+y' per month for access to the content on a particular device. I understand paying continually for the content, I'll pay once for the app if I must, but what I object to is being charged continually, over and above the cost of the content, for the use of the mobile app on a given platform.

Re:Pure subscriptions? (5, Informative)

nysus (162232) | about 3 years ago | (#35900464)

I paid 99 cents last month and just renewed this month for another 99 cents. They aren't charging full price.

Re:Pure subscriptions? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 3 years ago | (#35901098)

What are their website's ads like? In a printed paper they waste a natural resource but are at least easy to skip, unlike the forced ads you get on DVDs and some web sites. I find it incredible that they feel that even after I paid for their content I should still be forced to look at their adverts.

Re:Pure subscriptions? (1)

gd2shoe (747932) | about 3 years ago | (#35903520)

I find it incredible that they feel that even after I paid for their content I should still be forced to look at their adverts.

And they wonder why I almost never buy a newspaper or magazine. It's also why I've always felt that cable (etc) was a rip-off. I'm either the customer, or the product. Pick one. I'm not going to pay for an unpleasant experience.

Re:Pure subscriptions? (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 3 years ago | (#35902072)

If everybody's paying that, they're pulling down $1.2 million a year. Not enough by itself, really, but if they're also pulling in ad revenues plus whatever they're getting from print, it might be enough to get by on.

2009-2010: 100% increase. 2011-2011: 10% increase (2)

Khopesh (112447) | about 3 years ago | (#35900488)

Assuming this is an accurate count of online subscriptions (and not an artificially inflated count since all paper subscriptions are also online subscriptions), the next question is to wonder how many of those are inherited from their e-reader circulation ... As of April 2010, the New York Times had 90,934 [businessinsider.com] e-reader subscriptions (which was about twice the number from the previous year). If they doubled from 2009 to 2010 and then only attracted an extra 10% by 2011, I wouldn't call that much of a success.

Re:Pure subscriptions? (4, Informative)

QRDeNameland (873957) | about 3 years ago | (#35900660)

Are these pure subscriptions, paying full price? Or are these subscriptions that come with something else or are heavily discounted?

According to the article (yeah, yeah, I know), the 100,000 figure "does not include print subscribers who receive digital access for free but does include readers who took advantage of a promotional offer."

Re:Pure subscriptions? (1)

darnkitten (1533263) | about 3 years ago | (#35902376)

FTFA

"...a figure that does not include print subscribers who receive digital access for free but does include readers who took advantage of a promotional offer."

So partially dishonest, par for the course for marketers.

Re:Pure subscriptions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35902956)

I get the Washington Post and delivered to my home 7 days a week but pay the same amount I was paying for Sunday only delivery. I think they are doing the same thing to inflate the subscription numbers. I only read the Sunday version on occasion, all of the others get tossed unopened still in the plastic bag they get delivered in.

Re:Pure subscriptions? (1)

proxima (165692) | about 3 years ago | (#35903410)

I received a free subscription for the rest of the year, "sponsored by Lincoln" (the car company). No idea what exactly triggered that, but I was/am a pretty regular reader. Not sure if I'll pay or not when the time comes. It'll be interesting to see what the Washington Post ends up with for a paywall.

Much of the internet? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35900322)

Slashdot's crappy attitude towards all things profitable is hardly much of the internet.

The real issue as I see it... (3, Interesting)

roc97007 (608802) | about 3 years ago | (#35900334)

...is what they're going to do about all those Union contracts for the print side of the paper. All those jobs are dead as soon as print is dead, and I'm sure this has occurred to the union bosses. It's going to be interesting to see what happens.

Does anyone know what the NYT print readership averages? At first glance 100,000 sounds like a lot, but for a world class newspaper, it seems like a pittance.

Re:The real issue as I see it... (3, Informative)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 3 years ago | (#35900434)

Does anyone know what the NYT print readership averages? At first glance 100,000 sounds like a lot, but for a world class newspaper, it seems like a pittance.

