The New York Times reaches 1M digital only subscribers | Hacker News Reader

The New York Times reaches 1M digital only subscribers

nytimes.com

125 pointszonotope66 comments

A bit of advice for anybody who wants to subscribe to the NYT (I'm a very happy subscriber) but might not be in the position to pay the full subscription rate - Wait for a discount offering, subscribe for the introductory period, then, when your subscription switches over to the regular rate, call and cancel, just let them know you can't afford the full price, and they'll give you a 50% discount.

Just be ready for them to hike your rate without any type of alert after the initial period expires. This applies even to gifted subscriptions like the one I was given for Christmas. The customer service was...unsympathetic.

I don't have the time to jump through hoops to maintain promotional pricing for a NYT subscription. Maybe a sufficient long term discount would be attractive, or unbundling content. The NY Times just doesn't offer enough value to warrant the asking price for my tastes.

Yep, this particular pricing structure is all about price discrimination.

I cannot begin to explain how terrible their pricing model has been.

My #1 gripe, which caused me to utterly refuse to pay for their subscriptions at any cost, was the fact that they double-charge you for web content. It goes like this, verified prices today:

* Web + smartphone = $3.75

* Web + tablet = $5

* "All Digital Access" (web+smartphone+tablet) = $3.75 + $5 = $8.75

That's right. Not only do they not provide an incentive (a per-unit discount) for buying multiple products, they actually charge you more money for buying all of their stuff. Obviously, it makes little sense to the average consumer to have to pay >$0 in order to add a smartphone to their web+tablet subscription, but the insistence that you pay again for the FULL web + smartphone cost just to add a smaller screen is asinine.

Second gripe has been they devalue their content so much by these stupid 99 cent teaser rates, which automatically tell me I don't want to do business with them.

Third gripe is that they are so dependent on dead-tree revenue that it's often cheaper to buy a print subscription and get free "free" internet content. I don't want to provide a nonstop stream of paper to the recycling bin just to get cheaper digital access.

In the past few months, they experimented with their pricing model, and I ended up as a subscriber because they got rid of their double-charging system, and provided a fair, low, consistent rate.

Unfortunately, upon posting a screenshot on Facebook, I found out that nobody was able to replicate my success -- they seemed to be arbitrarily handing out different pricing models as a test when different people clicked on the same link. Many others were able to verify the non-double-charging pricing model, but nobody got as low a rate as I could manage.

Turns out they're back to their same old tricks -- I validated the above pricing today with a fresh browser.

I apologize for how vague I am about the exact "new" model I ended up with a couple of months ago, but I can't track down the screenshots of the different schemes I was offered.

Also, my apologies about the poor formatting. HN's help is not particularly helpful as it is grammatically vague about how to get newlines without a new paragraph.

And at least a couple months ago you couldn't cancel subscription online. I had to call them to cancel and go through multiple rounds of "yes I really want to cancel"...

If they make an average of $15 per month from digital only subscribers, then that's $180,000,000 a year in revenues. Total subscription revenue for the NYTimes is around $800,000,000, so it's around 20% of total subscription revenue. Total advertising revenue was $700,000,000 ish, not sure how much of that is Digital but I imagine around 10%. So probably 12.5% of NYTimes revenue is from digital only - that's tough.

But if you split digital and physical subscriptions and look at profit compared to revenue, I imagine those digital subscriptions look pretty good. I imagine not having to print and deliver a physical product on a specific deadline makes a world of difference.

That conclusion is not justified. Advertisers continue to pay a lot more for print. Nobody is willing to spend much for online advertising. So profits can still be higher for the print version. Indeed, that is the whole problem that the newspaper/magazine industry is facing.

What conclusion? That digital subscriptions look good because they have lower overhead? I don't imagine they come all that close to supporting the company yet, but I do imagine their profit to expenditure ratio is pretty good.

> Nobody is willing to spend much for online advertising.

nytimes.com is actually in a good position to institute change in this are. I imagine if they rolled their own ad solution that was both not obtrusive and did not source the ads from third party servers (thus being much harder to block), they could possible leverage their name and the fact the ads weren't being blocked to charge a premium for ad-space.

How much do rich interactive digital articles cost to create versus a print article?

That questions also changes the math.

But that's still a single up-front cost that is then amortized across all visits over time, compared to a smaller up-front cost for typesetting plus a per issue cost of actually printing the paper. Unless your rich interactive article costs a lot, it should be cheaper at some point. The question is when.

