Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not like I had a reason to read that junk. Some of the most biased idiotic articles I have seen lately come from them. Maybe they will go the way of Air america?
I wouldn't pay for the NYT if someone else was paying the bill for me. It just shows that their business sense is no better than the left wing biased drivel that they publish. Good riddance to them.
Like treasurekidd, I refuse to buy the New York Times, and I have enjoyed watching their financial suffering.
This is a big issue for the newspaper industry. People can now get for free what they used to have to pay for. I used to have to buy weekly news magazines to see the articles they write. Now, I can see them free over the internet. The advertising dollars from internet ads are supposed to make up for this loss of revenue, but it doesn't seem to be happening. When you're not getting paid for the work you do, it's a problem.
This proposal will test how much people value their work.
There's this principle in life called the 80/20 rule. In the newspaper business, a 95/5 rule might apply. Basically, the NYT knows that 80% or more of the population are driveling idiot cheapskates who don't value what they read and who won't buy their services no matter how economical they are. So, they're not going to waste time worrying about these people. What they will do, and what I think they'll do well, is work hard to determine the best arrangement for that 5% of the reading population who would likely pay a subscription.
There's this principle in life called the 80/20 rule. In the newspaper business, a 95/5 rule might apply. Basically, the NYT knows that 80% or more of the population are driveling idiot cheapskates who don't value what they read and who won't buy their services no matter how economical they are. So, they're not going to waste time worrying about these people. What they will do, and what I think they'll do well, is work hard to determine the best arrangement for that 5% of the reading population who would likely pay a subscription.
But virtually all their readers used to pay for their product, since they used to have to buy a newspaper to see it. Now they can see a lot of it for free. How can they survive if only 5% of the people who read their product pay for it?
You are going to see most of the major papers taking this route. They have no choice. You will see Google, Apple, and Journalism Online competing for the content with micropayments used for this content. I could even see a choice down the road. Pay a dime for this story, or watch a three minute commercial on depression medication with all of its side effects, this might take 5 minutes. It's your choice.
Most of these papers have over 150 years of content on microfilm that is being digitized feverishly. This content does not exist anywhere else.
I don't mind... they can dig their own grave... a lot of their writers earn 6 figures for writing about stuff that "happens"... I don't know why people get paid 6 figures for writing about things that "happens"... I can understand it if they do investigative journalism but what we have is more "reportive" journalism... Until print agencies realize that, they are going to the grave... I wonder how long before TV journalism faces the same fate, these people earn 7 figures or more... get that... lol... I suppose Google, Yahoo, or other news websites could take advantage and get bigger market share...
Bascailly waht it shows is the NY Times like so many others is not selling enough ads to support their aratciles. Its liely that what will result is fewer reads of their article on line. There are just too mnay ways of people getting their news now days and the ones that can sell advertisements to cover their cost will win out in the end.
Bascailly waht it shows is the NY Times like so many others is not selling enough ads to support their aratciles. Its liely that what will result is fewer reads of their article on line. There are just too mnay ways of people getting their news now days and the ones that can sell advertisements to cover their cost will win out in the end.
Well, I think the idea is that the NYT is not just another news outlet like Bloomberg, AP, or any of the local crap sites around the country.
NYT offers something special, and if they do it right with pricing, it should work for them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