A year ago their daily circulation was 950,000, 1.4 million for Sundays. So, that would be around roughly 10% of their print circulation.(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/business/media/27audit.html) And from the NYT website as well, all print subscribers get free access to their web content. Whether or not that 100,000 includes people who are logging on through their print subscriptions, well, that's up in the air.

Re:The real issue as I see it... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 3 years ago | (#35900592)

> all print subscribers get free access to their web content. Whether or not that 100,000 includes people who are logging on through their print subscriptions, well, that's up in the air.

Oooh, good point. So having 100K subscribers isn't proof in and of itself that the online model is working.

...Mind you, I think their only hope of survival is online, but I'm not convinced they can make it work.

Re:The real issue as I see it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35903406)

...Mind you, I think their only hope of survival is online, but I'm not convinced they can make it work.

They're going to have to, or at least someone is. Because if print revenues keep declining, and papers can't make online pay for itself, there isn't going to be any press-based news reporting any more. We'll be left with the BBC and a couple of other state funded organizations online, and not much else in the quality end of the market.

It's a simple choice. Accept ads, pay for a subscription, or kiss goodbye to professional newspaper journalism. If things carry on the way they are, most of the current younger generation will only realize what they've lost once their greed and arrogant self-entitlement, expecting everything for free regardless of the cost, has all but destroyed a lot of the things they took for granted.

The moronic idea that blogs are somehow going to provide a substitute, when they just cut and paste the majority of their serious news from the traditional media, is about as likely as Richard Stallman winning Miss Universe.

And before the apologists pipe up, spare me the bullshit "they should find innovative new ways to generate revenue" - there aren't any. Some of the best brains in the world are working in Silicon Valley right now, and they've come up with *nothing* more innovative than advertising.

Re:The real issue as I see it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35900600)

Maybe it takes the same or more jobs to maintain an online presence as it does to print and distribute paper.

Re:The real issue as I see it... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 3 years ago | (#35900852)

> Maybe it takes the same or more jobs to maintain an online presence as it does to print and distribute paper.

I used to work in the paper business many years ago, so I can state categorically that this is not the case, but I'd rather approach the answer from a different angle.

On the one side, you have reporters, editors, then typesetters, proofreaders, printers, printer overhead, then distributors, distributor overhead, then a delivery mechanism, and the overhead associated with that. The wider your readership gets, the more it costs.

On the other side, you have reporters, editors, web designers, proofreaders, web hosting (which can be outsourced) and then... wait, you're done. The wider your readership gets... nope, pretty much the same price.

Obviously a simplification, but I'm hoping you can see that there's no way switching to a web-only presence from print media would employ more than a tiny fraction of the people a print distribution would. This needs to be faced -- a lot of people are going to be out of a job, and they're going to have skills that are largely not needed anymore.

Re:The real issue as I see it... (1)

dougmc (70836) | about 3 years ago | (#35901080)

I would expect the costs for "reporters, editors, typesetters, proofreaders" to be roughly the same for web vs. print. And it wouldn't really go up much with increased readership, though in an ideal world I'd expect somewhat more money to be spent on these things as readership goes up.

But then you've got "printers, printer overhead, then distributors, distributor overhead, then a delivery mechanism", which is directly related to the number of readers. Similarly, "web hosting (bandwidth, servers, backups, etc.)" costs are also directly related to the number of readers.

I would also assume that once you've made a print paper/magazine, it's relatively simple to make it into a web site, and the converse is true as well. (By relatively simple, I mean the cost/time needed to convert to the new format vs. the cost/time needed to generate the content in the first place. Certainly, it's not simple to make a good web site from a good newspaper and vice versa, but I imagine it's much harder to make a good newspaper or web site in the first place.)

So it boils down to this -- what's cheaper, serving via the web, or serving via paper? And I would think that the answer is obviously "web, by a large margin, and it's getting larger over time". Offering video rather than just text and some pictures probably drives up the cost of the web side, but I'll bet it's still cheaper to provide.