> But that's still a single up-front cost that is then amortized across all visits over time,

To some small extent it amortizes across time, but in reality I imagine the vast majority of benefits come from immediate usage. Interactive maps of data years old aren't that useful, such articles tend to create a lot of buzz when they are released but the benefit quickly fades away.

is the increase in sales + ad revenue minus the development + media + online distribution costs higher than the profit from newspaper sales - print costs + ads + distribution costs?

Technology isn't always cheaper. It'd be interesting to find out what the breakdown is here.

> is the increase in sales + ad revenue minus the development + media + online distribution costs higher than the profit from newspaper sales - print costs + ads + distribution costs?

If I understand your point, that's specifically not an argument I'm making. I'm not saying online is more lucrative than print, but that the relative cost to profit probably makes it look good, because you don't have to do a media heavy article, you can still do it the same as print (but including relevant external video clips is easy enough at little to no extra effort). At that point the development cost is the same as for physical media, but the delivery cost is close to zero (not really, but so far below operating a printing and delivery pipeline that we can probably agree it's less than 5% of traditional delivery costs).

My point is really "web delivery with subscriptions is fairly low cost, but also lower revenue. Any extra revenue we can get from this source will greatly affect the profit margin since a large chunk of the overhead has been removed." From that perspective, it looks really good, even if it's not currently delivering on the same level as their legacy operations.

As a subscriber it's pretty irritating that ads aren't turned off, particularly the take over the page modal/interstitial ones.

Wait, you pay and still have to look at ads?

Y'know, that's also the case in the print edition.

The ads are in the paper and not hosted on some third party paper that's doing God knows what to my paper, and that's a big difference.

Well, I think it's a bit naive to say that a reliance on ad revenue doesn't impact the editorial line at all... but I take it you mean the print edition doesn't come with a spy camera that watches you while you read, or mix contact poison/spores in the ink, so that you get sick from reading.

There are absolutely many issues that are unique to digital advertising.

Yep, exactly. I am not opposed to advertising that is clearly marked as such and is hosted form the server that I intended to connect to as long as it's not doing anything shady with my computer.

Yes. You pay and still have to look at ads. A model used by The Economist and by the New Yorker, too. Annoying adverts that break the page turning UI and sneakily trick me into clicking on links that open browsers.

It is somewhat frustrating.

It's the same with the WSJ

That and the pricing model for multiple device types (see post above) are my biggest grievances.

I had a terrible experience with a NYT digital-only subscription, and I'll likely never subscribe again.

I had a subscription for a while that I hadn't been using. I only used their site when linked to it from another (like HN). I tried to cancel online, but there's no way to—you need to cancel over the phone. So, I did, sitting on hold for close to a half hour. Bad experience, but I wish it had ended there.

Fast-forward two months, and I started getting emails that my subscription was past-due. Then I come to realize that they had continued to bill me every 2 weeks, but the payments had just started failing because my card expired.

I emailed CS, mentioning that I had cancelled my subscription and I was being billed by mistake, and to make sure my account got cancelled this time. They "couldn't do anything about it" because my account was in their "grace period", and that I would continue to get the past due emails until the grace period ended.

I ended up filing chargebacks for each charge after I had originally cancelled. To my knowledge, they never replied to or contested the chargebacks (does the customer usually get this info, if they do? it's the first and only chargeback I'd ever filed).

My experience is that the credit card company will contact you if the merchant contests your side of the story or if they are going to give you your money back. I've been on both sides of a chargeback. Though, it may depend on the specific bank.

1) When a customer lied and tried to charge back a ~$250 software purchase where we had emailed each other a few times about it, I simply forwarded the emails to the card issuer and the case was dropped. My company got the money.

2) When I found someone locally had stolen my card number and booked a hotel and tickets to Disneyland, I told my card issuer that I had no idea what those charges were. The hotel and ticket seller wrote back contesting it, so my card issuer contacted me and I signed an affidavit saying that, "No, really, I wasn't at Disneyland 50 miles away and also buying gas by my house at the same time". I eventually got a letter saying the charges had been reversed.

I was pretty amazed at what the card issuers have to put up in chargeback contests. I had to file an affidavit after someone charged my card with the wrong name and wrong zip code; the retailer accepted the charges anyway, perhaps because they were in on the fraud. What an amazingly out of date system.

I pay for the website and phone subscription. I'm probably going to get a tablet soon and it's annoying to me that I have to pay additionally for a tablet subscription. I have not seen this model anywhere else. Is it wrong that I think there should only be one digital subscription that covers everything? Is there something about he NYT tablet app that I am not aware of compared to the phone app?

There are quite a lot of things about ny times that you can't see anywhere else.

This reminds me of movies and "release windows" (releasing the same movie at different times in different countries & formats in an attempt to maximize profits).

