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 can get internet and mobile access for $3.75 a week. http://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp5558.htm... All of that content, written, designed and published by some of the best news producers in the world. It's instantly accessible, from anywhere you are. Updated all the time. I simply cannot understand how you could argue all of that is worth no more than $1. Even $5 a week for an Internet/mobile su…
New York Times Redesign
41–46 of 46 posts
Re: New York Times Redesign
#42Sorry 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.
I think what's happening is that they have only one online price while there are many ways to get discounted print subscriptions.
Re: New York Times Redesign
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can get internet and mobile access for $3.75 a week. http://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp5558.htm... All of that content, written, designed and published by some of the best news producers in the world. It's instantly accessible, from anywhere you are. Updated all the time. I simply cannot understand how you could argue all of that is worth no more than $1. Even $5 a week for an Internet/mobile su…
Why do they split out the pricing for smartphone and tablet? I think the digital should be one flat fee, so I can switch between my devices (#firstworldproblem) .
Re: New York Times Redesign
#44Re: New York Times Redesign
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Um... The main problem is that it would create an economy where the the media outlets that produce the media desired by the paying authority (people are people and the fund will not be unlimited dollars) are prioritized over others, so that the only news will eventually be that which will be known to get you paid. I.e., the controlling body -- I'm guessing a government entity, here -- will be the sole voice of the fo…
And that's precisely what you've got now, except that the paying authority is advertisers, with access mediated by whatever roadblocks Google's thrown at SEO this week. In earlier schemes, you got the content preferred by patrons (royalty and/or the Church), or what could support small roving troups of actors, players, musicians, bards, raconteurs, etc. Back in the 1980s I was watching an early "festival of computer animation" and noticed that shorts from cigarette advertisments (largely from Europe) featured heavily. It was, effectively, the Church for patronage of CGI development (nascent and expensive at the time).
The syndication need not be through a single agency, and there are existing examples in the music industry (not that that's perfect either): you've got The Harry Fox Agency, ASCAP, SESAC, and BMI. For airtime play there is both logs (of airplay) and sampling methods to determine who gets paid for what. The licensing even covers live performance venues such as bars and nightclubs. There it's the club owner, not the band, who has the license for performances (it's much easier to conduct audits and enforcement against a street address than with a band whose location isn't fixed, has few assets, and can scatter to the winds).
The other question is how to link receipt and payment. In many locations, Internet access is sufficiently concentrated (often monopolized) that tying major providers into the scheme might work. Access bundles could be tied to your Internet subscription, possibly with tiers of service or credits available for content. This removes the problem of subscribing individually to different source publishers, though it could drive up the cost of Internet access.
Another approach would require more government involvement, essentially an income- or wealth-indexed content tax (addressing the "ability to pay" scenario). Collections are based on payment ability, _distribution_ is based on actual access and utilization.
There are a lot of thorny details, and the question of whether or not there's a process path from the present system to something resembling what I'm suggesting is very much unsettled.
Using my preferred reference for economic data, xkcd's "Money" chart, the total size of the US arts and entertainment industry is $528 billion, where the publishing industry is $152 billion. Estimating online access as, say, 20% of this (which I freely admit was pulled from /dev/ass), works out to about $100 per person annually, which isn't too outrageous a number. Reality might scale up or down from this a ways.
Re: New York Times Redesign
#46Sorry 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.