The question is, what's the ratio of the first set of jobs (mostly creative) to the second set of jobs (mostly more down and dirty)? And I do not know. Certainly as a paper or website gets more readers/viewers, I'd expect the ratio to get smaller, and I'd expect it to be larger for a web site than a newspaper (and a mix for a place that does both, as I'd say most papers do now.)

Re:The real issue as I see it... (2)

roc97007 (608802) | about 3 years ago | (#35902358)

You're right, reporters, editors, and proof readers don't change much.

> But then you've got "printers, printer overhead, then distributors, distributor overhead, then a delivery mechanism", which is directly related to the number of readers. Similarly, "web hosting (bandwidth, servers, backups, etc.)" costs are also directly related to the number of readers.

To a certain extent, but that's not really the point. The point is that it takes dramatically fewer people to man a datacenter, than it does to deliver newspapers, for a given number of users. Think about the tons of paper and ink that have to be lugged to printers, the operation of the printers the maintenance of same, every day for every issue. Consider those tons of paper are turned into -- tons of papers, which have to be baled, transported to and loaded into trucks, and then those trucks driven to distribution centers, where they're broken down into smaller trucks and taken to other locations, where they're delivered to news stands or smaller distribution centers where they're doled out to individual carriers. You're talking massive manual labor here. And you're not even considering the creation of those huge rolls of paper and thousands of gallons of ink -- those people will be out of work too. I know, computers in a hosting farm have to be created also, but computers are generally capital investments, not consumables as are paper and ink. In other words, you don't buy a computer and expend it to create one issue, as you do paper and ink. You buy a computer and keep it for a long time.

Now, consider how many employees are needed to maintain a data center for half a million web users. This is done all the time, methods are well known, and it doesn't take more than a handful of people. Orders of magnitude fewer than all those drivers and handlers and loaders necessary to make a print business work for half a million customers. Moreover, the jobs in a data center will tend to be technical in nature, as opposed to driving a forklift or humping bales, and they will almost certainly be non-union.

Re:The real issue as I see it... (-1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 3 years ago | (#35903282)

I think this is something we as a people are gonna have to face, the days of trading labor for money are simply gonna come to end, and whether or not that is a pretty sight is yet to be determined.

Just the other day I read the former founder of Paypal talking about how we are in an "education bubble" where most will get nothing out of a degree but more debt, and I bet when you figure in those that simply can't be educated higher and those with bad credit who can't get the loans to jump on the education treadmill you are probably looking at something like 60%, that is around 198 million in the USA that are qualified for C and D level jobs that are quickly being erased by outsourcing and automation. What now?

We are already seeing plenty that go from graduation straight to the unemployment line, defaults on student loans have never been higher and recently we passed the mark where there is more student loan debt than CC debt. What are we gonna do with all these people? Unless you want to be like a third world hellhole where you trip over the dying in the streets to get to work you need to do SOMETHING with them, and the simple fact is not everyone can be an engineer. More and more of the remaining jobs are sent overseas or replaced by machines or advances in tech like the move online, so what now?

This is something I believe is gonna come to a head VERY soon, and whether or not we end up like Egypt will be based on what we do about it. The difference between the 1% and the bottom 99% has never been higher, the middle class is DOA. and we are all playing IQ musical chairs with jobs, with more and more becoming losers. Do we go third world and build gulags? Do we go socialist and just cut them all a check?

This is something I can see coming to a head in the next decade, as all those promised "tech jobs" the politicians promised just went to India or to a machine. For most education is now simply a way into a debt they'll never pay, and more and more jobs are disappearing only to be replaced with nothing or a McJob that won't even keep you from being homeless. I have a feeling it is gonna get nasty folks, as I don't see the 1%ers (who just got to pay the lowest taxes in history this year BTW) caring if the masses die in the streets as long as they can keep their money.