It sounds, from this, like the NYT is still stuck in 20th century thinking and just doesn't understand how modern people use technology and information. Or maybe it does, but it is just too calcified in its current business model to understand how to get from point A (old business model) to point B (new/convenient/modern business model).

Same thing with cable TV and "cord cutters" (and "cord nevers") vs. Netflix that "just works" on various devices and seamlessly remembers where you were in a movie/episode if you switch devices.

How much is the monthly subscription? I'd gladly pay up to $10 if they provide extra features like stock tickers, sports scores, extras, alerts, and a nice mobile app.

Btw, what are the member's advantages compared to any regular web user?

Here's the link to buy a subscription: http://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp3004.htm...

Digital is $8.75 /week after a the first month for $.99

Just $3.75 per week for the basic level access.

However that was a little high for me since I don't read them religiously. I'd probably go for $100/year but twice that is a bit too much.

Currently I have firefox set to open them in a private browsing tab.

FYI, you can get all of the NYT's content for free by browsing the site, clicking on the link to any given article, and scanning the article title (still visible through the paywall, and often different from the headline listed on the main site). Enter a few of the headline's keywords into Google, add "nyt", and search [0]. The article you're looking for will be at the top of the Google results. When you click on it, you'll be able to read it in its entirety, right there on the NYT site. Same goes for all of the multimedia content, as far as I know, although I don't really delve into all the offerings there.

The Times and the Journal have this backdoor. Interestingly, the Financial Times does not; their paywall is still tripped if you come in through Google (and you only get one free article per month). I would imagine that in making their content free if it comes in from search traffic, the NYT/WSJ are optimizing for highest total combination of ad revenue (pageview-driven) and subscriber revenue. I would further surmise that their overall readership is heavily weighted toward older people who are not super technology-savvy, which is why they can still make money with such an easy-to-defeat paywall in place.

[0]: Example Google search string - "crew 33 ship sank caribbean nyt"

From a different point of view, this is quite encouraging for the future of news and digital publishing.

That's like... 15% of their revenue. I imagine lower % of their profits... for the biggest publishing brand out there.

15% and growing. From what I gather bigger than their print subscriptions revenue too so if that's the case then definetly encouraging and one of few "old" media slowly changing their business model succesfully.

A few weeks ago, in honor of 1M digital subs, the NYT published a list of digital highlights. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/21/business/media...

Since this is hacker news, an easy hack is to just open an incognito browser and continue reading article because the paywall is cookie based. They are not trying very hard to force people into subscriptions. They are only suggesting.

That said, if you like the content you should support them because they are losing money.

No praise for the tech division. I feel sorry for NYT Technology departmemt. They are quintessential for making this happen. I see outside of tech companies, this kind of treatment for technology folks is common nowadays.

Then everyone else must be struggling.

I pay for a NY Times digital subscription. Even though I don't always agree with their editorial slant, it's better quality news in on place than you can get for "free" around the web.

People hate paying so much these days that they'll deal with poor quality information. We used to all pay for newspapers--why should they be "free" now just because there's no paper?

I generally agree. My only hesitation is that I wish they would simplify the pricing structure -- everything's pitched around promotional rates and discounts that only apply for X weeks, so it's difficult to know at a glance exactly what a sub will end up costing you over, say, a year.

I'm sure they have their reasons for doing it that way, but to me these kind of pricing structures are a huge turn-off. Just tell me what it costs and let me pay it, you know? If you want to capitalize on the moment when I'm reading an NYT story and think "you know, this is so good I really should be paying for it," putting math problems between me and the payment form is the wrong way to do it.

Recently I unsubscribed from the digital-only crossword and had to call in to get it done despite signing up entirely online. Their pricing structure isn't the only antiquated thing in the process.

This drove me batty as well. When I eventually caved and re-subscribed, I did it through iTunes -- it's the same price (they eat the 30%) and a one-click cancellation.

I've found nytimes.com content to be great and exhibiting great technical, artistic, and journalistic merit[1]. As a result, I visit it daily and and it's the first time in my life I have a paid recurring news subscription.

However, nytimes.com has a very regrettable pricing structure, as you say. They seem to aim to be Comcast-like. The pricing is:

* Heavily promotional (special price 50%+ off sticker price)

* Difficult to cancel (you are asked to call them, although they will ultimately run it through email)

* Opaque in billing (no way to actually look at the terms of your current subscription/promotion; full payment history hidden away to obscure how much you're paying them)

They do this no doubt because it works in the short term and bumps up numbers. But as a consumer I can't help but feel they are losing goodwill and face in this new age and hope they come around to more contemporary online billing practices.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/21/business/media... is the best example I can find. It's very nice to get stuff like this every week. Kudos to the web team.

