Digital Lifestyle

Ok, reading between the lines, this indicates there is another shoe to drop, but what it could be that's beneficial is hard to determine:

http://adage.com/article/mediaworks/york-times-ceo-janet-robinson-speaks-pay-meter/149457/

I feel like GM is trying to sell me a $2,000 bus rides because I won't buy their car and explaining that it's the only way that they can show a profit.

My newspaper (well, it was anyway) jacked the price of their web subscription from 36 euros per 3 months to 62 euros. Needless to say, the cancellations flew in: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fweblogs.nrc.nl%2Fnrclab%2F2011%2F02%2F11%2Fstijging-prijs-digitale-abonnement-groot-maar-reeel%2F

The publisher keeps to the record; 235 euros per year is the price to read the whole paper on the web. If you don't like it, take a hike. Which is what I did.

But I keep thinking; we cannot go on paying serious news organisations (I don't see anything from Murdoch as a news organisation) nothing if they need to take journalism seriously.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2011 09:36AM by tliet.

tliet,

I don't think anyone here lacks the appreciation of the cost and skill required to provide a true journalistic endeavor, nor do I believe we're the crowd claiming "it should be free".

Now that I've spoken for everyone else (ahem!), this part is just me: I'm not attacking the principle of NYT charging for content; I'm attacking (well, evaluating and giving an opinion that it will be unsuccessful) the implementation that they've announced after spending such a long time "developing" it.

I just don't see how it helps their current business and how it shores up the foundations to lead to a successful future, nor does it make any broad leaps to the "next big thing". I want them (and other non-yellow journalism purveyors) to survive into the next phase of news reporting and analysis; they have to or our societies (not just the US) will suffer tremendously for their lack.

Well, i think the approach of the Times is 'innovative' and I applaud them for trying. They can't really hide behind a full paywall and stay completely open, I'm sure people will find ways to game it, but maybe it can work. We'll see...

The only plus a pay-site like the Times can have over the "scour the blogosphere sifting what's right from the shite" is the convenience of good thought-provoking content that's all there at your fingertips. In short, quality and quantity without piles of ads getting in your way.

Here's an idea; why can't I buy a ton of 'credits' that will allow me to 'buy' articles on multiple media outlets with a single login. If I read a NYT article, it gets deducted from my 'online news' account and the Times gets paid for that specific article.

When one reads news on the web, it will sometimes be written by the NYT, sometimes by the Guardian and sometimes by a national paper (my Dutch papers for example). It could be a huge opportunity for Google. By locking myself in to a particular paper, I'm spending all my money on a single source.

Of course, downsides immediately come to mind; articles would tend to get written with page views in mind, much more so that now already is the case. Also, the business of a publisher will completely be put on its head.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2011 08:50PM by tliet.

Um, that used to exist. It was called AOL.

Only slightly more seriously, the idea of content micropayments has been around for a while (and look for something of the 'micropayment' sort to appear on Facebook in the not too distant future as well). Intermediary currencies aren't going to cut it and the credit card company stranglehold on interbank processing fees prevent that from working yet (witness the fact that even Apple bundles purchases made in a given time period to reduce processing fees).

And of course, this totally ignores the situation that is reflected in the cable television tussle too -- unprofitable content is subsidized by profitable content in the current business model (and in newspapers, the classifieds and advertising held a similar role until the bottom fell out of it) and a la carte purchasing is a model that current companies (be they entertainment conduits, production companies, newspapers, or other) can ill afford, because they don't currently posses the laser focus that would be necessary. It can also be argued that NO company can successfully "only make hits" and that you *must* have multiple offerings/offering groups in order to enable overall success. Putting it into tech perspective, Apple hasn't missed in a while, but should it happen, the other profitable items will fill the gap. Microsoft, for all that can be said about the income sources used, subsidized the Xbox until it came into its own.

Yes, tliet, "the business of a publisher will completely be put on its head". And who's going to pay for the trip to Afghanistan for reporters and crew if publishers are tits up? I think ddt has quoted sources in the past; real news costs money to report. That money has to come from somewhere, current publishers don't know where, and fragmenting an already dramatically shrunken pie is not going to sit well with them. No, there need to be alternate revenue sources because hard news is likely never to be a profit center. What will replace print page ads and classifieds? That's a hell of a question... the first (or maybe second) person to answer it for real will be amply rewarded.

This is also what Readability is trying to do. You pay them a subscription, and they divvy it up between the authors of pieces you read.

And speaking of who's going to pay for investigative journalism, the first Kickstarter I funded was a trip to the Congo by a writer who's turning the war experiences there into a graphic novel. I believe there's also an independent war journalist who's able to get funded by users and Yahoo (I think?) to document his trips with words, photos and film. Granted, this is not a generally scalable model, but it points out the acute hunger for real journalism.

That's cool... but makes my irritation at a new wine bar, owned by wives of millionaires, using kickstarter, even greater.

ddt

And so it gets even curiouser... individual "brands" of the NYT opting out (or being carved out)? Any others fit this category?

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/editors-note-dealbook-and-digital-subscriptions/?src=dlbksb

Holy hell, (assuming this is true, and it seems to be) I take back any of my defense of NYT being clueful about anything. Apparently the paywall protection is client-based, not server-based.

http://www.inquisitr.com/101347/the-new-york-times-40-million-dollar-paywall-taken-down-by-4-lines-of-code/

Someone will be cleaning out their office right now...

The thing is, tliet, that the NYT is NOT serious news. It's a bit of a joke, actually. If you know anything about any of the stories they report on, you realize that it's dog doo. Well, that and the rampant Zionism (no offense to my Zionist friends here) just makes it hard to take too seriously. Judith Miller.

The opinion section of the WSJ is terrible, but the iPad interface is much better (did I mention that the NYT iPad app never updates for me?) and the reportage seems vaguely ok. I play it off against the Guardian and Al Jazeera for some semblance of reality.

Sometimes "open" isn't so open.

Samsung's just as good at marketing as it is at tablets!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2011 05:30PM by John Willoughby.

Anyone else get the offer for free NYT digital access for the rest of the year, sponsored by Lincoln? Looks like it's good for the iPhone app but didn't mention iPad. Who knew Lincoln was still around?

Not yet; I've been seeing ads in the NYT iPhone app saying (effectively) "prepare for paywall on everything but top stories"

Saw something that even if you just get Sunday home delivery, you're in like flynn.

Then again, you can just hack it. Four lines of javascript.

ddt

Yeah, but this "special offer" gave me access through the app. Don't think the Javascript hack will help there.
And the fact that the Sunday subscription comes with digital access, for a cheaper price than digital access alone says it all: https://twitter.com/#!/dwineman/status/49889241936838657