Re:The real issue as I see it... (1)

lxs (131946) | about 3 years ago | (#35904418)

That was the fallacy behind the dot-com boom in the late '90s.
The information-economy will always be a small part of the total economy. You can't eat information, Information doesn't keep you warm and it doesn't keep the rain from falling on you or take away your garbage to the dump.

People have needs more basic than information. Someone somewhere is going to do real physical work to fill those needs. On the other hand, we could do with a lot less shuffling of paper. Those people will have to find a real job.

Re:The real issue as I see it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35904096)

They need to get off their asses and do the same thing my uncle did when he had to retire from the print industry upon becoming allergic to mercury: Pick another career path and get their asses moving to become as good at it as they were at their old one.

He ended up moving into commercial driving and now spends 4 days a week working 12 hour shifts hauling dirt around in a 50 ton dumptruck. And y'know what? It pays a helluva lot more than his print job ever did too. And is categorically safer as well.

Re:The real issue as I see it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35903386)

World-class? Pfff! The NYT is the propaganda arm of the Democrat party in the same way that Fox News is the propaganda arm of the Republican party.

One is born every minute... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35900336)

Good ol' PT knew himself a sucka

Not such a terrible idea? (1)

Fwipp (1473271) | about 3 years ago | (#35900380)

Let's see, 100,000 subscribers, all subscribing at $3.75 a week (the cheapest plan), and costing 40 million to develop...
At the current rate, they'll have made their money back in just about 2 years. Maybe the absurdly high cost was worth it after all.

Note: The 100k figure *does* include those who subscribed with a promotion, so the actual figure could be significantly less. Or more, if many users are paying for the more expensive levels of service.

Re:Not such a terrible idea? (1)

nysus (162232) | about 3 years ago | (#35900492)

They are only charging me 99 cents a month. They are not charging the full rate yet.

Re:Not such a terrible idea? (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 3 years ago | (#35900700)

They are charging everyone either 0.99USD if they don't have a paper subscription, or 0USD if they do.

It's an introductory rate designed to "ease" people into subscribing. The real test will come when they start charging the prices advertised after introductory rates are over.

Re:Not such a terrible idea? (1)

darkwing_bmf (178021) | about 3 years ago | (#35900920)

But what I don't understand is why not make the 99 the official weekly (or even monthly) price and advertise accordingly? I suspect they'd get more than enough additional subscribers to surpass in profits whatever they were making at the higher price/fewer subscribers model.

Re:Not such a terrible idea? (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 3 years ago | (#35901040)

Because they would make a HUGE loss at that price. The real price is over 15-35 times greater then 0.99. I wouldn't be surprised to see many simply drop their paper subscription completely.

Re:Not such a terrible idea? (1)

darkwing_bmf (178021) | about 3 years ago | (#35901176)

We're talking about digital subscriptions. I am not advocating they make 99 cents a month the cost for the paper subscriptions.

The way to make money in the digital world is to offer something a few million people are willing to pay a buck for, not to find one person who is willing to pay a few million bucks. The marginal cost for each new subscriber is close to zero.

you math made assumptions (1)

Lead Butthead (321013) | about 3 years ago | (#35900884)

your math assumed that NYT paywall and web content delivery infrastructure requires no further updates/maintenance/bug fixes, which is flawed in the world of frequent over-the-wire firmware updates (YES Sony, I am talking about YOU and YOUR PS3, BluRay, etc.)

Re:you math made assumptions (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | about 3 years ago | (#35902010)

Not to mention that saying "Maybe the absurdly high cost was worth it after all." implies they wouldn't have got the same income from the project if it'd only cost them, say, a million. Unless my sarcasm detector is just miscalibrated again...

So (-1, Troll)

Dunbal (464142) | about 3 years ago | (#35900418)

For argument's sake, Facebook has 500 million active users and the NY Times, supposedly the grand-daddy of all (American) newspapers has: 100k? Hahahahahahahahaha.....