Is there any evidence that you get better quality content from a NY Times subscription than you get for free on the web? I personally don't view the NY Times as a credible source.

Is there any evidence that a Beatles album is of any higher quality than a Vanilla Ice album?

Yes. Sunday mornings on my local AM oldies station is a Beatles program, featuring songs, old interviews and factoids. Probably lots of stations around the country carry it or similar.

Do the thought experiment. Will there ever be a Sunday Vanilla Ice program forty years after Vanilla Ice was current? I really doubt it.

(Ask a question, you risk responses. :)

Thought experiments resulting in "I don't think something will happen in the future" aren't evidence.

That's just a measure of popularity, not quality (however that could be defined).

Popular music is entertainment. People wouldn't listen to it if they weren't entertained. They're probably entertained.

How does that mean the quality is better?

If we define the metrics by which we judge quality, then possibly yes, possibly no.

Can you give a few example metrics by which you would use to evaluate offered evidence?

Is there any evidence that you get better quality content from a NY Times subscription than you get for free on the web?

I would like to hear this argument as well.

What are some free and credible sources?

I'm an Economist subscriber so I do pay for news.

"What are some free and credible sources?"

BBC News (bbc.co.uk/news) isn't really free to UK users but website vistors outside the UK don't pay (but they do get ads instead). Of course, the BBC's news coverage of the US is nowhere near as extensive as NYT. They don't cover the US arts/sports/food/tech scene etc. (It would be interesting to see the breakdown of subscribers to the NYT. Are they mainly US readers? Or are there international subscribers too?)

If you don't like the BBC, there's Al-Jazeera. I suspect many Americans distrust them, but I'm impressed by the scale of their international news coverage.

I'm guessing that most people check multiple news sources (even if you trust some sources less than others). Does anyone really rely on a single news provider nowadays?

Every nyt article goes through layers of editing, fact checking and copy editing by people with years, often decades of experience. Nyt is one of the few places that can afford to do this. Furthermore, if the nyt does get something wrong, unlike most blogs, etc; there is a framework in place for submitting and publishing corrections. NYT even pays someone (Margaret Sullivan, the public editor) to advocate for readers. She writes about her work here[0].

Per evidence. Here's evidence: half the 'content' you read on the web was first reported by the nyt.

Recent examples: Hilary clinton emails, VW scandal, Nail salon exploitation, etc, etc...

here are 50 more:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/21/business/media...

(disclaimer: i work for the nyt but opinions are my own)

[0] http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/thepubliceditor/index....

If only a similar process existed to check the editorial bias that permeates purportedly non-editorial content.

I used to have a very high trust in NYTimes articles but my 'trust level' dropped steeply (at least when it comes to foreign news) when I started reading their articles about Nigeria (I happen to be very familiar with the country). Lots of their stories about Nigeria were heavily skewed to 'portray a certain view', a few were outrightly false. The tipping point was when I read the Editorial about the presidential election that was postponed and it was factually incorrect. My thought was this - I know about these inconsistencies and false reporting because I'm familiar with the country. What is the guarantee that something similar is not happening with their reports on other countries. Nowadays, I stick with Aljazeera and BBC for foreign news

> Is there any evidence that you get better quality content from a NY Times subscription than you get for free on the web?

An interesting question:

1) It's not something that can be measured. It's similar to asking, 'is there any evidence that FDR was a better President than Calvin Coolidge?'

2) Is there evidence of that others are better?

3) Based on my experience, I believe the NY Times output has been more accurate than almost any other source (maybe the Financial Times or something I'm not thinking of). That's not true for every story, but over the population of stories. Because I can't evaluate the accuracy of each story, I need to find a source I trust.

4) The NY Times breaks many important stories that are not in other publications, at least not until the Times breaks them.

5) FWIW, Paul Graham, at least at one time, thought highly of the NYT's integrity (search the page for "times"). http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

6) The NYT's reputation is excellent, relative to other news sources; many people trust it. Also, both the left and right say the Times is biased against them, which I think is a good sign.

All that said, certainly the Times isn't perfect and has much room to improve.

I agree. There's so much high quality content that it's almost like getting several first rate magazines (the weekly magazine, the NYT Book Review, the voluminous food section, etc.) along with a world-class newspaper.

> Even though I don't always agree with their editorial slant

You're better off disagreeing with something well written than agreeing with crap.

I find an instance of 'New Incognito Window' is a good way to view that site.

How is this impressive?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com