Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New York Times Redesign

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 46 posts

Re: New York Times Redesign

#21

Post by Alphasite_ »

null_ptr wrote: post #20
fragsworth wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that's too much. And that's just for the NY Times... how many other sites are you supposed to pay for? I feel like there should be some technical way to handle letting a user pay a flat amount, and distribute the proceeds to the sites you actually visit, in a sort of fair way.

Maybe there should be one umbrella corporation that owns all media sites, that way we could pay the umbrella corporation a monthly fee and be done with it.

I hope that you're joking...

Re: New York Times Redesign

#22

Post by eurleif »

crazygringo wrote: post #15
ajays wrote: post #8

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but: I would love to subscribe to NYT digital editions, but why must the digital edition cost almost as much as the paper edition? Imagine the waste involved (in energy and materials)! Current home delivery rates are $8.75 for paper, and $5.00 for internet. That is simply too much. Bring it down to $1/week and we'll talk.

The answer isn't environmentally friendly, but it has solid business logic behind it. From what I understand, upping their print circulation lets them charge more for print advertisers (which pays more than digital advertisers), so NYT has a strong financial incentive to make the prices for digital/print comparable, in order to try to convince people to get the print version as well, instead of just the digital. Beca…

>Because all print advertisers know are the circulation numbers -- they have no idea if you're actually opening it up or not, or just sending them all straight to the recycling bin while you read them digitally.

Presumably the price of print ads is in some way related to typical response rate? Obviously there is less direct feedback than online, but advertisers aren't flying completely blind and just assuming people see their ads, right?

Re: New York Times Redesign

#24

Post by dredmorbius »

Alphasite_ wrote: post #21
null_ptr wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe there should be one umbrella corporation that owns all media sites, that way we could pay the umbrella corporation a monthly fee and be done with it.

I hope that you're joking...

The idea of some sort of syndicated media fee has occurred to me in the past.

The main problem I see is that there's a fairly strong argument to paying based on your ability, so that wealth customers ought to pay more.

Pricing information goods is hard.

Re: New York Times Redesign

#25

Post by gizzlon »

abat wrote: post #14
ddebernardy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what you're complaining about... It's $5 for 12 weeks...

That's just the intro price. It's $5/WEEK if you want nytimes.com + tablet apps. That's $260/year instead of $22/year. I would gladly subscribe if the long term rate was $5 for 12 weeks. See full prices here: http://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp5558.htm...

Just as a reference point: the digital only edition of one of the largest newspapers here in Norway is ~7$ per week and with the paper edition it's ~13$

Re: New York Times Redesign

#26

Post by Cthulhu_ »

ajays wrote: post #8

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but: I would love to subscribe to NYT digital editions, but why must the digital edition cost almost as much as the paper edition? Imagine the waste involved (in energy and materials)! Current home delivery rates are $8.75 for paper, and $5.00 for internet. That is simply too much. Bring it down to $1/week and we'll talk.

Well from what I've seen, the online version has no ads, while I'm sure the print version does; that'd compensate for the difference in price. They could reduce the online price if they plastered it with ads, but then, people would complain even more because they're paying for a site with ads (???) (and they don't complain about a newspaper with ads because they know it reduces the price).

tl;dr: you pay for content without ads, instead of a disposable paper version with ads.

Re: New York Times Redesign

#27

Post by beggi »

ajays wrote: post #8

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but: I would love to subscribe to NYT digital editions, but why must the digital edition cost almost as much as the paper edition? Imagine the waste involved (in energy and materials)! Current home delivery rates are $8.75 for paper, and $5.00 for internet. That is simply too much. Bring it down to $1/week and we'll talk.

You're paying for content - not paper.

Re: New York Times Redesign

#28

Post by k-mcgrady »

Not a great start. Clicked subsribe and was brought to a page which said: "New Features. New Navigation. New Experience. Try the redesigned nytimes.com, just $5 for 12 weeks". So I signed up to give it a try and I've still got the old design.

Edit: Just noticed an ad on the main page saying the design is actually coming on Jan 8th.

Post reply on HN