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35900584)

Facebook is free. Every asshole and their mother has a facebook. Let them charge a nominal fee and lets see how long that lasts.

Re:So (2)

TheEyes (1686556) | about 3 years ago | (#35900662)

For argument's sake, Facebook has 500 million active users and the NY Times, supposedly the grand-daddy of all (American) newspapers has: 100k? Hahahahahahahahaha.....

Facebook is free. I'm sure there are more than 100k people going to the free NYT site.

Re:So (1)

D'Sphitz (699604) | about 3 years ago | (#35900708)

I don't care how many times the Facebook marketing team wants to repeat it, Facebook does not have 500m active users.

Fools (1)

oldhack (1037484) | about 3 years ago | (#35900424)

Ever since NYT put up the pay wall, I switched to Slashdot for my news source.

You get what you pay for.

Re:Fools (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | about 3 years ago | (#35900566)

You get what you pay for.

Say! It's your lucky day. I've got a rock here to sell to you for $100. Why? Because it's a fantastic rock; you're paying $100 for it so it must be. After all, you get what you pay for.

Well - except for that guy who bought a bridge from me last week for $100. Boy is he going to be pissed when he finds out who really owns it.

Re:Fools (1)

Isaac Remuant (1891806) | about 3 years ago | (#35900760)

Exactly. Thinking something is good (or better) just because it's expensive is a common mistake.

Re:Fools (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | about 3 years ago | (#35901016)

However, it seems to be the cornerstone to a lot of marketing campaigns; especially for high-profit markets.

Anecdotal story time. Back when I was a kid, my Dad owned a store where he sold products that were crafted by him and Mom in the workshop out back. Dad came across a great deal on a particular raw material. He ended up having to buy a lot of it to get the price - but it was a great deal. So he figured he'd put out a special in the store to sell off the inventory. Customers would get a really nice price cut and the store would turn a good profit. The product sat for several weeks with rarely a sale. Dad jacked up the price double and sold out of the special run in a week.

Voluntary? (1)

TheABomb (180342) | about 3 years ago | (#35900462)

I'd like to know how many of these are voluntary subscriptions. My first year in college, they made us subscribe to the NYT, despite the fact that there were at least five major cities with well-known papers (at least one, PIttsburgh, having two) nearer to the school than New York. Now, this was a small, private school, but if even one large state school did the same, they could easily make up the lion's share of the subscribers (SUNY alone could nearly quadruple the 100K figure).

Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35900500)

Did a lot of students read it because they had to buy it, or were they just sat around in piles?

Re:Interesting (1)

TheABomb (180342) | about 3 years ago | (#35900992)

Oh, the @$$holes who wanted to sound smart would read an article or two a day and constantly refer to it, but it's hardly a coincidence they started a recycling program about the same time. Anyone who actually cared about current events would read one of the local papers that covered stuff like, oh, the school we were going to (despite the fact that I'm not nearly as young as I wish I still were, this was also recently enough that every dorm room on campus had an internet connection).

Re:Voluntary? (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | about 3 years ago | (#35900668)

did the school require it or was it a particular class? if it was the school that's total bullshit and they should be sued.

Revenue != Profit (1)

zabby39103 (1354753) | about 3 years ago | (#35900490)

Revenue falling 57.6 percent generally means the end of a business. Profit, (revenue - expenses) falling 57.6 percent is not a big deal in a business which has often been in the black as of late.

Re:Revenue != Profit (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 3 years ago | (#35900676)

Revenue falling 57.6 percent generally means the end of a business. Profit, (revenue - expenses) falling 57.6 percent is not a big deal in a business which has often been in the black as of late.

Everything I have seen says it is revenue that fell, not profit. According to the news I have seen, the NYT hasn't seen a profit in several years.

Re:Revenue != Profit (1)

zabby39103 (1354753) | about 3 years ago | (#35901018)

That is except TFA I guess?

