You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
NY times must think this is 1994!!!!
- Thread starter S2007S
- Start date
How much do u thick NYT can get from online subscriptions?
http://ipadlatest.com/news/Technolo...ork-Times-paywall-plans-are-ambitious-and.htm
http://ipadlatest.com/news/Technolo...ork-Times-paywall-plans-are-ambitious-and.htm
This is laughable. I can't remember the last time I read a newspaper. ESPN.com for all sports. Craigslist for classified. Store websites for weekly sales. Google for headlines. Yahoo Finance for business news. And the New York times wants to charge me for what I can get for free? Big time LOL!
I am sure they get some subscribers. The question is if that would pay enough for the disappearance of advertisers.
Even if they just get 1000 online subscribers, it is 15000/mo. if they get 10,000 subscribers, it 150,000/mo. And for 100,000 subscribers, they get 1,500,000/mo extra in revenue. This not counting the ipod ipad fools who subscribe.
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/...s-at-detail-of-metered-model-online-strategy/
"Given that the site draws roughly 40 million monthly uniques, that translates to a potential base of 6 million that NYTimes.com can try to convert to paid. That is roughly seven times its daily print circulation of 877,000 and more than four times its Sunday circulation of 1.4 million.
At even a modest conversion rate of 5 percent, that would work out to 300,000 additional paid subscribers. A Kindle subscription to the Times cost $19.99 a month, and Scott Heeken-Canedy, president of The New York Times newspaper, said that might be indicative of where pricing for full Web access will end up. In a single month, that $19.99 for 300,000 subscribers would total about $6 million....."
Let's see how many subscribers NYT gets. I won't be one of them. lol
Even if they just get 1000 online subscribers, it is 15000/mo. if they get 10,000 subscribers, it 150,000/mo. And for 100,000 subscribers, they get 1,500,000/mo extra in revenue. This not counting the ipod ipad fools who subscribe.
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/...s-at-detail-of-metered-model-online-strategy/
"Given that the site draws roughly 40 million monthly uniques, that translates to a potential base of 6 million that NYTimes.com can try to convert to paid. That is roughly seven times its daily print circulation of 877,000 and more than four times its Sunday circulation of 1.4 million.
At even a modest conversion rate of 5 percent, that would work out to 300,000 additional paid subscribers. A Kindle subscription to the Times cost $19.99 a month, and Scott Heeken-Canedy, president of The New York Times newspaper, said that might be indicative of where pricing for full Web access will end up. In a single month, that $19.99 for 300,000 subscribers would total about $6 million....."
Let's see how many subscribers NYT gets. I won't be one of them. lol
Quote from saxon22:
You guys don't get it. They are after the institutional money. Most if not all colleges will subscribe. Same goes for high school libraries as well as public libraries. It will bring a few hundred thousands a month and that is better than what they get now.
Institutions have full print subscription. Those with full print subscriptions still get free online access.
I visit nytimes.com quite frequently but I would rather die than ever pay them one cent. if it's free I'll visit, if it's not I won't. simple as that.
The Times of London tried this same thing a few years ago and their readership INSTANTLY dropped 90% and never recovered.
The Times of London tried this same thing a few years ago and their readership INSTANTLY dropped 90% and never recovered.
Quote from saxon22:
You guys don't get it. They are after the institutional money. Most if not all colleges will subscribe. Same goes for high school libraries as well as public libraries. It will bring a few hundred thousands a month and that is better than what they get now.
But don't they already do that? The NYT will need new subscribers.