New York Times fighting itself over iPad book pricing?

updated 09:35 pm EST, Tue February 16, 2010

NYT print, digital staff argue on price


The New York Times is embroiled in an internal battle over what to charge for iPad books, sources at the newspaper said Tuesday night. Those who control the digital side of operations want to charge just $10 a month, but SAI hears that print managers want to charge between $20 to $30 for the same content. Traditionalists at the Times are allegedly worried that existing customers will cancel their print editions if the iBookstore price is lower.

Which side has gained the upper hand isn't immediately clear but may lean towards those running print, as its Media Group head Scott Heekin-Canedy is said to argue in favor of the higher prices. Print circulation currently dictates the cost of a subscription on Amazon's Kindle store and has already been criticized for its high prices.

The arguments for the costlier pricing may be difficult. As cost overhead for digital doesn't require presses or physical distribution, it can charge less while still making significant profit. Up until a partial pay-to-read system goes live in 2011, online users also have complete access to the same articles on the web for free and would be unlikely to opt in without competitive rates.

The Times' chief rival, the Wall Street Journal, is already set to charge for access to its content from within its iPhone app as well as on the web and has historically trained its subscribers to pay, easing many of its own potential internal disputes.


By Electronista Staff

toggle

Previous Comments

  1. iphonerulez

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Nov 2008

    -2

    I wouldn't be surprised if it was

    those union people (press operators and drivers) that are holding back the digital push. They'd been getting fat off the print industry for years and years. I'd figure the newspaper and magazine industry would want to get rid of those unions as soon as possible. Digital media could leverage a lot of bargaining power in favor of the publishers over the unions.


  1. c4rlob

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: May 2009

    +3

    easy solution

    Charge $10 for the standard version, $30 for the version that simulates 24kt. gold ink. Idiots.
    Why do I get the feeling this rumored fighting is primarily because the iPad version doesn't offer the same annoying ad spots the online NYTimes forces readers into.


  1. SierraDragon

    Mac Elite

    Joined: Mar 2004

    +6

    Value of the WSJ price structure is questionable..

    I am not privy to WSJ sales data, but I question the statement that the WSJ "has historically trained its subscribers to pay." My guess is that only a limited number of subscribers were so trained, and that the WSJ has lost a HUGE number of subscribers (including me) due to its current price structure.


  1. Bobfozz

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jul 2008

    +7

    traditionalists???

    As one who has published books for years using traditional methods and now occasionally print on demand, these guys in NY better shape up or they will lose their jobs altogether. I am surprised how many of these folks don't read their own newspaper to find out what is going on with the rest of the world outside of their own building! If they thought THEY could squeak by without new training they are sadly mistaken. And in the end, they will get less pay (that's what scares them.)

    The $30 model isn't going to cut it. Mr. Big at the Times should be given his walking papers like everyone else who hasn't gotten it because when he is sitting on that park bench after a couple hours to think, he WILL get it.

    There is no job security anymore, when are these people going to realize that? It's important these days to keep reinventing yourself.


  1. Inkling

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jul 2006

    +1

    NYT v. WSJ

    Quote: "I am not privy to WSJ sales data, but I question the statement that the WSJ "has historically trained its subscribers to pay." My guess is that only a limited number of subscribers were so trained, and that the WSJ has lost a HUGE number of subscribers (including me) due to its current price structure."

    The difference is that for NYT readers the rewards are almost purely emotional. If they echo the POV of the NYT, no matter how foolish, they can rest assured that they are among the glitteranti, meaning those know the 'correct' opinion on every topic. (That sense of smugness can be seen in the NYT at least as far back as a century ago.) Think of it as being like the 1970s computer-industry adage, "No one gets fired for buying IBM." In many circles, no one looks stupid if they echo the opinions of the NYT.

    With the WSJ, the reward is more financial. Readers get a variety of POVs on economic and political topics from which they are able to make better financial decisions than they would otherwise. People will certainly spend money to make money.

    The problem the NYT faces in setting a subscription rate is that you don't need a pricey subscription to sound like a glitteranti. You can find the same opinions echoed in web outlets that cost nothing. It's the very pervasiveness of the NYT's POV that makes it unnecessary to actually read it. In an echo chamber, it matters not which repetition you hear.