"The Times Co., which includes the flagship New York Times, Boston Globe, International Herald Tribune, 15 other dailies and About.com, said net profit plunged 57.6 percent to $5.4 million on continued print advertising weakness."

Oh wait you said everything you've READ, right this is slashdot I was being silly...

Are they counting free subscriptions? (4, Informative)

Logic Bomb (122875) | about 3 years ago | (#35900528)

I've had a nytimes.com login pretty much since they started requiring registration to view stories -- late 90s some time? Right after the paywall was announced, I got an email thanking me for being a long-time account holder and offering me a free year's subscription. I took their offer, of course. How many of those 100,000 subscribers are actually paying?

Re:Are they counting free subscriptions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35900860)

RTFA:

The Times Co. said digital subscribers to NYTimes.com had surpassed 100,000, a figure that does not include print subscribers who receive digital access for free but does include readers who took advantage of a promotional offer.

Re:Are they counting free subscriptions? (1)

jfengel (409917) | about 3 years ago | (#35901052)

Hey! I've also had a login forever and they didn't offer me a free subscription. (Though perhaps it got lost in the spam filter.)

Re:Are they counting free subscriptions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35903936)

I was offered a free subscription paid for by Lincoln (the car company). They sent me a very flattering email offer of a free subscription. The email offer implied that I had been profiled based on what I read in the past and I must have fit a demographic that Lincoln wanted to target. I see Lincoln adds on almost every article I read now that I have accepted their offer.

Spotty Enforcement (1)

JackSpratts (660957) | about 3 years ago | (#35900534)

I'm about to hit the wall as an unregistered user, in that a pop-up appeared yesterday counting down the articles I have coming before I'm cut-off, but a registered nic of mine, under which I skim incessantly, has had nary a warning. I'm not sure if the roll out is staged and I'll hit that wall with that account too, but so far it's way over any so-called 20 story limit with no end in sight, so they haven't completely lost me as a reader. Yet.

- js.

Re:Spotty Enforcement (2)

Serious Callers Only (1022605) | about 3 years ago | (#35900704)

If the reminders count down to zero and they start trying to block you reading content, simply remove the dynamic bit of the URL and reload the page, or visit the site from something like google news; the paywall is trivially easy to circumvent at the moment (presumably by design), I'll be interested to see how far they go with this and what happens when they try to lock it down and stop offering huge discounts and deals on subscriptions. The NYT is one of the best papers in the english speaking world (quality of writing/editorial staff, and to a lesser extent in reporting), and if they can't make payments work, no-one can.

My initial feeling was sadness that they have left the internet, but they do have to make a living or why bother running a news site at all, and advertising brings its own compromises. Along with sites like Facebook there is now a trend for a balkanised internet which is sadly reminiscent of all the walled gardens like eworld that we saw in the 90s.

Re:Spotty Enforcement (1)

rbayer (1911926) | about 3 years ago | (#35903656)

Or even better, just set your browser to only allow session cookies from nytimes.com and block anything longer term. On Chrome, this is done via

Options -> Under the Hood -> Content Settings -> Manage Exceptions -> Add [*.]nytimes.com and set it as "Session Only"

100k is pathetic. (1)

blair1q (305137) | about 3 years ago | (#35900536)

The NY Times used to have the highest newspaper circulation in the world.

Online is a hundred times more efficient than newsprint.

That 100K should be closer to 10M, after all they spent on it.

Printing the news is dead. Paying for the news is dead. Expecting people to consider your news site a one-stop shop or social hub is dead.

The NY Times should get with the rest of the world and differentiate its brand based on the quality, depth, and breadth of its reporting. Live and die by the by-line and the click-through from the headline aggregator. Because you're not going to find loyalty or exclusivity any more.

Re:100k is pathetic. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35900696)

Get real. The NYT shifts less than 1m units a week. They may have been big many years ago, but today, they're largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of media outlets, and they're facing extinction along with all the other "news" publications.

Re:100k is pathetic. (2)

Lehk228 (705449) | about 3 years ago | (#35900698)

paying for news may be dead but it shouldn't be

when news is free the news you will get will be the news that the people who are paying for the news to be assembled want you to see.

expect the "news" to look a lot like freerepublic and fox news.

Re:100k is pathetic. (1)

blair1q (305137) | about 3 years ago | (#35900802)

News has always been sponsored. The only news that's "free" comes from NPR, which is weaker than piss after a redneck rodeo, even if it's credible. You weren't paying for the news, you were paying for the delivery.

Re:100k is pathetic. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 3 years ago | (#35900810)

when news is free the news you will get will be the news that the people who are paying for the news to be assembled want you to see.

It was always that way. No matter how much you pay, unless it is enough that you are the one deciding what gets printed.

Re:100k is pathetic. (1)

rayvd (155635) | about 3 years ago | (#35902980)

Um, this has been the case forever. It's just that now the news isn't necessarily how the liberal establishment old-media news wants it to be.

Choice is good.

Compared to print subscriptions (3, Informative)

HangingChad (677530) | about 3 years ago | (#35900538)

Their average weekly print circulation is around 877,000. The 100K figure doesn't include free access with the print version or the iPhone/iPad applications. What's not entirely clear is if the 100K includes the Kindle and Nook ereaders. Because they all of a sudden switch to percentages, stating that ereader versions are up 4.5%. They were so clear everywhere else but all of a sudden get ambiguous.

Re:Compared to print subscriptions (1)

danlip (737336) | about 3 years ago | (#35900998)

Or 1.2% of the population of NYC. Or 0.03% or the US population. For one of the country's biggest newspapers I would not call that a success.

I'm surprised print circulation is so small - NYC population is 8.4M, so only about 10% buy the NY Times in any form (and maybe some just use it for their bird cages).

No need here... (1)

Super Dave Osbourne (688888) | about 3 years ago | (#35900544)

The club I frequent has 3-4 copies of the NYT and other national papers each morning. I read them there for free after done skiing or simply take them home after which I shred and compost. In the end, I pay nothing for the paper and it doesn't fill landfills. Community vs. private is the gist here, some should consider this the basis of 'news' and follow the model right to salvation.

Re:No need here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35901804)

Good for you. You get to read someone else's work, and you don't get to pay them a cent. In other words, you are relying on other folks to pay for what you read for free and seem to find valuable. And you actually seem proud of your actions.

News gathering costs money, investigative reporting costs money, world class web sites cost money. We need a free press that can help keep government in check. We won't have that for long if we don't contribute to the cost.

Re:No need here... (1)

ilo.v (1445373) | about 3 years ago | (#35903172)

I read them there for free after done skiing or simply take them home after which I shred and compost

Hey! So YOU are the shmuck who keeps stealing the newspapers from the gym (when other people still want to read them). Are you also the guy who steals all the toilet paper from the bathroom and takes it home?

cannot an approved predator drone hit gaddafi (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35900546)

without having to blow up everything & kill almost everybody first, always? then we could disarm; weapons, media, 'weather' fudging etc... then we could all get honest & concern ourselves with the fatal disarray of our whacky uncle sam's weapons peddling businesses etc.... why does the psycho have to stay alive while the innocent are vaporized? is that how we do it now? when does the psycho run out of advanced weaponry?

Re:cannot an approved predator drone hit gaddafi (0)

DCFusor (1763438) | about 3 years ago | (#35900842)

Ok, I'll bite, though off topic. Sure it could. So could your average sniper (who are all above average).

That's murder, not killing (there is a difference, mr AC moralist). And once you start down that slippery slope and declare the technique usable, by example, guess who's next in the cross hairs? The politician who authorized it.

While they don't mind putting us on slippery slopes to our detriment, this is a little close to home for those asshats.