    In contrast, the WSJ is covering business and economic trends that are difficult to state and almost impossible to echo. The signs of a business downturn or of a new business that will take off are subtle. You may pick them up reading the WSJ from end to end, but you won't get that same sense of what is coming by reading a sources that mimic (often badly) the WSJ. You must go to the source.

    Hope that helps!


  1. fmlogue

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Aug 2009

    +7

    Digital edition should cost less.

    When I purchase the print edition, after I have read it, or when I am doing something else, I can give it to another person. Even leave it in the subway, train, taxi, rubbish can, etc for others to pick up. I don't see myself giving my iPad that has the paper to another person, even for a minute. As for leaving it behind, only by mistake. So obviously the New York Times will sell more copies of the digital edition than the paper edition in the long run. This is a compelling reason to charge much less for the digital edition.

    It seems to me that print editions of newspapers are going to die anyway. Web advertising will never pay for the infrastructure of gathering real news, so any print publication who wants to stay viable and put out a useful News product will need to find a way of providing a digital edition of their publication that will support the journalists and editors. Since they are losing money now and continually firing reporters and editors will only destroy their product in the end, they really have nothing to lose by pricing the digital edition of their product at a price that people will be willing to pay. Of course the gamble is to find a price that people will pay that will support a real news gathering enterprise.

    What they will have on their side is when people purchase the digital edition of their paper, they will be getting the whole paper, and like the paper product, once they read the few articles they are interested in, having paid for the whole paper, they will do the same thing they do with the paper edition, look through the paper for more interesting articles. Unlike Web editions where people only read the article they linked to, and for that one article they will never see the worth of paying real money. And why cannot advertising still be put into the digital edition. A lot of the utility of a newspaper or magazine actually resides in ads. It could even revive classified ads. And if I had the paper on my iPad, why would I not use a search function to look for movies, restaurants, sales, etc. It would probably be faster than using my smart phone to search the internet. Many possibilities, all good, if the dinosaurs of print don't derail the train.

    It is going to be a tight-rope act, but I think it represents a viable way to survive in the digital age. The only thing is they are going to have to do it while still having a product that people deem worth paying for. Some will survive, new products will emerge, but those who dither or make bad decisions, will disappear.

    But, hey, its only my two cents, and what do I know, I am just sitting on the sidelines.


  1. facebook_Jonathan

    Via Facebook

    Joined: Feb 2010

    -1

    Keep the same price

    The NY Times needs to charge the same for the ipad version as the print version. That's what we do at www.courier-herald.com. Same product, same exact price.


  1. ebeyer

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jun 2004

    +5

    Ad support?

    I'd be willing to pay more to have a newspaper with no friggin advertisements in it. Maybe charge $10 for ad-supported paper and $20-$30/mo for no ads?


  1. danviento

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Dec 2005

    +1

    But then again...

    Who really reads NYT anymore anyway?


  1. testudo

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Aug 2001

    +3

    Re: easy solution


    Why do I get the feeling this rumored fighting is primarily because the iPad version doesn't offer the same annoying ad spots the online NYTimes forces readers into.


    What? You're complaining that the online version, which you read for FREE, forces you into watching an ad?

    I'd be willing to pay more to have a newspaper with no friggin advertisements in it. Maybe charge $10 for ad-supported paper and $20-$30/mo for no ads?

    And yet they'd still lose a ton of money on you. The biggest reason papers were cheap was because they made their money on ads. You really think that extra $20 will make up for the loss of ad revenue from all those advertisers paying less because of the ad-free version.

    The biggest mistake the newspapers made 10-15 years ago was when they stupidly decided "Hey, we'll give our content away for free on the internet, which will lure people to buy our paper!" when all it did was drive people away from paying for the newspapers and thinking quality reporting should be free. Thus, papers are in a steep decline, and their bleeding cash because, regardless of what you all apparently think, it costs a ton of money to pay reporters, editors, etc, to get those stories written.


Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

 
close
Photo
toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

10 Most Read

Recent Reviews

Logitech Cube

The world of mice could often be described charitably as stagnant: it's an endless sea of ergonomic shapes that assume you're sitting ...

NewerTech and Targus USB Hubs For Gifts

A useful holiday present to resolve an ongoing frustration is a multi-port hub. Whether as a stocking stuffer, Chanukah present, or an ...

X-Rite ColorMunki Photo

Color calibration is the art of tweaking your monitor so that the colors represented on screen better match real life and your printer ...

toggle

Most Commented

10 Most Discussed

 
toggle

Popular News