Free subscriptions (1)

mikeq (113400) | about 3 years ago | (#35900616)

NYT offered me a free one year subscription ( "sponsored by Lincoln") which I accepted. If they hadn't I would either have stopped reading their articles or used one of the workarounds.

goverment (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35900756)

not like 100k government department subscribe

I wonder if my "subscription" counts... (1)

sgage (109086) | about 3 years ago | (#35900954)

... and how many there are.

You see, shortly before they went to the paid subscription model, I was awarded, for reasons unclear to me, a free subscription for a year. When it runs out, I doubt I shall pay to renew it.

Beans (1)

guspasho (941623) | about 3 years ago | (#35901254)

How much does a subscription cost? Multiply that by 100,000, and I bet that NYT won't be anywhere near recouping the costs for their $40 million new paywall for decades.

Re:Beans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35902554)

How much does a subscription cost? Multiply that by 100,000, and I bet that NYT won't be anywhere near recouping the costs for their $40 million new paywall for decades.

Actually...considering that a new subscription costs just shy of $400/yr...it would take just over 1 year.

Did they include (0)

tchdab1 (164848) | about 3 years ago | (#35901338)

people like me who get the print version delivered and therefor have access to the online subscription free - ?

I worry about the NY Times (1)

Calibax (151875) | about 3 years ago | (#35901942)

I read the NY Times every day - it's one of my main sources of general news, together with the Washington Post, BBC, and a couple of local newspaper sites.

We need a vigorous, active press to control the excesses of government and to shine light into dark places. I would be seriously worried for the USA if our quality national newspapers disappeared.

I'm happy to contribute my $15 a month, and I'd be willing to go higher if they asked. I just wish more people felt the same way.

Mod parent up (1)

wisebabo (638845) | about 3 years ago | (#35903278)

(I don't have any moderation points now, sometimes I get 15 sometimes 5?)

You know good journalism is expensive, it costs companies to produce it and sometimes it costs journalists (and photo journalists!) their lives :(

I rely on the NYTimes so heavily for good information and, more importantly ANALYSIS that I actually felt guilty until they put up the paywall. I didn't think they could generate enough revenue just through their ads so I was worried. I'm a subscriber now of course.

Then again maybe the NYTimes to me is a special case. There are very few other sites I would pay for.

An excess of subscribers? (1)

gumpish (682245) | about 3 years ago | (#35902044)

the newspaper has reported an excess of one hundred thousand subscribers so far.

Wow, they have 100,000 more subscribers than they want?

http://www.fullmalls.com (0)

xiaojiekuiiu (2057502) | about 3 years ago | (#35902484)

Click on our website: ( http://www.fullmalls.com/ [fullmalls.com] ) Website wholesale various fashion shoes, such as Nike, Jordan, prada, also includes the jeans, shirt, bags, hats and decoration. Personality manufacturing execution systems (Mes) clothing, Grab an eye bag coat + tide bag Air jordan(1-24)shoes $30 Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $15Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $15 New era cap $12 Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $20accept paypal and free shipping ( http://www.fullmalls.com/ [fullmalls.com] )

Click on our website: ( http://www.fullmalls.com (0)

xiaojiekuiiu (2057502) | about 3 years ago | (#35902614)

Click on our website: ( http://www.fullmalls.com/ [fullmalls.com] ) Website wholesale various fashion shoes, such as Nike, Jordan, prada, also includes the jeans, shirt, bags, hats and decoration. Personality manufacturing execution systems (Mes) clothing, Grab an eye bag coat + tide bag Air jordan(1-24)shoes $30 Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $15Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $15 New era cap $12 Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $20accept paypal and free shipping ( http://www.fullmalls.com/ [fullmalls.com] )

Change you can believe in (1)

FatherOfThree (1335653) | about 3 years ago | (#35903246)

My daughter was forced by her college government professor to subscribe to the NYT. Why not the WSJ also? On the office window of one of the professors is the sticker "Change you can believe in". What am I paying for? I suspect the professor will be choking on that phrase in two election cycles. Bye bye Krugman.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...